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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. However, should applicant desire to obtain the benefit of foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) prior to declaration of an interference, a certified English translation of the foreign application must be submitted in reply to this action. 37 CFR 41.154(b) and 41.202(e). Failure to provide a certified translation may result in no benefit being accorded for the non-English application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) filed on June 21st, 2024, and February 6th, 2026, are being considered by the Examiner.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. The following title is suggested: “METHOD FOR FABRICATING A DONOR SUBSTRATE USING A PIEZOELECTRIC SUBSTRATE TO REDUCE THE RATE OF CRACKING”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 7 and 18-19 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim 7, it states, “wherein the predetermined duration is selected on a basis of a statistical study”. The phrase “a statistical study” is indefinite because it is unclear to the Examiner what the bounds of this “statistical study” are. Is applicant attempting to claim all statistical studies relating to the process of fabricating a donor substrate? Is applicant only attempting to claim the statistical study as described in further claims (i.e., Claim 18-19)? Therefore, Claim 7, as written, is indefinite. For the purposes of compact prosecution, the Examiner will interpret “a statistical study” as being the study explicitly stated in [0020] of the instant specification and associated with Claim 18.
Regarding Claims 18-19, said claims are rejected due to their dependence upon a previously rejected claim (e.g., Claim 7).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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:
A) Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
B) Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
C) Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
D) Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-12 and 14-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Belhachemi, et al. (US 20210020826 A1; hereinafter referred to as Belhachemi), and further in view of Bing, et al. (DE 112016003716 T5; hereinafter referred to as Bing).
Regarding Claim 1, Belhachemi discloses a method for fabricating a donor substrate ([Abstract]), comprising:
providing a handle substrate (handle substrate 2, [0063], Fig. 1);
providing a target substrate (piezoelectric substrate 3, [0063], Fig. 1);
attaching the target substrate to the handle substrate, comprising bonding by way of an adhesive layer, the adhesive layer being a layer of a photo-polymerizable material (photopolymerizable adhesive layer 1, [0063, 0068], Fig. 1);
rectifying the target substrate attached to the handle substrate, so as to form the donor substrate (donor substrate 40, [0081, 0084], Fig. 4; “the donor substrate 40 is subjected to a surface treatment that aims to make the exposed surface of the piezoelectric layer planar and to decrease its roughness [i.e., rectifying as defined by the instant specification, [0040]”).
Belhachemi does not explicitly disclose a waiting period of predetermined duration is observed between the attaching of the target substrate to the handle substrate and the rectifying of the target substrate attached to the handle substrate.
However, in analogous art, Bing discloses that there is a waiting period of a predetermined duration is observed between the attached of the target substrate to the handle substrate and the rectifying of the target substrate attached to the handle substrate (Bing: [0003], “waiting time after the implantation are important technical constituents of the layer transfer techniques”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the method for fabricating a donor substrate as taught in Belhachemi by introducing a waiting period after the substrates are attached together. One would be motivated to do so as this waiting time is an important technical constituent of transfer techniques and can lead to increased success between the bonding of a donor substrate and carrier substrate (Bing: [0003]).
Regarding Claim 2, Belhachemi/Bing discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the target substrate is a piezoelectric substrate (Belhachemi: [0063], “piezoelectric substrate”).
Regarding Claim 3, Belhachemi/Bing discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the handle substrate comprises a material selected from among silicon, sapphire, aluminum nitride, silicon carbide or gallium arsenide (Belhachemi: [0062], “The handle substrate comprises a material whose thermal expansion coefficient is close to that of the material of the carrier substrate to which the piezoelectric layer is intended to be transferred . . . Suitable materials are, for example, silicon, sapphire, polycrystalline aluminum nitride (AlN), or gallium arsenide (GaAs).”).
Regarding Claim 4, Belhachemi/Bing discloses the method of claim 1.
The combination of Belhachemi/Bing is silent on the predetermined duration is at least 24 h.
