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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 07/11/2023 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: “Method of Producing a Ferroelectric and Piezoelectric MEMS Component”.
Applicant is respectfully reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the examined claims are drawn to a method, and not to a product. Contrary to the guidelines for content of the abstract as detailed above, the current abstract does not disclose the steps of the claimed process. Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claims 1-3 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 should begin with “A method…” and claims 2-3 should begin with “The method…”.
Claim 1 is further objected to, as it discloses: “a first electrode, a first ferroelectric layer, a second electrode, a second piezoelectric layer and a third electrode in this order” (2nd-3rd lines of the claim; emphasis added). Though not necessarily indefinite, this language is confusing, as there is no “first piezoelectric layer” in the claim even though it recites a “second piezoelectric layer”. The claim should be amended to recite either: “a first electrode, a ferroelectric layer, a second electrode, a piezoelectric layer and a third electrode in this order”, or “a first electrode, a first ferroelectric layer, a second electrode, a first piezoelectric layer and a third electrode in this order”, or the like.
Further still, the final three lines of claim 1 are objected to, as they disclose: “applying a switchover voltage to the first electrode and to the second electrode, wherein the polarization direction of the first ferroelectric layer is reversed, so that the polarization direction of the first ferroelectric layer is reversed”, which is redundant and thus somewhat confusing. The limitation should instead be disclosed as: “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 [[is]] to be reversed.”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 2-3 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 2 discloses “Method as claimed in wherein the first electrode, the first ferroelectric layer, the second electrode, the second piezoelectric layer and the third electrode are stacked on a substrate, and the method further comprising: integrating one or more circuit components of an integrated circuit using a CMOS process in the substrate before or after stacking the first electrode, the first ferroelectric layer, the second electrode, the second piezoelectric layer and the third electrode” (lines 1-8; emphasis added). There are indefiniteness issues with both of the italicized portions of this claim. The first issue is that it is unclear whether the inclusion of a substrate is intended to be a step in the claimed method. This is because the purported step is disclosed in the preamble of the claim, and because it is not positively recited as an active step, instead being recited in the passive voice which begs the question of whether the stacking on the substrate has been performed before the claimed method. The second issue is that the claim is directed to a method (i.e. a process) and the body of the claim discloses that the process comprises “a… process” with no description of what that purported “CMOS process” may be. To define a method as being performed by a method is redundant and confusing and renders the scope of the claim indefinite. There are any number of steps in a CMOS process and the reader cannot possibly guess which, or how many, of those steps are intended to be included. This problem is greatly exacerbated by the fact that the claim only vaguely refers to “integrating one or more components of an integrated circuit”. There are many potential components in an integrated circuit. Is the Applicant referring to a diode or a resistor or a transistor or a wire or a substrate or solder or a dielectric, etc.? The reader cannot possibly guess what structure or “process” are intended and thus the claim is indefinite. As currently presented, any component usable in an integrated circuit device is held to read on the “one or more circuit components”, and any technique which can be used to incorporate one or more of those components is held to read on the “CMOS process”. The inclusion of the substrate in the first portion of the claim is being interpreted as intended to be a positive step and that portion of the claim should be amended to disclose something akin to: “The [m]ethod of claim 1, further comprising: stacking the first electrode, the first ferroelectric layer, the second electrode, the second piezoelectric layer and the third electrode …”.
Claim 3 is also rejected as indefinite, so rendered by virtue of its dependency upon the indefinite subject matter of claim 2.
NOTE: Claims 2-3 have been interpreted and examined as best understood according to the 112(b) rejections, above.
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 provided by Examiner, all citations below are based upon page and line numbers of the provided translation).
Regarding claim 1, Doessel discloses [a] method of producing a MEMS component (Abstract), comprising: stacking a first electrode (10), a first ferroelectric layer (16, AlScN), a second electrode (14), a second 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 first ferroelectric layer and the second piezoelectric layer comprise the same direction of polarization (pg. 5, lines 3-9; pg. 7, lines 15-24) and wherein at least the first ferroelectric layer comprises a ferroelectric material comprising a *mixed crystal comprising AlN and at least one nitride of a transition metal (AlScN: pg. 4, lines 10-14); wherein the proportion of the nitride of the transition metal is 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 the method further comprising: applying a switchover voltage to the first electrode and to the second electrode, wherein the polarization direction of the first ferroelectric layer is reversed, so that the polarization direction of the first ferroelectric layer is reversed (figs. 1 and 3; pg. 5, lines 3-9; pg. 12, lines 18-24).
Though it is not entirely clear that the recitation of the ferroelectric layer being a mixed crystal (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 AlScN ferroelectric would be easily and readily re-poled by application of an electric field in the same manner as with 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 is “at least partially” 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. POSITA would have known that this substitution was obvious and readily incorporated and would have done so with reasonable expectations of success.
*NOTE: the term “mixed crystal” is not an industry standard, and the disclosure in the claim of the “mixed crystal comprising AlN and at least one nitride of a transition metal” implies that there are effectively two crystal compounds in the ferroelectric, one being AlN and the other being a distinct transition metal nitride, is confusing and misleading. This interpretation is based expressly upon the Applicant’s own disclosure, which amounts to a special definition, wherein (on at least pages 2 and 18-19 of the specification) the Applicant has defined the claimed “mixed crystal” as being as simple as an Aluminum Nitride which is compounded with a transition metal, as in the cited AlScN of Doessel. The claimed mixed crystal does not require two separate nitrides as implied in the claim language.
Regarding claim 2, Doessel discloses [the] method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the first electrode, the first ferroelectric layer, the second electrode, the second piezoelectric layer and the third electrode are stacked on a substrate (substrate: 30) (pg. 3, lines 32-33; pg. 9, lines 21-26), and the method further comprising: integrating one or more circuit components (24, 26, 32, 34, 36, 38) of an integrated circuit using a CMOS process in the substrate before or after stacking the first electrode, the first ferroelectric layer, the second electrode, the second piezoelectric layer and the third electrode (figs. 1-2; pp. 7-8, lines 40 and 1-3; 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).
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, Larson, III et al. (US 9,679,765 B2) is held to be of particular relevance to the claimed invention (see at least figs. 3A-3B and associated disclosure).
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, Sunil Singh can be reached at (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