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 § 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3 are 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 Doessel et al. (WO 2017/182179 A1; translation previously provided to the Applicant by the Examiner, all citations below are based upon page and line numbers of the translation provided by the Examiner).
Regarding claim 1, Doessel discloses a method of producing a MEMS component (Abstract), comprising: stacking a first electrode (10), a ferroelectric layer (16, AlScN), a second electrode (14), a piezoelectric layer (18) and a third electrode (12) in this order (Abstract; figs. 1 and 3; pg. 3, lines 5-9; pp. 5-6, lines 21-38 and 1-4; pg. 10, lines 21-38), wherein the ferroelectric layer and the piezoelectric layer comprise the same direction of polarization (pg. 5, lines 3-9; pg. 7, lines 15-24) and wherein the ferroelectric layer comprises AIN and at least one nitride of a transition metal (AlScN: pg. 4, lines 10-14), a proportion of the at least one nitride of the transition metal being selected such that a direction of a polarity of the ferroelectric material is switchable by applying a switchover voltage, the switchover voltage being below a breakdown voltage of the ferroelectric material; and following the stacking, applying a switchover voltage to the first electrode and to the second electrode, wherein the applied switchover voltage causes the polarization direction of the first ferroelectric layer to be reversed (figs. 1 and 3; pg. 5, lines 3-9; pg. 12, lines 18-24).
Though it is not explicitly recited that the cited ferroelectric material (AlScN: pg. 4, lines 10-14) is in the same embodiment as the recitation of the ferroelectric layer having a switchover voltage applied to change the direction of the polarization (pg. 5, lines 3-9; pg. 12, lines 18-24), it is reasonably held that Doessel does not disclose that they are distinct embodiments. Further POSITA would have realized that the reversable polarity of AlScN was well-known and understood prior to the effective filing date of the invention, and that it would have been obvious to Doessel that the any of the disclosed ferroelectric materials, including the AlScN ferroelectric would be easily and readily re-poled by application of an electric field in the same manner as explicitly disclosed by Doessel with regards to the “lead zirconate titanate (PZT), potassium sodium niobate (KNN), Magnesium niobium titanate (PMN-PT), bismuth sodium titanate (BNT) and / or bismuth iron oxide (BFO)” of the cited portion. This is further supported by the fact that Doessel states that the ferroelectric “may be” formed “at least partially” from PZT, KNN, PMN-PT, BNT and/or BFO which indicates that the ferroelectric was understood as potentially containing other known ferroelectric materials, such as AlScN, which was expressly disclosed by Doessel as another preferred material. POSITA would have known that this substitution was obvious and readily incorporated and would have done so with reasonable expectations of success.
Regarding claim 2, Doessel discloses the method of claim 1 further comprising stacking the first electrode, the ferroelectric layer, the second electrode, the piezoelectric layer and the third electrode on a substrate (substrate: 30) (pg. 3, lines 32-33; pg. 9, lines 21-26).
Regarding claim 3, Doessel discloses the method as claimed in claim 2, wherein the substrate adjoins either the first electrode or the third electrode (fig. 2).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/30/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In the reply of 06/30/2026, the Applicant asserted that they were not provided a copy of the translation of Doessel used by the Examiner. This is not factual, as the Examiner provided a copy of the WIPO translation in the previous office action. This copy can easily be found by simply reviewing the application file wrapper, NPL document mailed 03/03/2026. The subsequent copy provided by the Applicant has paragraph numbers which make no logical sense and appear in the middle of paragraphs and even in the middle of sentences. As such, the current rejections and response to argument rely upon the translation already provided and previously cited by the Examiner.