However, Belhachemi does disclose that a person skilled in the art is capable of determining the operating conditions of forming the heterostructure (i.e., the bonded target and handle substrate) (Belhachemi: [0065]), which would include the length of the predetermined duration. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the method as disclosed in the combination of Belhachemi/Bing by ensuring a predetermined waiting period of at least 24 hours is used. It is explained in Bing that it is known in the art that it is important to have a waiting period before the transferring of layers (Bing: [0003]); therefore, it would have been obvious to optimize the different lengths of waiting periods prior to the combination of donor and carrier substrates while still maintaining a similar result of a functioning heterostructure capable of transferring a layer onto a carrier substrate. The predetermined waiting duration is a result effective variable as one would have chosen the predetermined duration by balancing the need for rate of production of heterostructures with the need to reduce defects in the heterostructure. One skilled in the art, as explained in Bing, would have been motivated to try different waiting periods that would fall within the claimed range by balancing said needs to reach their desired outcome.
Regarding Claim 5, Belhachemi/Bing discloses the method of claim 1.
The combination of Belhachemi/Bing is silent on the predetermined duration being less than 300 h.
However, Belhachemi does disclose that a person skilled in the art is capable of determining the operating conditions of forming the heterostructure (i.e., the bonded target and handle substrate) (Belhachemi: [0065]), which would include the length of the predetermined duration. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the method as disclosed in the combination of Belhachemi/Bing by ensuring a predetermined waiting period of less than 300 hours is used. It is explained in Bing that it is known in the art that it is important to have a waiting period before the transferring of layers (Bing: [0003]); therefore, it would have been obvious to optimize the different lengths of waiting periods prior to the combination of donor and carrier substrates while still maintaining a similar result of a functioning heterostructure capable of transferring a layer onto a carrier substrate. The predetermined waiting duration is a result effective variable as one would have chosen the predetermined duration by balancing the need for rate of production of heterostructures with the need to reduce defects in the heterostructure. One skilled in the art, as explained in Bing, would have been motivated to try different waiting periods that would fall within the claimed range by balancing said needs to reach their desired outcome.
Regarding Claim 6, Belhachemi/Bing discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the predetermined duration is determined as a function of a material of the adhesive layer (Bing: [0004, 0028]).
Regarding Claim 7, Belhachemi/Bing discloses the method of claim 1.
The combination of Belhachemi/Bing does not explicitly disclose that it determines the predetermined duration by using a statistical study.
However, Belhachemi does disclose that a predetermined duration can be determined by one of ordinary skill in the art to achieve desired operating conditions ([0065]), of which the predetermined duration is a desired operating condition.
Therefore, it would have been obvious prior to the effective filing date of the instant application, based on the teachings of Belhachemi/Bing, that it is well within the purview of a person with ordinary skill in the art to come up with a statistical study such that you examine a number of heterostructures/substrates in order to determine an optimal waiting period such that the device has a defect rate within a desired range (i.e., 20% defect rate), as this is performed consistently in the process of batch manufacturing.
Regarding Claim 8, Belhachemi/Bing discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the waiting period is observed under ambient conditions (Belhachemi: [0070], “The bonding is preferably carried out at ambient temperature”; the waiting period occurs between the period of attaching the handle substrate to the target substrate and rectifying the unified structure; therefore, it would have occurred at ambient temperature).
Regarding Claim 9, Belhachemi discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the attaching of the target substrate to the handle substrate comprises the irradiating the adhesive layer and polymerizing the adhesive layer (Belhachemi: [0072], Fig. 4; “The heterostructure 4 is then subjected to irradiation with a light flux 5, in order to polymerize the adhesive layer 1”).
Regarding Claim 10, Belhachemi discloses the method for transferring a layer from a donor substrate to a carrier substrate (Belhachemi: [0085]), comprising:
providing a donor substrate obtained by implementation of the method according to claim 1 (Belhachemi: [0086]);
forming a weakened zone in the target substrate so as to delimit the layer of the target substrate to be transferred (Belhachemi: weakened zone 7, [0088], Fig. 7);
providing a carrier substrate (Belhachemi: carrier substrate 6, [0087], Fig. 6);
attaching the donor substrate to the carrier substrate (Belhachemi: [0095]); and
fracturing and separating the donor substrate along the weakened zone (Belhachemi: [Abstract], [0098], Fig. 8).
