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 .
Claims 1-20 are pending
Claims 1-8 and 17-20 are withdrawn due to restriction
Claims 9-16 are under consideration
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 9-16, in the reply filed on 09/08/2026 is acknowledged.
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.
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.
Claims 9-10 and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al., “Mass Transfer of Microscale Light-Emitting Diodes to Unusual Substrates by Spontaneously Formed Vertical Tethers During Chemical Lift-Off” (2019), in view of Hiroe et al. (US 5,191,908 A), Chou et al. (US 9,461,159 B1), and Uesugi et al. (US 2004/0104199 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Kim teaches a chemical lift-off method and a semiconductor light-emitting device on a substrate (GaN-based LEDs are formed on a Si(111) substrate; page 2, Section 2, Experimental, first paragraph).
Kim teaches treating the semiconductor light-emitting device with a first chemical solution such that the semiconductor light-emitting device is partially separated from the substrate (the devices are under etched by anisotropic wet etching with a 60 wt% aqueous KOH solution at 80°C, after which the LEDs are suspended above the Si substrate while remaining supported by small hexagonal Si pillars serving as vertical tethers; page 2, Section 2, Experimental, second paragraph).
Kim further teaches subsequently treating the semiconductor light-emitting device with a chemical solution such that the semiconductor light-emitting device is completely separated from the substrate (the remaining pillars are removed by wet etching with KOH; page 3, first paragraph; further teaching that the vertical Si tethers are removed by additional etching with KOH; page 3, Section 3, Results and Discussion, first paragraph).
Kim does not expressly teach submerging the semiconductor light-emitting device on the substrate in the first chemical solution contained in a first bath of a first chamber such that the semiconductor light-emitting device is partially separated from the substrate in the first chamber, or submerging the semiconductor light-emitting device on the substrate in a cleaning bath of the first chamber.
Hiroe teaches submerging a semiconductor substrate in a first chemical solution contained in a first bath of a first chamber and submerging the semiconductor substrate in a cleaning bath of the first chamber (etching bath 3 and rinsing bath 7 are provided inside surface treatment chamber 2B; col. 4, lines 40-46; robot 10 lowers wafers W into etching bath 3 and, after completion of the etching treatment, the wafers are moved to the rinsing step using rinsing bath 7; col. 7, lines 52-68; robot 10 then moves the wafers to rinsing bath 7, places them in the rinsing bath, and after completion of rinsing transfers them to the next process; col. 8, lines 1-15).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Kim to perform the initial wet-chemical treatment and subsequent rinsing using Hiroe’s etching bath and rinsing bath within a first treatment chamber because Hiroe teaches a known wet-processing arrangement for sequentially etching and rinsing a semiconductor substrate within the same treatment chamber before transfer to a subsequent process. Applying Hiroe’s known wet-processing arrangement to Kim’s chemical lift-off method would have predictably allowed Kim’s LED-bearing substrate to undergo the initial chemical treatment and subsequent rinsing within the same treatment chamber, and combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results is obvious. See MPEP § 2141 III(A).
The modified method of Kim does not expressly teach submerging the semiconductor light-emitting device on the substrate in deionized water contained in the cleaning bath of the first chamber.
Chou teaches deionized water between a first chemical etch and a second chemical etch (an initial HCl:DI oxide etch is followed by a deionized-water rinse without drying, a subsequent NH4OH:H2O2:DI etch, and another deionized-water rinse; col. 1, lines 62-67 through col. 2, lines 1-13).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the modified method of Kim to use deionized water in the cleaning bath because Chou teaches deionized water as a known rinsing medium between sequential chemical etching treatments in semiconductor processing, and simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results is obvious. See MPEP § 2141 III(B).
The modified method of Kim does not expressly teach spraying a second chemical solution in a separator of a second chamber and toward the semiconductor light-emitting device such that the semiconductor light-emitting device is completely separated from the substrate in the second chamber.
