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. Election/Restrictions Applicant’s election without traverse of group II, claims 1-9, in the reply filed on 02/17/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 10-13 have been withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected piezoelectric product, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 02/17/2026. 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. Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) , as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. Claim 1 discloses “ x is in a range between about 0.04 and about 0.18 ” (line 5 ; emphasis added). There is no industry standard for, nor is there any further explanation in the original disclosure of what is or is not considered to fall within the realm of being “ about 0.04” or “ about 0.18 ”. Even if the specification uses the same term of degree as in the claim, a rejection is proper if the scope of the term is not understood when read in light of the specification. While, as a general proposition, broadening modifiers are standard tools in claim drafting in order to avoid reliance on the doctrine of equivalents in infringement actions, when the scope of the claim is unclear a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, is proper. See MPEP 2173.05(b): Relative Terminology. The specification provides no clarification as to what is intended by the term “about” in the claims. As such, the reader cannot possibly guess what the actual endpoints of the claimed ranges may be. Is the cut-off intended to be 25% or 50% or 75% or 82% of the recited number? Is it 104% or 136% or any other value? There is no standard answer in the industry and no answer in the original disclosure, and thus the scope or metes and bounds of the claim cannot be ascertained, thus rendering it indefinite. Claims 2-9 are also rejected as indefinite , so rendered by virtue of their dependency upon the indefinite subject matter of claim 1 . Claim s 2, 3, 7 and 8 are further rejected as indefinite, for the same reasons as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Each of these claims discloses vague range limitations with the hedging term “about”. The Applicant is strongly encouraged to determine what the intended method is a nd to define it accordingly , rather than to nebulously claim ranges with no defined maximum or minimum . Claim 6 is further rejected as indefinite, because the claim discloses “ the heated Sc precursor material is of general formula (2): Sc(R 1 Cp) x (R 2 -NC-C(R 3 )=N-R 2 ) y (2) ,wherein R 1 is H or a C 1 -C 5 alkyl chain, R 2 is H or a C 1 -C 5 alkyl chain, R 3 is H or Me, x is 0, 1, or 2, y is 1, 2, or 3, such that x + y = 3, and wherein there is one N atom for each outer shell electron of the Sc when x = 0 ” (lines 1-5 ; emphasis added ). This claim is replete with indefiniteness issues to the point where it is literally impossible to confidently interpret. The most glaring issue is that there are numerous alternatives claimed, and while Markush style alternatives are permissible in claim language, this claim does not represent Markush groupings. Instead these alternatives compound upon one another such that there are literally hundreds or even thousands of different limitations recited in just one claim, as such the scope is impossible to ascertain. Further, the “(2) at the right side of the recited formula is confusing. Is it part of the formula? Is it a reference number (i.e. a name) for the formula? If so, why is it included at all? Further still, the values of x and y are recited as necessarily adding up to equal 3; however, most of the values of x and y do not add up to three. 0 + (1 or 2) ≠ 3, 1 + 1 ≠ 3, 1 + 3 ≠ 3, 2 + (2 or 3) ≠ 3. Even further still, the conditional “when x = 0” statement is indefinite because for most of the numerous alternative reasonable interpretations, x ≠ 0. Finally, there is nothing in this entire claim which in any clear manner actually provides any further limitation of the claimed method . How does this formula modify the method of manufacture in any way? The reader is left to guess which of the thousands of alternatives was actually performed by the applicant, what the method is, what formula is intended, and what values x and y should have; thus, for all of the reasons defined above, this claim is entirely indefinite. Claim 9 is further rejected as indefinite, because the claim discloses “ The method of Claim 1 wherein the substrate comprises SiC, A1 2 0 3 , Si, or GaN ” (lines 1-2 ; emphasis added). This claim is not understood to limit the claimed method in any discernable manner. The substrate is not being manufactured or modified in claim 1, and thus it is impossible to know how the preferred material of the substrate would have any effect upon the claimed method. NOTE : All of the examined claims ( i.e. claims 1-9 ) have been interpreted and examined as best understood according to the 112(b) rejections, above. The indefinite “about” ranges are interpreted as best understood to include ±25% of the maximum and minimum values recited in the claims. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejec tio ns 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. Claims 1 and 8 - 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hurwitz (US 10,389,331 B2 ). Regarding claim 1 , Hurwitz discloses a method of forming a piezoelectric acoustic resonator (FBAR) layer (fig. 8A) , the method comprising: loading a substrate (removable carrier: 10 and/or 12 ) into a MOCVD reactor chamber (fig. 9; col. 4, line 58; col. 6, lines 1-5; col. 16, lines 19-32) ; and forming an MOCVD single crystal piezoelectric Sc x Al 1-x N layer on the substrate (col. 5, lines 34-40; col. 6, lines 1-5; col. 16, lines 44-47) , where x is in a range between about 0.04 and about 0.18 (col. 5, lines 34-43) . Regarding claim 8 , Hurwitz discloses the method of Claim 1 wherein the single crystal piezoelectric Sc x Al 1-x N layer has a thickness in a range between about 10 nm and about 2 µ m (col. 5, lines 41-47) . Regarding claim 9 , Hurwitz discloses the method of Claim 1 wherein the substrate comprises SiC, A1 2 0 3 , Si, or GaN (Al2O3, i.e. sapphire, or GaN: col. 16, lines 22-27). Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Hurwitz . Regarding claim 7 , Hurwitz discloses the method of Claim 1 wherein the MOCVD formed single crystal piezoelectric Sc x Al 1-x N layer has a crystalline structure (see above). Hurwitz, however does not explicitly disclose that the piezoelectric crystalline structure is characterized by an XRD rocking curve FWHM value in a range between about less than 1.0 degrees to about 0.001 degrees as measured about an omega scan angle. T he applicant is respectfully advised that it has been held by the courts that where a prior art apparatus is identical or substantially identical in structure, claimed properties or functional characteristics are presumed to be inherent, and a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established . The Scandium and Aluminum content of the piezoelectric layer of Hurwitz have been shown to fall within the same range as the claimed range of claim 1, and therefore the identical piezoelectric material would naturally be expected to have the same properties. Further, i t has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. 