Regarding Claim 11, Belhachemi discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the photo-polymerizable material comprises a layer of a photo-polymerizable liquid with a thickness of 3 µm to 8 µm (Belhachemi: [0083]; “2 µm to 8 µm”).
Regarding Claim 12, Belhachemi discloses the method of claim 1, wherein rectifying the target substrate comprises grinding the target substrate (Belhachemi: [0084]).
Regarding Claim 14, Belhachemi/Bing discloses the method of claim 4.
The combination of Belhachemi/Bing is silent on the predetermined duration is at least 48 h.
However, Belhachemi does disclose that a person skilled in the art is capable of determining the operating conditions of forming the heterostructure (i.e., the bonded target and handle substrate) (Belhachemi: [0065]), which would include the length of the predetermined duration. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the method as disclosed in the combination of Belhachemi/Bing by ensuring a predetermined waiting period of at least 48 hours is used. It is explained in Bing that it is known in the art that it is important to have a waiting period before the transferring of layers (Bing: [0003]); therefore, it would have been obvious to optimize the different lengths of waiting periods prior to the combination of donor and carrier substrates while still maintaining a similar result of a functioning heterostructure capable of transferring a layer onto a carrier substrate. The predetermined waiting duration is a result effective variable as one would have chosen the predetermined duration by balancing the need for rate of production of heterostructures with the need to reduce defects in the heterostructure. One skilled in the art, as explained in Bing, would have been motivated to try different waiting periods that would fall within the claimed range by balancing said needs to reach their desired outcome.
Regarding Claim 15, Belhachemi/Bing discloses the method of claim 14.
The combination of Belhachemi/Bing is silent on the predetermined duration is at least 105 h.
However, Belhachemi does disclose that a person skilled in the art is capable of determining the operating conditions of forming the heterostructure (i.e., the bonded target and handle substrate) (Belhachemi: [0065]), which would include the length of the predetermined duration. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the method as disclosed in the combination of Belhachemi/Bing by ensuring a predetermined waiting period of at least 105 hours is used. It is explained in Bing that it is known in the art that it is important to have a waiting period before the transferring of layers (Bing: [0003]); therefore, it would have been obvious to optimize the different lengths of waiting periods prior to the combination of donor and carrier substrates while still maintaining a similar result of a functioning heterostructure capable of transferring a layer onto a carrier substrate. The predetermined waiting duration is a result effective variable as one would have chosen the predetermined duration by balancing the need for rate of production of heterostructures with the need to reduce defects in the heterostructure. One skilled in the art, as explained in Bing, would have been motivated to try different waiting periods that would fall within the claimed range by balancing said needs to reach their desired outcome.
Regarding Claim 16, Belhachemi/Bing discloses the method of claim 5.
The combination of Belhachemi/Bing is silent on the predetermined duration is less than 200 h.
However, Belhachemi does disclose that a person skilled in the art is capable of determining the operating conditions of forming the heterostructure (i.e., the bonded target and handle substrate) (Belhachemi: [0065]), which would include the length of the predetermined duration. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the method as disclosed in the combination of Belhachemi/Bing by ensuring a predetermined waiting period of less than 200 hours is used. It is explained in Bing that it is known in the art that it is important to have a waiting period before the transferring of layers (Bing: [0003]); therefore, it would have been obvious to optimize the different lengths of waiting periods prior to the combination of donor and carrier substrates while still maintaining a similar result of a functioning heterostructure capable of transferring a layer onto a carrier substrate. The predetermined waiting duration is a result effective variable as one would have chosen the predetermined duration by balancing the need for rate of production of heterostructures with the need to reduce defects in the heterostructure. One skilled in the art, as explained in Bing, would have been motivated to try different waiting periods that would fall within the claimed range by balancing said needs to reach their desired outcome.
Regarding Claim 17, Belhachemi/Bing discloses the method of claim 16.
The combination of Belhachemi/Bing is silent on the predetermined duration is less than 150 h.
