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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 10/20/2025 has been entered.
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.
Claim(s) 1-15, 18-19, and 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Larson (US 20140246305 A1, cited in office action mailed 1/13/2023) in view of Burgess (US 20170104465 A1), Rich (US 20040188241 A1), and Gibson (US 20080223715 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Larson (US 20140246305 A1) teaches sputter depositing an ScAlN piezoelectric layer 104 (additive containing aluminum nitride film, wherein the additive element includes scandium) in a chamber from a target onto a substrate 101 of silicon (semiconductor substrate is a silicon wafer) having a first electrode 103 (metallic layer) made of tungsten, molybdenum, aluminum, platinum, or ruthenium, wherein the depositing includes introducing a gaseous mixture including nitrogen gas and an inert gas with flow rates in sccm (para 0043, 0046, 0067, 0069, 0074-0076; Fig. 2A).
Larson fails to explicitly teach the substrate has a temperature of 150°C to 300°C during depositing and the sputtering is performed by pulsed DC reactive sputtering. However, Burgess (US 20170104465 A1), in the analogous art of depositing ScAlN layers by reactive sputtering, teaches that the film may be deposited at a temperature of 200°C (from 150°C to 300°C) and using pulsed DC reactive sputtering in an atmosphere of nitrogen and inert gas (Abstract, para 0035-0037; Table 1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the power supply and temperature of Larson with the pulsed DC power supply and 200°C deposition temperature of Burgess because this is a substitution of known elements yielding predictable results of depositing a ScAlN film. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
The combination of Larson and Burgess fails to explicitly teach the nitrogen gas flow rate in sccm is less than or equal to about 50%% of the flow rate of the gaseous mixture in sccm and also is sufficient to fully poison the target whereby a target voltage is substantially constant at the nitrogen gas flow rate and the constant target power. However, Rich (US 20040188241 A1), in the analogous art of sputtering piezoelectric layers, teaches that depositing crystalline aluminum nitride layers may be performed by sputtering in a target poisoning mode where the target is poisoned by the atomic nitrogen to form a target surface of aluminum nitride (fully poisoned), where the target poisoning mode preferably includes pulsed DC power and a krypton (inert gas) to nitrogen ratio of 1:1 to 1:0.6, or 50% to 37.5% nitrogen (para 0002, 0005-0008, 0012, claim 1-3), which necessarily includes a nitrogen flow rate in sccm less than or equal to about 50% of the flow rate of the gaseous mixture. Larson teaches the piezoelectric film has a crystalline structure (para 0007, 0009). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the gas mixture flow ratio of Larson with the gas mixture flow ratio Rich, including 37.5% to 50% nitrogen, in the gas mixture, because this is a substitution of known elements yielding predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
The combination of Larson, Burgess, and Rich fails to explicitly teach the pulsed DC reactive sputtering is at a constant target power and the poisoned state results in a target voltage being substantially constant at the nitrogen gas flow rate and the constant target power. However, Gibson (US 20080223715 A1), in the analogous art of pulsed reactive sputtering, teaches sputtering a sputtering target in a poisoned state, wherein pulsed DC power is used and the power supply may be used in a “constant power” mode so that the deposition rate remains constant and thickness is proportional to time (para 0006). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to operate the pulsed power of Larson in view of Burgess at a constant power so that the deposition rate remains constant, thus improving consistency/accuracy of the deposition process. Because the combination of Larson, Burgess, Rich, and Gibson teaches a nitride film formed on the surface of the target, the flow rate of nitrogen is sufficient to fully poison the target and would necessarily result in a target voltage being substantially constant at the nitrogen gas flow rate and the constant target power.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Larson, Burgess, Rich, and Gibson teaches the additive element is scandium (Larson para 0038, 0069).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Larson, Burgess, Rich, and Gibson teaches the additive element is scandium (Larson para 0038, 0069).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Larson, Burgess, Rich, and Gibson teaches the additive element may be approximately 0.5 at% to 40 at% scandium relative to aluminum (Larson para 0072-0073, 0085).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Larson, Burgess, Rich, and Gibson teaches the additive element may be approximately 0.5 at% to 40 at% scandium relative to aluminum (Larson para 0072-0073, 0085) but fails to explicitly teach the additive element is present in a range of 20 to 25 at%. However, one would have expected the use of any value within the Rich range to have yielded similar results. Absent any showing of criticality, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used any values within 0.5 to 40 at%, including values within the claimed range, with a reasonable expectation of success and with predictable results. Please see MPEP 2144.05 (I) for further details.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Larson, Burgess, Rich, and Gibson teaches the ratio of inert gas to nitrogen in the flow may be 1:0.6, or a nitrogen gas flow rate of 37.5% (less than about 45%) of the gaseous mixture flow rate (Rich para 0005-0007).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Larson, Burgess, Rich, and Gibson teaches the ratio of inert gas to nitrogen in the flow may be 1:0.6, or a nitrogen gas flow rate of 37.5% of the gaseous mixture flow rate (Rich para 0005-0007) but fails to explicitly teach the flow rate is less than about 35% of the flow rate of the gaseous mixture. However, absent any showing of criticality, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges to not overlap with the prior art but are merely close because 37.5% is so close to the claimed range of less than about 35% that prima facie one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Please see MPEP 2144.05 (I) for further details. Therefore, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used a nitrogen flow rate of less than about 35% of the gaseous mixture flow rate with a reasonable expectation of success and with predictable results.
