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 .
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.
Claim 8 is 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.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “wherein the thin film is a first thin film” in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner notes that
Furthermore, Claim 1 recites “depositing a thin film of metal”, while the preamble the preamble recites “method of forming a thin film of material”. It is not clear if the Claim 8 recitation the thin film is referring to the preamble of to the thin film of metal. Applicant claim language must be consistent, such that if Claim 1 recites a thin film of metal, the subsequent claim language should be the first thin film of metal. Applicant correction is required.
Claims 13-15 and 20 are 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.
Claims 13 recites the limitation “a plurality of thin films of metal; and a plurality of layers of an oxide of the metal; wherein the plurality of thin films and the plurality of layers.” in lines 2 and 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 13 initially states “a plurality of thin films of metal; and a plurality of layers of an oxide of the metal”, so it is not clear if the plurality of thin films and the plurality of layers are referring to the same layer of plurality of thin films of metal or plurality of layers of an oxide of the metal. Applicant correction is required
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 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) 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Deckers et al. (“Aluminum oxide-aluminum stacks for contact passivation in silicon solar cells,” Energy Procedia, 55, pp 656 – 664, 2014), (hereinafter, Deckers).
RE Claim 13, Deckers discloses solar cell and a method of making aluminum oxide multilayered contact to the solar cell, wherein Al2O3-Al stack was investigated to be used as a contact itself, or as part of a contact stack comprising multiple metals. Deckers discloses a device, comprising:
a plurality of thin films of metal Al “aluminum” stack [abstract]; and
a plurality of layers of an oxide Al2O3 of the metal Al “aluminum”; wherein the thin films and the layers are arranged in an alternating stack Al2O3-Al [abstract].
RE Claim 14, Deckers discloses a device, wherein:
the metal is aluminum [abstract]
Examiner notes that the limitation “the thin films and the layers have a root-mean-square surface roughness in the range 0.1 nm to 0.4 nm” is being claimed in the alternative form “OR” hence the claim is being anticipated by the fact of the metal layer is aluminum is disclosed by Deckers.
RE Claim 15, Deckers discloses a device, further comprising a semiconductor component “solar cell” [abstract], wherein the alternating stack is arranged on the semiconductor component “solar cell” [abstract].
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:
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 non-obviousness.
Claim(s) Claim(s) 1-5, 6, 7, 10-12, 18 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ziino et al. (“Epitaxial aluminum contacts to InAs nanowires,” arXiv:1309.4569v1, 2013), (hereinafter, Ziino) in view of Ruckman et al. (US 5,264,394), (hereinafter, Ruckman).
RE Claims 1-5, 12, 18 and 19, Ziino discloses a method of making aluminum superconducting contacts to InAs semiconducting nanowires. method of forming a thin film of material on a surface of a substrate, the substrate comprising a semiconductor, which method comprises:
depositing a thin film of metal on the surface of the substrate “InAs nano wires” on an InAs {111} substrate, hence meeting the limitation od Claim 12, referring to FIGS. 1-3 [page 4, last paragraph];
wherein the deposition is performed in an ultra-high vacuum “ultrahigh vacuum MBE” 10-11 Torr, which is equivalent to 1.33×10-9 Pa [page 2, last paragraph and page 4, paragraph 2]; and
wherein the substrate is at a temperature equal to -15oC, which is equivalent to 258.15K, which is less than 260 K, during the deposition. Examiner notes that the chamber temperature was cooled to a temperature equal to -15oC, which implies that the substrate temperature, upon which the aluminum film was deposited, i.e. the “InAs nano wires”, was at the same temperature, hence meeting the claimed limitation. Furthermore, examiner notes that InAs nanowires, i.e. deposition substrate, was grown in a ultrahigh vacuum chamber at 10-11 Torr, which is equivalent to 1.33×10-9 Pa [page 2, last paragraph and page 4, paragraph 2], subsequently without breaking vacuum, the MBE chamber was cooled to a temperature equal to -15oC [page 4, last two paragraphs], under those conditions the aluminum contact layer was deposited, hence the claimed limitations of Claim 1 are met.
Ziino does not disclose a method, wherein the substrate is in contact with a cold finger during the deposition, the cold finger being at a temperature in the range 110 to 130 K, optionally wherein the cold finger is at a temperature in the range 120 to 130 K.
However, in a related art, Ruckman discloses a method of forming a high-quality oxide on a semiconductor substrate, wherein GaAs (100) wafer was attached to the cold finger using non-magnetic stainless-steel clips on each corner in an ultrahigh vacuum chamber. Furthermore, Ruckman discloses the cold fingers temperature was implemented at a specific temperature in order to prevent residual gases condensation in the vacuum chamber atmosphere after a cool-down of the chamber preventing the sample “substrate” contaminations, hence it appears that the Ruckman disclosure considers cold finger use and its temperature setting is a result effective variable specifically to prevent residual gases contaminating the sample.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, at the effective filing date of the instant application, to attach the InAs substrate of Ziino to cold finger as well-known cost-effective mean to cool the substrate for a high-quality deposited film.