However, Belhachemi does disclose that a person skilled in the art is capable of determining the operating conditions of forming the heterostructure (i.e., the bonded target and handle substrate) (Belhachemi: [0065]), which would include the length of the predetermined duration. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the method as disclosed in the combination of Belhachemi/Bing by ensuring a predetermined waiting period of less than 150 hours is used. It is explained in Bing that it is known in the art that it is important to have a waiting period before the transferring of layers (Bing: [0003]); therefore, it would have been obvious to optimize the different lengths of waiting periods prior to the combination of donor and carrier substrates while still maintaining a similar result of a functioning heterostructure capable of transferring a layer onto a carrier substrate. The predetermined waiting duration is a result effective variable as one would have chosen the predetermined duration by balancing the need for rate of production of heterostructures with the need to reduce defects in the heterostructure. One skilled in the art, as explained in Bing, would have been motivated to try different waiting periods that would fall within the claimed range by balancing said needs to reach their desired outcome.
Regarding Claim 18, Belhachemi/Bing discloses the method of claim 7, wherein the statistical study comprises:
testing at least 500 donor substrates; and
developing a rate of cracking observed on multi-layer substrates obtained from the donor substrates according to the duration of the observed waiting period; and
selecting the predetermined duration to correspond to the duration required to obtain a rate of cracking of 20% or less (See 35 USC § 112 Rejection and the rejection for Claim 7; the broadest reasonable interpretation of Claim 7 is the limitations as imposed by Claim 18).
Regarding Claim 19, Belhachemi/Bing discloses the method of claim 18.
The combination of Belhachemi/Bing is silent on selecting the predetermined duration to correspond to the duration required to obtain a rate of cracking of 20% or less comprises selecting the predetermined duration to correspond to the duration required to obtain a rate of cracking of 5% or less.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to optimize the rate of cracking from 20% or less to 5% or less as it is disclosed in Belhachemi that a person skilled in the art is capable of determining the operating conditions of forming the heterostructure, which would include the predetermined waiting period (Belhachemi: [0065]). The rate of cracking is a result effective variable as one would choose the rate of cracking to balance between the need of efficiency of crafting the heterostructure with the need to produce in a timely manner. One skilled in the art would have been motivated to try a rate of cracking of 5% or less as compared to the 20% or less as 5% or less falls within the range of 20% or less and would have a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding Claim 20, Belhachemi discloses the method of claim 10, wherein providing the carrier substrate comprises providing a carrier substrate, comprising a material corresponding to a material of the handle substrate (Belhachemi: [0005, 0062], both the carrier and handle substrate can be silicon).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Belhachemi/Bing as applied to claims 1-12 and 14-20 above, and further in view of Tanno (JP 2005229455 A; hereinafter referred to as Tanno).
Regarding Claim 13, Belhachemi/Bing discloses the method of claim 2.
The combination of Belhachemi/Bing does not explicitly disclose the piezoelectric substrate comprises a material selected from among quartz, lithium tantalate, lithium niobate, aluminum nitride, zinc oxide, gallium orthophosphate, barium titanate, langasite, langanite, gallium nitride, lead zirconate titanate or langatate, rather only disclosing a general piezoelectric substrate.
However, in analogous art, Tanno discloses that a target substrate (e.g., piezoelectric substrate) comprises a material selected from among quartz, lithium tantalate, lithium niobate, aluminum nitride, zinc oxide, gallium orthophosphate, barium titanate, langasite, langanite, gallium nitride, lead zirconate titanate or langatate (Tanno: [0017]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the piezoelectric substrate as disclosed in Belhachemi by using the piezoelectric materials as disclosed by Tanno. One would be motivated to do so because when a piezoelectric substrate is made of crystalline materials with large electrochemical coupling coefficients it can lead to a device with a wide bandwidth and low insertion loss as a frequency-selective filter, which increases device performance (Tanno: [0017]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
(a) Bourdelle (FR 2914110 A1); discloses that a waiting time can be increased between the bonding of the donor substrate and the recipient substrate.
(b) Shimomura, et al. (US 20100029058 A1); discloses a method for manufacturing SOI substrate.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Noah C. Robertson whose telephone number is (571) 317-0595. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:30 AM - 6:30 PM (Eastern Time Zone).
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, William B Partridge, can be reached at (571) 270-1402. 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.
/Noah C. Robertson/Examiner, Art Unit 2812
/William B Partridge/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2812
Prosecution Insights