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Larson, Burgess, Rich, and Gibson teaches the ratio of inert gas to nitrogen in the flow may be 1:0.6, or a nitrogen gas flow rate of 37.5% (greater than about 15%) of the gaseous mixture flow rate (Rich para 0005-0007).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Larson, Burgess, Rich, and Gibson teaches the ratio of inert gas to nitrogen in the flow may be 1:0.6, or a nitrogen gas flow rate of 37.5% (greater than or equal to 30%) of the gaseous mixture flow rate (Rich para 0005-0007).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Larson, Burgess, Rich, and Gibson teaches the ratio of inert gas to nitrogen in the flow may be 1:1, where the total flow rate is 30 to 100 sccm (Rich para 0005-0007), resulting in a nitrogen gas flow rate of 15 to 50 sccm, but fails to explicitly teach a nitrogen gas flow rate in the range of 25 to 250 sccm. However, one would have expected the use of any value within the Rich range to have yielded similar results. Absent any showing of criticality, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used any values within 15 to 50 sccm, including values within the claimed range, with a reasonable expectation of success and with predictable results. Please see MPEP 2144.05 (I) for further details.
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Larson, Burgess, Rich, and Gibson teaches the ratio of inert gas to nitrogen in the flow may be 1:1, where the total flow rate is 30 to 100 sccm (Rich para 0005-0007), resulting in a nitrogen gas flow rate of 15 to 50 sccm, but fails to explicitly teach a range of 45 to 100 sccm. However, one would have expected the use of any value within the Rich range to have yielded similar results. Absent any showing of criticality, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used any values within 15 to 50 sccm, including values within the claimed range, with a reasonable expectation of success and with predictable results. Please see MPEP 2144.05 (I) for further details.
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Larson, Burgess, Rich, and Gibson teaches the inert gas is krypton and/or xenon (Rich para 0005-0007).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Larson, Burgess, Rich, and Gibson teaches the thickness of the additive containing aluminum nitride piezoelectric film is 12000 angstroms, or 1.2 micrometers (about 2 micrometers or less) (Larson para 0098).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Larson, Burgess, Rich, and Gibson teaches the thickness of the additive containing aluminum nitride piezoelectric film is 12000 angstroms, or 1.2 micrometers (about 0.2 micrometers or greater) (Larson para 0098).
Regarding claim 15, the previous combination of Larson, Burgess, Rich, and Gibson fails to explicitly teach the step of depositing the additive containing aluminum nitride film comprises applying an electrical bias power to the semiconductor substrate. However, Burgess teaches the piezoelectric film may be deposited with a substrate bias where the substrate bias may reduce defect density (Abstract, para 0038; Fig. 3). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply a substrate bias during deposition of the piezoelectric layer to reduce defect density.
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Larson, Burgess, Rich, and Gibson teaches the metallic/electrode layer is cleaned/etched to remove contaminants prior to depositing the piezoelectric film (Larson para 0092).