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date the invention was filed to provide the claimed temperature ranges of the cold finger being at a temperature in the range 110 to 130 K, optionally wherein the cold finger is at a temperature in the range 120 to 130 K, since it has been established as a result effective variable, absent unexpected results, since it has been held that discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233; In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980); In re Huang, 100 F.3d 135, 40 USPQ2d 1685, 1688 (Fed. Cir. 1996).
RE Claims 6 and 7, Ziino discloses a method, further comprising, after the deposition, oxidising at least a partial thickness of the thin film of metal to form a metal oxide layer “native oxide”, referring to [page 6, last paragraph]. Examiner notes that a native aluminum oxide was formed due to exposure to the test environment, i.e. exposure of aluminum metal to oxygen gas, hence meeting the claimed limitation of Claim 7 as well. It is noted that the full oxidization of the metal layer is optional as well as the pressure requirements.
RE Claim 10, Ziino discloses a method, wherein the substrate comprises a wafer of semiconductor material InAs; and
wherein the method further comprises, before the deposition, fabricating a semiconductor component on the wafer “InAs nano wires”, optionally wherein fabricating the semiconductor component comprises growing the semiconductor component using molecular beam epitaxy “MBE”, referring to FIGS. 1-3 [pages 2-4].
RE Claim 11, Ziino discloses a method, wherein the substrate comprises a material of Formula 1:
InAsxSb1-x (Formula 1)
where x is in the range 0 to 1.
Since the nano wires are made of InAs, hence X=1, hence meeting the claimed limitation of Claim 11.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ziino et al. (“Epitaxial aluminum contacts to InAs nanowires,” arXiv:1309.4569v1, 2013), (hereinafter, Ziino) in view of HOSAKA et al. (US 2018/0182870), (hereinafter, HOSAKA).
RE Claim 16, Ziino does not disclose a method, wherein the oxygen gas is at a pressure of 0.5 to 1.5 Pa.
However, in a related art, HOSAKA discloses an aluminum oxide film was formed by a reactive sputtering method using an aluminum target and using an oxygen gas as a deposition gas at a room temperature with a pressure of 0.8 Pa, which lies within the claimed range of the pressure of 0.5 to 1.5 Pa.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art, at effective filing date to form aluminum oxide at oxygen gas pressure of 0.8 Pa in order to achieve a high-quality aluminum oxide.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deckers et al. (“Aluminum oxide-aluminum stacks for contact passivation in silicon solar cells,” Energy Procedia, 55, pp 656 – 664, 2014), (hereinafter, Deckers).
RE Claim 20, Deckers does not disclose a device, wherein at least one of the plurality of thin films of metal “aluminum” is deposited on a substrate comprising InAsxSb1-x.
However, examiner takes an Official Notice that use substrate comprising InAsxSb1-x. is used in solar cell “photo voltaic” devices as a well-known material in this field of photovoltaic devices in order to achieve high sensitivity detection.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9, 17 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 8 would 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/29/2206 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Ruckman disclosure considers cold finger use and its temperature setting is a result effective variable specifically to prevent residual gases contaminating the sample, irrespective of the type of the thin film deposited on the sample. The reliance on Ruckman disclosure is for the use of cold finger and ability to adjust their temperatures for the best deposition conditions of a thin film not for a specific thin film type, since residual gas contamination is a universal problem in low temperature thin film depositions.
Therefore, the rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. In the instant case, NAJAFI-YAZDI et al. (US 2020/0399782) discloses an apparatus and method for molecular beam epitaxy. The apparatus comprises an enclosure defining a vacuum chamber. A substrate holder is mounted within the vacuum chamber. At least one molecular beam source is in fluid communication with the vacuum chamber. A cooling shroud having at least one surface is mounted within the vacuum chamber spaced from the substrate holder. A cryocooler having at least a portion extending into the vacuum chamber is operatively coupled to the cooling shroud for extracting heat therefrom, and cooling the at least one surface of the cooling shroud to cryogenic temperatures, wherein cold finger 211 is mounted to the cooling tube 224 and is coupled to the cooling shroud 208, directly or indirectly.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 YASSER ABDELAZIEZ whose telephone number is (571)270-5783. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9 am - 6 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, Leonard Chang can be reached at (571)270-3691. 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.
YASSER A ABDELAZIEZ, PhD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2898
Prosecution Insights