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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s preliminary amendments, filed 7/28/2026, have been fully considered and reviewed by the examiner. The examiner notes the amendment to the claims and corrects the . Claims 1-14 are pending in the instant application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/28/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s argue that the prior art fails to disclose the subsequent treatment and nitride the already damaged surface, i.e. the timing based features of the instant claims. Here, the claims themselves are broadly drafted and merely require “oxygen containing plasma” and “nitrogen containing plasma” and does not foreclose or indicate the presence or absence of other gases that may be contained in those plasma processes. Therefore, a oxygen and nitrogen plasma is in fact a oxygen containing plasma (contained oxygen) but also a nitrogen containing plasma (contains nitrogen). The applicant’s broadly drafted claim does not specifically articulate or require that the oxygen plasma is only oxygen nor nitrogen plasma is only nitrogen. Therefore, as noted by the prior art rejection of record, the PECVD process including oxygen and nitrogen and thus meets this claim requirement of a surface treatment via a plasma comprising oxygen and then a plasma comprising nitrogen and also meets the time requirement of the instant claims, i.e. “then” as any plasma treatment will result in time relationship as claimed, i.e. first part of the plasma treatment process oxygen containing plasma followed by a nitrogen containing plasma, all that is required by the claims as broadly drafted.
Applicant’s argument that the claimed required “to nitride the damaged thickness” is noted, but also unpersuasive for substantially the same reasons as set forth above and in view of the broadly drafted claim requirements that fail to differentiate over the prior art process. Here, the prior art discloses treating a surface with an oxygen containing plasma and nitrogen containing plasma to form a nitride, i.e. nitride the oxide layer. The reference discloses the nitride is incorporated in a controlled manner treating an oxygen plasma (thus forming a damaged thickness as broadly drafted by the claims) and thereafter continuing the plasma treatment that includes a plasma containing nitrogen that ultimately provides a nitride of the damage thickness and therefore would encompass the broadly drafted claim requirement. Here, the applicant’s have chosen broad claim language (“comprising” language) that does not differentiate from the prior art process or results and thus the examiner maintains the prior art rejection of record.
Applicant’s remaining arguments are deemed to be unpersuasive as not supported by factual evidence and therefore deemed mere attorney speculation.
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) 1-2 and 4-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by WO 2021008742, hereinafter WO 742.
*** Please note US Patent Application Publication 20220247374 is the patent which issued from the national stage application based on WO 2021008742. This patent is being used as an English translation of WO 2021008742, therefore all references are found in US Patent Application Publication 20220247374 ***
Claim 1: WO 742 discloses a method for manufacturing a structure comprising a thin layer transferred onto a support via a dielectric layer, the support comprising an electric charge-trapping layer (3) arranged superficially on a base substrate (2) (Figure 1 and accompanying text, 0048), the method comprising:
forming a dielectric layer on an exposed surface of a main face of the support and/or on an exposed surface of a main face of a donor substrate (0048, 0059, 0075);
applying a surface treatment to the exposed surface of the main face of the support and/or to the exposed surface of the main face of the donor substrate to form thereon a barrier layer forming a barrier to diffusion of atomic species (0085-0087);
assembling the support and the donor substrate by their respective main faces to form an intermediate structure (0016); and removing at least part of the donor substrate from the intermediate structure to form the thin layer (0017);
wherein the surface treatment applied to at least one of the exposed surfaces comprises: exposing the exposed surface to a plasma comprising oxygen to form a damaged thickness beneath the main face, and then exposing the exposed surface to a plasma comprising nitrogen to nitride the damaged thickness (0087, wherein the PECVD process including oxygen and nitrogen and thus meets this claim requirement of a surface treatment via a plasma comprising oxygen and then a plasma comprising nitrogen).