Uesugi teaches performing a first wet etching treatment by immersion followed by a subsequent wet etching treatment by spraying an etching liquid toward a substrate (the order of immersion etching and spray etching may be interchanged such that spray etching is performed after immersion etching; paragraphs [0081]-[0083]; further teaching spraying an etching liquid from an etching spray nozzle onto the substrate; paragraph [0091]). Uesugi further teaches performing successive wet etching treatments in separate etching chambers (two etching chambers are serially connected, each chamber may perform spray etching and immersion etching, and the combination and order of the etching processes may be flexibly changed; paragraphs [0098]-[0100]). Uesugi further teaches a spray-etching apparatus in the second etching chamber corresponding to the claimed separator (the etching chamber includes an etching spray nozzle, etching liquid tank, pipeline, and pump for spraying etching liquid onto the substrate; paragraphs [0088]-[0091]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the modified method of Kim to perform Kim’s subsequent wet-chemical treatment by spraying the second chemical solution toward the semiconductor light-emitting device using Uesugi’s spray-etching apparatus in a second chamber such that the semiconductor light-emitting device is completely separated from the substrate in the second chamber because Uesugi teaches that immersion and spray etching may be performed consecutively, that spray etching may follow immersion etching, and that serially connected etching chambers may be configured to perform either process so that the combination and order may be flexibly selected. Applying Uesugi’s known spray-etching technique to Kim’s subsequent wet-chemical treatment would have predictably provided the further chemical etching used to remove Kim’s remaining Si tethers and completely separate the semiconductor light-emitting device from the substrate, and use of a known technique to improve a similar method in the same way is obvious. See MPEP § 2141 III(C).
Regarding claim 10, the modified method of Kim teaches the limitations of claim 9 as discussed above. Hiroe further teaches circulating the first chemical solution in the first bath of the first chamber (pump 16 circulates the treatment solution used in etching bath 3 through treatment solution measuring tank 15, etching bath 3, filter 17, and back to the treatment solution measuring tank; col. 5, lines 7-19).
Regarding claim 13, the modified method of Kim teaches the limitations of claim 9 as discussed above. Hiroe further teaches moving the semiconductor light-emitting device on the substrate from the first bath of the first chamber to the cleaning bath of the first chamber (robot 10 lifts wafers W from etching bath 3 after completion of the etching treatment and moves the wafers to rinsing bath 7 within surface treatment chamber 2B; col. 7, lines 52-68 through col. 8, lines 1-15).
Regarding claim 14, the modified method of Kim teaches the limitations of claim 9 as discussed above. Hiroe further teaches moving a substrate from a first treatment chamber to a subsequent treatment chamber (after treatment in surface treatment chamber 2B is completed, robot 10 transfers wafers W from surface treatment chamber 2B to surface treatment chamber 2C by passing through the opening between surface treatment devices 1B and 1C; col. 8, lines 10-20). Thus, in the modified method of Kim, the semiconductor light-emitting device on the substrate is moved from the first chamber to the second chamber for the subsequent spray-etching treatment.
Regarding claim 15, the modified method of Kim teaches the limitations of claim 9 as discussed above. Kim further teaches wherein the submerging of the semiconductor light-emitting device on the substrate in the first chemical solution contained in the first bath of the first chamber is performed such that the substrate is partially removed (the GaN-based LEDs on the Si substrate are under etched by anisotropic wet etching using a 60 wt% aqueous KOH solution, after which portions of the Si substrate have been removed while small hexagonal Si pillars remain and support the LEDs as vertical tethers; page 2, Section 2, Experimental, second paragraph, Figure 1).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. in view of Hiroe et al. and Chou et al. and Uesugi et al., as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Sasaki et al. (US 20200279835 A1).
Regarding claim 11, the modified method of Kim teaches the limitations of claim 9 as discussed above.
The modified method of Kim does not expressly teach recovering the semiconductor light-emitting device that is completely separated from the substrate by a recovery assembly of the second chamber.
