DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This office action is in response to the application filed on 6/21/24. Claims 1-18 are pending.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) was submitted on 6/21/24. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 6-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Berre et al. (US PGPUB 2021/0287933, hereinafter referred to as “Berre”, IDS reference).
Berre discloses the semiconductor method and device as claimed. See figures 1-5 and corresponding text, where Berre teaches, in claim 1, a method for manufacturing disassemblable substrates, the method comprising: (figure 3; [0030-0044])
(a) providing a first substrate (1) comprising implanted species forming a flat implantation zone, the first substrate (1) comprising a surface proximal to the flat implantation zone, and a second substrate (3) comprising a surface;
(b) forming a series of cavities (c) on the proximal surface of the first substrate and/or on the surface of the second substrate;
(c) assembling the first (1) and second substrates (3) by direct bonding between the proximal surface of the first substrate and the surface of the second substrate; and
(d) applying a heat treatment to the assembly obtained at the end of step (c), according to a thermal budget adapted to weaken the flat implantation zone, wherein the series of cavities are arranged during step (b) in such a way as to: allow direct bonding between the first and second substrates during step (c); and
prevent thermal initiation of the splitting of the weakened flat implantation zone at the end of step (d).
Berre teaches, in claim 2, further comprising a step (e) of performing mechanical splitting of the weakened flat implantation zone after step (d), so as to disassemble the first and second substrates (figure 3; [0030-0044])
.
Berre teaches, in claim 3, wherein the series of cavities is arranged during step (b) such that each pair of adjacent cavities is spaced apart by a distance between:
a first threshold, above which direct bonding between the first and second substrates is allowed during step (c); and
a second threshold, strictly greater than the first threshold, below which thermal initiation of the splitting of the weakened flat implantation zone is prevented at the end of step (d) (figures 4 and 5; [0042]).
Berre teaches, in claim 6, wherein the first and second substrates have a bonding surface at the end of step (c); and the series of cavities is arranged during step (b) in such a way as to occupy between 50% and 85% of the bonding surface (figure 3; [0030-0044]).
Berre teaches, in claim 7, wherein: the series of cavities is formed during step (b) on the proximal surface of the first substrate in such a way as to extend short of the flat implantation zone;
the series of cavities is arranged during step (b) in such a way that each cavity has at least one dimension, in the plane of the proximal surface of the first substrate, less than or equal to twice a predetermined average radius of exfoliation (figure 3; [0030-0044]).
Berre teaches, in claim 8. The method as claimed in claim 1, wherein: the series of cavities is formed during step (b) on the surface of the second substrate; and
the series of cavities is arranged during step (b) in such a way that each cavity has at least one dimension, in the plane of the surface of the second substrate, less than or equal to twice a predetermined average radius of exfoliation (figure 3; [0030-0044]).
Berre teaches, in claim 9, wherein: the series of cavities is formed during step (b): on the proximal surface of the first substrate in such a way as to extend short of the flat implantation zone, and on the surface of the second substrate; and the series of cavities is arranged during step (b) in such a way that each cavity has at least one dimension, in the plane of the proximal surface of the first substrate and in the plane of the surface of the second substrate, less than or equal to twice a predetermined average radius of exfoliation (figure 3; [0030-0044]).
Berre teaches, in claim 10, wherein the series of cavities is formed during step (b) on the proximal surface of the first substrate in such a way as to extend beyond the flat implantation zone (figures 4 and 5; [0042]).
Berre teaches, in claim 11, wherein step (a) comprises a preliminary step including determining an average radius of exfoliation and/or a minimum radius of exfoliation by a statistical analysis of microscopic observations, after having applied to the first substrate a heat treatment for splitting the flat implantation zone (figure 3; [0030-0044]).