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 of this title, 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. Claims 2 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hurwitz , in view of Leone et al. ( “Metal-Organic Chemical Vapor Deposition of Aluminum Scandium Nitride”; hereinafter: “Leone” ). Regarding claim 2 , Hurwitz discloses all of the elements of the current invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1 . Hurwitz , however, does not explicitly disclose providing a heated Sc precursor material to the reactor chamber at a temperature in a range between about 100 degrees Centigrade and about 250 degrees Centigrade to grow the MOCVD single crystal piezoelectric Sc x Al 1-x N layer . Leone teaches that it is well known to perform a similar method of forming a piezoelectric acoustic resonator layer, the method comprising: loading a substrate into a MOCVD reactor chamber; and forming an MOCVD single crystal piezoelectric Sc x Al 1-x N layer on the substrate (Title; Abstract; pg. 3 of 6: “Growth and characterization of AlScN epitaxial layers”, lines 1-4); including providing a heated Sc precursor material to the reactor chamber at a temperature in a range between about 100 degrees Centigrade and about 250 degrees Centigrade to grow the MOCVD single crystal piezoelectric Sc x Al 1 -x N layer ( pg. 2 of 6: “Choice of a precursor for SC”, all; pg. 5 of 6, col. 1, pars. 3-4 ). Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the current invention of Hurwitz to incorporate the preferred precursor and precursor temperature of Leone . POSITA would have realized that finding the preferred temperature for forming piezoelectric Al Sc N can be easily and readily performed to achieve the desired formation thickness, material resilience, piezoelectric properties and the like . Moreover, there is no indication in the instant disclosure that any special temperatures was devised or that any surprising results were derived from simply using the old method of Hurwitz with the well-known precursor preparation temperature of Leone . This combination would have been easily performed with knowledge of the commonly understood advantages and with reasonable expectations of success. Regarding claim 5 , Hurwitz in view of Leone teaches the method of claim 2 as detailed above, and Leone further teaches that it is well known that the heated Sc precursor material comprises (MeCp) 3 Sc or Cp 3 Sc (pg. 2 of 6: “Choice of a precursor for SC” , par. 2) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was made to use the well-known (MeCp) 3 Sc or Cp 3 Sc of Leone , since it has been held by the courts that selection of a prior art material on the basis of its suitability for its intended purpose is within the level of ordinary skill. Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hurwitz, in view of Moe et al. ( US 2020 / 0111949 A1 ). Regarding claim 3 , Hurwitz discloses all of the elements of the current invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1 . Hurwitz, however, does not explicitly disclose maintaining a surface of the substrate at a growth temperature in a range between about 800 degrees Centigrade to about 950 degrees Centigrade while forming the MOCVD single crystal piezoelectric Sc x Al 1-x N layer, wherein the growth temperature is measured using pyrometry . Moe teaches that it is well known to perform a similar method (Title; Abstract), further comprising maintaining a surface of the substrate at a growth temperature in a range between about 800 degrees Centigrade to about 950 degrees Centigrade while forming the MOCVD single crystal piezoelectric Sc x Al 1-x N layer, wherein the growth temperature is measured using pyrometry (pars. 0005, 0007, 0053 and 0058) . Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the current invention of Hurwitz to incorporate the preferred substrate temperature for growth of Moe because discovering the optimum temperature would have been a mere design consideration based on the desired growth rate, thickness, piezoelectric properties, etc.. Such a modification would have involved only routine skill in the art to accommodate the temperature of the substrate requirement. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. Moreover, there is no indication in the instant disclosure that any special temperature of the substrate was devised or that any surprising results were derived from simply using the old method of Hurwitz with the well-known preferred temperature range of Moe . This combination would have been easily performed with knowledge of the commonly understood advantages and with reasonable expectations of success. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 4 and 6 may be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Please note, claim 6 is replete with indefiniteness errors and the determination of potential allowability is based upon interpretation of the claim as best understood . When the numerous indefiniteness issues are corrected, the claim will be reinterpreted and at that time, it is possible that the claim will no longer be found to be allowable. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art, either alone or in combination, does not disclose nor reasonably teach the method of claims 1 and 2 in addition to the heated Sc precursor material compris ing (DIPA) 3 Sc. Further, the prior art does not teach the method of claims 1 and 2, wherein the heated Sc precursor material is of general formula (2): Sc(R 1 Cp) x (R 2 -NC-C(R 3 )=N-R 2 ) y (2),wherein R 1 is H or a C 1 -C 5 alkyl chain, R 2 is H or a C 1 -C 5 alkyl chain, R 3 is H or Me, x is 0, 1, or 2, y is 1, 2, or 3, such that x + y = 3, and wherein there is one N atom for each outer shell electron of the Sc when x = 0 , as best understood . Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please refer to the concurrently mailed PTO-892, as all of those cited references are considered to be pertinent to the claimed invention. For example, Wang et a. ( US 2020 / 0389150 A1 ) is held to be of particular relevance to the claimed invention. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier comm unications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT Jeffrey T Carley whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-5609 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday - Friday, 9:00 am - 5:00 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Sunil Singh can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-3460 . 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. /JEFFREY T CARLEY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3729