Claim 2: WO 742 discloses the donor substrate comprises lithium tantalate (0060) and while the reference does not disclose such is a monocrystalline piezoelectric material, the examiner notes a full reading of the instant application notes that “monocrystalline, can be semiconducting (e.g., silicon) or insulating (e.g., a piezoelectric material such as lithium tantalate..) and therefore the lithium tantalate is taught by specification as meeting the requirement monocrystalline piezoelectric material.
Claim 4: WO 742 discloses the base substrate is a monocrystalline silicon substrate (0052).
Claim 5: WO 742 discloses the dielectric layer comprises silicon oxide (0059, 0087)
Claim 6: WO 742 discloses the electric charge-trapping layer comprises polycrystalline silicon (0054).
Claim 7: WO 742 discloses the forming of the dielectric layer comprises oxidation of the electric charge-trapping layer (0081)
Claim 8-9: Claims as drafted include comprising language and the process as outlined by WO 742 reads on the broadly drafted claims (0087), specifically, PECVD process with oxygen and nitrogen plasma gas by its nature include some deposition of dielectric followed by surface treatment via a plasma comprising oxygen and then a plasma comprising nitrogen (claim 8) or surface treatment via a plasma comprising oxygen and then a plasma comprising nitrogen followed by some deposition of dielectric (claim 9).
Claim 10: WO 742 discloses nitrogen incorporation (0087).
Claim 11: WO 742 discloses the forming of the dielectric layer comprises forming at least part of the dielectric layer on the donor substrate (0075).
Claim 12-13: WO 742 discloses forming the dielectric layer on the donor substrate and depositing such by PECVD and thus meets the broadly drafts claims which include a process applying the surface treatment comprises applying the surface treatment to the exposed surface of the main face of the donor substrate and such a process of PECVD would meet the requirement of forming at least part of the dielectric layer on the donor substrate precedes the applying the surface treatment, see discussion at claims 8-9 above (0075-0076, 0087).
Claim 14: WO 742 discloses the silicon oxide of the dielectric layer incorporates nitrogen at a nitrogen/oxygen ratio of less than 0.5 (0087, see e.g. 0.01, 0.05, 0.25).
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.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 742 taken with US Patent Application Publication 20220336266 by Roumanie et al.
While the examiner maintains the position as set forth above, the examiner cites here Roumanie, discloses transferring from a donor substrate (0051) similar to that of WO 742 and discloses the donor substrate “is made from a second monocrystalline material, semiconductor material, such as silicon, SiC, Ge, InP, or GaAs or having piezoelectric properties, such as PZT, BaTiO3, LiNbO3, quartz, or LiTaO3” (0041) and therefore discloses using a piezoelectric material and monocrystalline donor substrate would have been obvious as predictable in the art of transferring a layer using a donor substrate and thus using a monocrystalline piezoelectric material as the donor substrate would have been obvious in view of Roumanie, which discloses the donor substrate as monocrystalline material and piezoelectric. All the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 742 taken with US Patent Application Publication 20150364367 by Gaudin.
WO 742 discloses all that is taught above and discloses a transferring a layer using a donor substrate; however, fails to explicitly disclose donor substrate is a monocrystalline silicon substrate. However, Gaudin, also in the art of a transferring a layer using a donor substrate and discloses the donor substrate is a monocrystalline silicon substrate ( see e.g. claim 30). Therefore, taking the references collectively and all that is known to one of ordinary skill in the art it would have been obvious to have modified WO 742 to use the donor substrate is a monocrystalline silicon substrate as suggested by Gaudin as both references deal with transferring a layer using a donor substrate and thus predictable results would follow from monocrystalline silicon substrate donor substrate. A predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions to achieve a predictable result is prima facie obvious. See KSR Int’l Inc. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S Ct. 1727, 1741, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID P TUROCY whose telephone number is (571)272-2940. The examiner can normally be reached Mon, Tues, Thurs, and Friday, 7:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.
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, Gordon Baldwin can be reached at 571-272-5166. 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.
/DAVID P TUROCY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718
Prosecution Insights