Berre teaches, in claim 12, an assembly for manufacturing disassemblable substrates, comprising: (figure 3; [0030-0044])
a first substrate (1), comprising implanted species forming a flat implantation zone, the first substrate comprising a surface proximal to the flat implantation zone;
a second substrate (3), comprising a surface; and
a series of cavities (C), arranged on the proximal surface of the first substrate (1) and/or on the surface of the second substrate (3) in such a way as to:
allow direct bonding between the proximal surface of the first substrate and the surface of the second substrate; and
prevent thermal initiation of the splitting of the flat implantation zone, after a heat treatment applied to the first and second bonded substrates according to a thermal budget adapted to weaken the flat implantation zone.
Berre teaches, in claim 13, wherein the series of cavities is arranged on the proximal surface of the first substrate and/or on the surface of the second substrate such that each pair of adjacent cavities is spaced apart by a distance between:
a first threshold, above which direct bonding between the first and second substrates is allowed; and
a second threshold, strictly greater than the first threshold, below which thermal initiation of the splitting of the flat implantation zone is prevented after the heat treatment applied to the first and second bonded substrates (figure 3; [0030-0044]).
Berre teaches, in claim 14, wherein the first and second substrates are configured to have a bonding surface; and
the series of cavities is arranged on the proximal surface of the first substrate and/or on the surface of the second substrate in such a way as to occupy between 50% and 85% of the bonding surface (figure 3; [0030-0044]).
Berre teaches, in claim 15, wherein: the series of cavities is arranged on the proximal surface of the first substrate in such a way as to extend short of the flat implantation zone; and
the series of cavities is arranged on the proximal surface of the first substrate in such a way that each cavity has at least one dimension, in the plane of the proximal surface of the first substrate, less than or equal to twice a predetermined average radius of exfoliation (figure 3; [0030-0044]).
Berre teaches, in claim 16, wherein the series of cavities is arranged on the surface of the second substrate in such a way that each cavity has at least one dimension, in the plane of the surface of the second substrate, less than or equal to twice a predetermined average radius of exfoliation (figure 3; [0030-0044]).
Berre teaches, in claim 17, wherein:
the series of cavities is arranged: on the proximal surface of the first substrate in such a way as to extend short of the flat implantation zone, and on the surface of the second substrate; and
the series of cavities is arranged in such a way that each cavity has at least one dimension, in the plane of the proximal surface of the first substrate and in the plane of the surface of the second substrate, less than or equal to twice a predetermined average radius of exfoliation (figure 3; [0030-0044]).
Berre teaches, in claim 18, wherein the series of cavities is arranged on the proximal surface of the first substrate in such a way as to extend beyond the flat implantation zone (figures 4 and 5; [0042]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 4 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berre et al. (US PGPUB 2021/0287933, hereinafter referred to as “Berre”, IDS reference).
Berre discloses the semiconductor method and device substantially as claimed. See the rejection above.
However, Berre fails to teach, in claim 4, wherein the first threshold is between 500 nm and 3 μm.
Berre teaches that with the thickness of the transferred film being set, it is possible to perform sealing of cavities having much larger size that the state of the art [0043].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate wherein the first threshold is between 500 nm and 3 μm, in the method of Berre, according to the teachings of Berre, with the motivation of sealing cavities much larger in size. a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation, because "obvious to try" is not a valid rationale for an obviousness finding. In KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007),
However, Berre fails to teach, in claim 5, wherein the second threshold is between 5 μm and 200 μm.
Berre teaches that with the thickness of the transferred film being set, it is possible to perform sealing of cavities having much larger size that the state of the art [0043].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate wherein the second threshold is between 5 μm and 200 μm, in the method of Berre, according to the teachings of Berre, with the motivation of sealing cavities much larger in size. a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation, because "obvious to try" is not a valid rationale for an obviousness finding. In KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007),
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STANETTA D ISAAC whose telephone number is (571)272-1671. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-6.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Leonard Chang can be reached at 571-270-3691. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/STANETTA D ISAAC/Examiner, Art Unit 2898 June 26, 2026
Prosecution Insights