The Applicant’s arguments against Doessel have split the reference into two purportedly distinct embodiments of that reference. This division is artificial and not supported by the actual facts at hand in the Doessel reference. While it is true that Doessel discloses two embodiments of the product being formed, it is also quite clear that there is only one embodiment of the actual method of manufacture. Given that the claims and rejection of the claims are directed to a method of manufacture and not to a product, the argument that the Examiner has improperly combined embodiments without a rationale for such combination is not persuasive or compelling. It is quite evident to any POSITA that the method of Doessel discloses a single embodiment with potential Markush style alternative steps. Just as the Applicant is permitted to claim Markush alternatives, it is also permissible to use such substitutions within the thrust of the disclosed inventive concept of the prior art. More importantly, the Examiner did not reject the claims using Doessel as a pure 102 anticipation rejection and instead properly used the 102/103 rejection wherein it was correctly held that any POSITA would easily understand that the material selection of one purported embodiment or the other would be quite obvious and that the disclosed method of manufacture is applicable equally to either of the supposed embodiments. As a courtesy, in the event that the Applicant did not agree that the “embodiments” of Doessel were more accurately understood to be alternatives usable together, the Examiner also clearly provided proper rationale for combination. The Applicant has asserted that POSITA would not have thought to combine the elements of the disclosed alternatives of Doessel without knowledge of the instant claims. This argument is directed to the logical fallacy of an ad hoc argument and is a conclusory statement which does not rely on any factual evidence. The Examiner did not combine two references from entirely different fields of endeavor without any rationale for combination. Instead, the Examiner provided two alternatives from a single prior art reference (Doessel) and cited portions of the reference wherein it is quite clear that the preferred materials would be obvious to select from without any effect on the actual steps of the disclosed method of Doessel. Further, the Examiner cited a single method, and not two embodiments of two different methods. The claims are directed to a method, not a product, and Doessel is properly applied in rejection of that method and in rejection of the preferred materials of the product being manufactured in the method. As such, the Applicant’s improper piecemeal argument is not found to be compelling. Respectfully, the Applicant is reminded that one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references or embodiments individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references or embodiments. Accordingly, the materials and method of Doessel are found to remain properly cited as a 102/103 rejection of the claimed method.
The Applicant has subsequently argued that the cited “first ferroelectric layer” (16 in Doessel) is not a ferroelectric material layer simply because it is referred to as a piezoelectric layer. This is an incorrect argument based upon the logical fallacy known as false dichotomy. Two things can be true, just as a material can have two names and two (or many) material properties. As the Applicant is likely well aware, piezoelectricity and ferroelectricity are not simply referential names to be applied to a material but instead are intrinsic materials properties. Respectfully, it is simply not germane whether Doessel calls the cited layers a piezoelectric layer or a ferroelectric layer or any other name. In response to applicant’s arguments that Doessel failed to disclose the specific properties recited in the rejected claims (i.e. a ferroelectric layer and a piezoelectric layer), the applicant is respectfully advised that products of identical structure or chemical composition, or produced by identical or substantially identical processes, cannot have mutually exclusive properties. A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not. The Applicant has not in any manner satisfied this burden of proof. In fact, the Examiner expressly cited not just the reference numeral for the argued ferroelectric layer (disclosed as a piezoelectric layer in Doessel) but also cited the material of the first ferroelectric layer (16) as being explicitly disclosed as AlScN. It is not relevant whether Doessel calls this layer a ferroelectric layer, because it is intrinsic to the cited material that it is a ferroelectric material. Put simply, “a rose by any other name would smell as sweet” (Wm. Shakespeare); that is to say: a rose is intrinsically a rose, no matter the name it may be given, just as AlScN is intrinsically a ferroelectric material, even if it is also a piezoelectric material. Perhaps most importantly, Doessel, expressly and unequivocally discloses the method “to form at least the first piezoelectric layer or the second piezoelectric layer as a ferroelectric layer” (pg. 12, lines 18-19; emphasis added). Accordingly, the Examiner’s previously and currently cited interpretation of the prior art is a direct result of the exact disclosure of Doessel.