Sasaki teaches recovering a semiconductor light-emitting device that is separated from a substrate by a recovery assembly (microLED devices 306 separated from carrier substrate 304 are harvested in tray 316 containing solvent 318; paragraph [0059], Figure 3A; further teaching that, in response to separating the microLED devices from the carrier substrate, functional microLED devices are collected in a harvesting container; paragraphs [0021] and [0125]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the modified method of Kim to provide Sasaki’s recovery assembly in the second chamber for recovering the semiconductor light-emitting device after complete separation because Sasaki teaches collecting separated microLED devices in a tray or harvesting container immediately following separation from the carrier substrate. Incorporating Sasaki’s known harvesting arrangement into the second chamber of the modified method of Kim would have predictably collected the separated semiconductor light-emitting devices for subsequent processing, and combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results is obvious. See MPEP § 2141 III(A).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. in view of Hiroe et al. and Chou et al. and Uesugi et al., as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Humphrey et al. (US 6,337,027 B1).
Regarding claim 12, the modified method of Kim teaches the limitations of claim 9 as discussed above.
The modified method of Kim does not expressly teach spraying deionized water onto the semiconductor light-emitting device in the second chamber.
Humphrey teaches spraying deionized water onto a semiconductor structure in the same chamber following completion of a spray-etching treatment (immediately after the structural elements are released from the sacrificial silicon, heated DI water is sprayed through a plurality of nozzles onto the composite structure to remove residual etchant and clean the structure in situ; col. 4, lines 20-31).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the modified method of Kim to spray deionized water onto the semiconductor light-emitting device in the second chamber after the second chemical treatment because Humphrey teaches spraying deionized water in situ immediately after spray etching to remove residual etchant and reduce the likelihood of precipitate formation. Applying Humphrey’s known in-situ DI-water spray to the second chamber of the modified method of Kim would have predictably cleaned residual etchant from the released semiconductor light-emitting device, and use of a known technique to improve a similar method in the same way is obvious. See MPEP § 2141 III(C).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. in view of Hiroe et al. and Chou et al. and Uesugi et al., as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Sekiguchi et al., “Adhesionable Flexible GaN-Based MicroLED Array Film to Brain Surface for In Vivo Optogenetic Stimulation” (2022).
Regarding claim 16, the modified method of Kim teaches the limitations of claim 9 as discussed above.
The modified method of Kim does not expressly teach submerging the semiconductor light-emitting device on the substrate in the first chemical solution for a predetermined time period, wherein the predetermined time period is determined based on a size of the semiconductor light-emitting device.
Sekiguchi teaches that the result of KOH wet etching of a semiconductor light-emitting device is affected by a size of the semiconductor light-emitting device (the Si layer directly beneath the GaN-based microLED is wet etched using a 40 wt% KOH solution heated to 80°C at an etching rate of 2-3 μm/min, and the effect of microLED size on hollow-structure formation is investigated, with the success of hollow-structure formation differing based on microLED size; page 046501-2, paragraph beginning “Next, the transfer technology of the microLED array onto the parylene film was investigated,” right-column portion discussing the KOH etch rate and the effect of microLED size on hollow-structure formation).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the modified method of Kim to determine the predetermined time period for the first chemical treatment based on the size of the semiconductor light-emitting device because Sekiguchi teaches both a known KOH etch rate and that microLED size affects formation of the KOH-underetched structure. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have adjusted the duration of the KOH treatment based on microLED size to obtain the desired amount of underetching, and discovering the optimum or workable value of a result-effective process variable by routine experimentation is obvious. See MPEP § 2144.05.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN CARTER whose telephone number is (571)272-8176. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 5:00 AM - 2:00 PM.
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, Joshua L Allen can be reached at (571) 272-3176. 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.
/JONATHAN L CARTER/Examiner, Art Unit 1713
/ERIN F BERGNER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1713