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Larson, Burgess, Rich, and Gibson teaches a seed layer 108 may be deposited by sputtering onto the metallic first electrode layer 103 before depositing the piezoelectric layer 104 (Larson para 0047, 0069; Fig. 1A-1B)
Regarding claim 22, the combination of Larson, Burgess, Rich, and Gibson fails to explicitly teach the additive containing aluminum nitride film has a defect density of less than 30 defects per 100 micrometers squared. However, the aforementioned combination teaches a similar process as the instant application including sputtering in a poisoned mode with a specific flow rate ratio. Similar methods must necessarily yield similar results. Therefore, the film produced by the aforementioned combination must necessarily yield a defect density of less than about 30 defects per 100 micrometers squared. See MPEP 2112.
Regarding claim 23, the combination of Larson, Burgess, Rich, and Gibson teaches the deposition uses pulsed DC reactive sputtering (Burgess Abstract; Rich para 0005-0007) and that the deposition operates in a poisoned mode (compound mode) (Rich para 0005-0007).
Claim(s) 18 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Larson (US 20140246305 A1, cited in office action mailed 1/13/2023) in view of Burgess (US 20170104465 A1), Rich (US 20040188241 A1), and Gibson (US 20080223715 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Xia (US 20210159387 A1).
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Larson, Burgess, Rich, and Gibson fails to explicitly teach a step of etching the metallic layer prior to the step of depositing the additive containing aluminum nitride film. However, Xia (US 20210159387 A1), in the analogous art of aluminum nitride sputtering, teaches forming a first metal layer over the substrate and then etching the metal material to form a first electrode prior to depositing an aluminum nitride or AlScN layer in a MEMS structure such as a resonator (para 0021, 0028, 0039-0040). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to etch the electrode layer of Larson to form a MEMS structure for use in a resonator/piezoelectric device.
Regarding claim 22, the combination of Larson, Burgess, Rich, and Gibson fails to explicitly teach the additive containing aluminum nitride film has a defect density of less than 30 defects per 100 micrometers squared. However, Xia (US 20210159387 A1), in the analogous art of aluminum nitride sputtering, teaches reducing the defect density of AlN and ScAlN layers by co-sputtering, forming an AlN seed layer to grow the ScAlN layer, or including a metal area under each AlN layer (para 0004-0008, 0055-0058). Larson teaches defects in the piezoelectric layer cause non-uniformities that can impact characteristics of the layer including variations in tensile stress or electromechanical coupling coefficient (para 0082). Therefore, the defect density is a recognized result-effective variable and it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to minimize the defect density by routine optimization, which can include a defect density of less than 30 defects per 100 micrometers squared. See MPEP 2144.05(II).
Claim(s) 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Larson (US 20140246305 A1, cited in office action mailed 1/13/2023) in view of Burgess (US 20170104465 A1), Rich (US 20040188241 A1), and Gibson (US 20080223715 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kosaka (US 20170212417 A1).
Regarding claim 21, the combination of Larson, Burgess, Rich, and Gibson fails to explicitly teach measuring the target voltage at the constant target power as a function of a percentage of the nitrogen gas in the flow rate of the gas mixture, wherein a step change in the target voltage at the constant target power is indicative of a poison threshold percentage. However, Kosaka (US 20170212417 A1), in the analogous art of sputtering, teaches measuring a sputtering voltage while sweeping the flow rate of the reactive gas and plotting the voltage versus the flow rate of reactive gas (as a function of percentage of nitrogen gas) and performing sputtering in the desired regime, and wherein a (step) change of the target voltage at constant power is indicative of a poison threshold percentage (para 0008, 0029, 0051). Rich teaches operating in a poisoned mode (para 0005-0007). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention measure the voltage while sweeping the flow rate of nitrogen to produce a hysteresis curve indicating where poisoning occurs in order to ensure that the sputtering is performed in a poison/reaction mode.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 6-7, filed 10/20/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Larson (US 20140246305 A1), Burgess (US 20170104465 A1), and Rich (US 20040188241 A1).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PATRICK S OTT whose telephone number is (571)272-2415. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm.
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, James Lin can be reached at (571) 272-8902. 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.
/PATRICK S OTT/Examiner, Art Unit 1794