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 § 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.
Claims 1-5, 9 and 12-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Teshigahara et al. (US 2016/0064645) in view of Bartzsch et al. (US 2016/0369390).
With respect to claim 1, Teshigahara et al. discloses a piezoelectric film, comprising scandium aluminum nitride, carbon, and oxygen, wherein concentration of the carbon is 2.5 atomic percent or less (Abstract) while a concentration of the oxygen is 0.35 atomic percent or less (wherein a concentration of 0 falls within this range).
Teshigahara et al. does not disclose that the concentration of the oxygen is greater than 0 atomic percent.
Bartzsch et al. teaches a piezoelectric film including an aluminum nitride based piezoelectric material in which the concentration of oxygen is greater than 0 atomic percent (Paragraph 28).
Before the effective filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the oxygen content of Bartzsch et al. with the piezoelectric film of Teshigahara et al. for the benefit of facilitating the manufacturing process of the piezoelectric thin film, as oxygen is part of the rection environment (Paragraph 28 of Bartzsch et al.).
With respect to claim 2, the combination of Teshigahara et al. and Bartzsch et al. discloses the piezoelectric film according to claim 1. Teshigahara et al. discloses that the concentration of the carbon is 2.5 atomic percent or less (Abstract) while the concentration of the oxygen is 0.1 atomic percent or less (wherein a concentration of 0 falls within this range).
With respect to claim 3, the combination of Teshigahara et al. and Bartzsch et al. discloses the piezoelectric film according to claim 1. Teshigahara et al. discloses that the concentration of carbon is 1.0 atomic percent or less (Abstract) while the concentration of oxygen is 0.2 atomic percent or less (wherein a concentration of 0 falls within this range).
With respect to claim 4, the combination of Teshigahara et al. and Bartzsch et al. discloses the piezoelectric film according to claim 1. Teshigahara et al. discloses that the concentration of the carbon is 0.3 atomic percent or less (Abstract) while the concentration of the oxygen is 0.1 atomic percent or less (wherein a concentration of 0 falls within this range).
With respect to claim 5, the combination of Teshigahara et al. and Bartzsch et al. discloses the piezoelectric film according to claim 1. Teshigahara et al. discloses that the concentration of the carbon is 0.7 atomic percent or less (Abstract) while the concentration of the oxygen is 0.1 atomic percent or less (wherein a concentration of 0 falls within this range).
With respect to claim 9, the combination of Teshigahara et al. and Bartzsch et al. discloses the piezoelectric film according to claim 1. Teshigahara et al. discloses that a composition of the piezoelectric film is ScxAl1-xN, where x is greater than or equal to 0.3 and less than 1 (Paragraph 27).
With respect to claim 12, the combination of Teshigahara et al. and Bartzsch et al. discloses the piezoelectric film according to claim 1. Teshigahara et al. discloses that the concentration of the carbon is greater than 0 atomic percent (Abstract).
With respect to claim 13, the combination of Teshigahara et al. and Bartzsch et al. discloses the piezoelectric film according to claim 1. Bartzsch et al. discloses that the concentration of the oxygen is 0.01 atomic percent or more (Paragraph 28).
With respect to claim 14, the combination of Teshigahara et al. and Bartzsch et al. discloses the piezoelectric film according to claim 1, wherein the concentration of the oxygen in atomic percent (at%) is defined as a ratio of a number of oxygen atoms relative to a total number of scandium atoms, aluminum atoms, and nitrogen atoms in the scandium aluminum nitride, the total number of the scandium atoms, the aluminum atoms, and the nitrogen atoms being taken as 100 at% (Abstract of Teshigahara et al. and paragraph 28 of Bartzsch et al., wherein this language merely states a definition of terms and does not further limit the features of the claim).
With respect to claim 15, the combination of Teshigahara et al. and Bartzsch et al. discloses the piezoelectric film according to claim 1. The language “wherein a piezoelectric strain constant d33 of the piezoelectric film is greater than or equal to 17 [pC/N]” is merely a statement of an inherent material property. Because the prior art discloses each of the claimed structural features of the claimed composition, any material properties are presumed to be inherent.
With respect to claim 16, the combination of Teshigahara et al. and Bartzsch et al. discloses the piezoelectric film according to claim 1. The language “wherein a piezoelectric strain constant d33 of the piezoelectric film is greater than or equal to 19 [pC/N]” is merely a statement of an inherent material property. Because the prior art discloses each of the claimed structural features of the claimed composition, any material properties are presumed to be inherent.
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Teshigahara et al. in view of Bartzsch et al. and Grosh et al. (US 2015/0350792).
With respect to claim 10, Teshigahara et al. discloses the piezoelectric film according to claim 1.
Teshigahara et al. does not disclose that the piezoelectric film is disposed above a diaphragm portion of a micro-electro-mechanical systems (MEMS) sensor, the MEMS sensor including a substrate and the diaphragm portion, the diaphragm portion being disposed above the substrate.
Grosh et al. teaches a piezoelectric device in which the piezoelectric film is disposed above a diaphragm portion of a micro-electro-mechanical systems (MEMS) sensor, the MEMS sensor including a substrate and the diaphragm portion, the diaphragm portion being disposed above the substrate (Paragraph 8).
Before the effective filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the MEMS sensor device of Grosh et al. and the piezoelectric film of Teshigahara et al. for the benefit of providing a commonly used application of piezoelectric films (Paragraph 3 of Grosh et al.).
With respect to claim 11, Teshigahara et al. discloses the piezoelectric film according to claim 1.
Teshigahara et al. does not disclose that the piezoelectric film is disposed above a substrate of a micro-electro-mechanical systems (MEMS) sensor.
Grosh et al. teaches a piezoelectric device in which the piezoelectric film is disposed above a substrate of a micro-electro-mechanical systems (MEMS) sensor (Paragraph 8).
Before the effective filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the MEMS sensor device of Grosh et al. and the piezoelectric film of Teshigahara et al. for the benefit of providing a commonly used application of piezoelectric films (Paragraph 3 of Grosh et al.).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 14 August 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Bartzsch et al. does not disclose the claimed concentration of oxygen being greater than zero, arguing that Bartzsch aims to reduce the amount of oxygen in the composition. However, whether or not Bartzsch aims to reduce the amount of oxygen does not change the fact that oxygen is present in a small amount. In paragraph 28, Bartzsch et al. discloses the amount of oxygen with the quantity Z in the formula AlxNyOz, with z being in the range 0.001≤z≤0.1.
Conclusion
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 Derek John Rosenau whose telephone number is (571)272-8932. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7 am to 5:30 pm Central Time.
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, Dedei Hammond can be reached at (571) 270-7938. 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.
/DEREK J ROSENAU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2837