The Applicant has continued the line of argument directed toward attempting to refute the rejection based upon the existence of two purportedly distinct embodiments in Doessel. The Applicant asserted that the cited method of Doessel discloses that the two layers (piezoelectric and ferroelectric) have the same direction of polarity or that when they do have opposite directions of polarity, it is a naturally occurring situation and does not require the claimed method step of “applying a switchover voltage” such that “the polarization direction of the first ferroelectric layer [is] reversed”. Respectfully, this argument is not compelling as it ignores the expressly cited disclosure in Doessel of applying the voltage to change the polarization direction of the ferroelectric layer, and it ignores the fact that Doessel explicitly discloses the method wherein the prior art forms “at least the first piezoelectric layer or the second piezoelectric layer as a ferroelectric layer” (pg. 12, lines 18-19). In pg. 12 of Doessel, it is disclosed that:
[A]fter forming the at least one ferroelectric layer (possibly in a further process step, not shown) whose subsequent polarization component means of an applied electric field. (The electric field applied for determining the polarization component / polarization can be greater than a coercitive [sic] field, in particular.) Thus, electric fields (or voltages) with the polarization component desired for the grown-up layer in at least one of the method steps S2 and S4 can also be used to define the respective Polarization component of the relevant piezoelectric layer can be used. Specifically, during the process step S2, in forming the first piezoelectric layer, a first electric field oriented in a first direction may prevail, while in performing the process step S4 for forming the second piezoelectric layer, a second electric field oriented in a reverse direction (opposite to the first direction) Field is used.
As such, it is clear that Doessel does in fact disclose the application of a switchover voltage to change the direction of polarization of the ferroelectric layer to be opposite that of the piezoelectric layer. Accordingly, the Applicant’s argument is not found to be compelling.
Applicant continues by asserting that the purported “second embodiment” of Doessel does not disclose the AlScN layer and therefore does not disclose a ferroelectric layer as claimed and as cited by the Examiner. Essentially, the Applicant appears to be arguing that because Doessel subsequently discloses that the ferroelectric layer may be formed from different materials this somehow renders it impossible to use the cited material (AlScN). This is, of course, not compelling, for all of the reasons clearly detailed by the Examiner in the preceding several paragraphs. The cited portion of page 12 of Doessel does not require that the ferroelectric material must only be formed from PZT, KNN, PMN-PT, BNT or BFO. In fact, Doessel expressly states that the ferroelectric material “may be” (pg. 12, lines 28-30) selected from this list of materials, which obviously also means that is may not be selected from said list, and instead can be the previously disclosed and cited AlScN material, which has already been discussed above as being ferroelectric as an intrinsic material property. Accordingly, Doessel does in fact disclose that the ferroelectric material “comprises AlN” and therefore the Applicant’s argument is not compelling.
The remaining arguments presented by the Applicant are a re-packaging of the same arguments already rebutted in the paragraphs above directed to the Examiner’s Response to Arguments. These arguments have been addressed and answered satisfactorily and completely by the Examiner and therefore will not be redundantly answered herein.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Sinha et al. (US 2009/0289526 A1) is held to be of particular relevance to the claimed method. Sinha discloses a very similar method of manufacturing a MEMS component (par. 0002), including stacking a first electrode (131), a ferroelectric layer (120), a second electrode (133), a piezoelectric layer (140) and a third electrode (132) in this order, wherein the ferroelectric layer and the piezoelectric layer comprise the same direction of polarization and wherein the ferroelectric layer comprises AIN and at least one nitride of a transition metal (fig. 2; pars. 0020 and 0040-0042), and applying a switchover voltage to the first electrode and to the second electrode, wherein the applied switchover voltage causes the polarization direction of the first ferroelectric layer to be reversed (figs. 2 and 4A; pars. 0012 and 0047-0048).
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 Jeffrey T Carley whose telephone number is (571)270-5609. The examiner can normally be reached 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, Thomas Hong can be reached at (571)272-0993. 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
Prosecution Insights