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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendments filed on August 4, 2026 have been entered. Claims 1-10 are pending. The amendments entered to the presented claims have overcome the prior 103 rejections in the Non-Final Office Action dated June 3, 2026.
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 1-3 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akiyama et al (NPL "Enhancement of Piezoelectric Response...") in view of Suzuki et al (NPL "Polarity-inverted ScAlN film growth..."), Hiru et al (JP2020526471A), and Mizuno et al (NPL "Germanium aluminum nitride thin films...").
Regarding claim 1, Akiyama teaches a scandium aluminum nitride piezoelectric material. The nitride material is represented by the formula ScxAl1-xN whereby the piezoelectric coefficient gradually increases with increasing Sc concentration from 0-43% (Fig. 3). Akiyama discloses these alloys with Sc content up to 0.43 or 43% have the strongest piezoelectric responses. Thus, Akiyama suggests a Sc content of 0 to 0.43 which overlaps with the claimed range of X is greater than 0 and not greater than 0.4. Overlapping ranges have been held to present a prima facie case of obviousness over the prior art. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to select from the overlapping portion of the range to prepare a nitride material having a tailored strong piezoelectric response to the user’s preference to arrive at the limitation as claimed. Akiyama is silent on the polarity and addition of a material “MY” as claimed. Suzuki teaches polarity characteristics of ScAlN piezoelectric films. Suzuki teaches the film can be classified as N-polarity (nitrogen polarity) or Al-polarity (aluminum polarity). Suzuki teaches that having films of controlled polarity makes it possible to obtain “high-performance FBAR and NLO devices”. For instance, polarity-inverted multilayer FBAR excites high overtone mode resonance, enabling high frequency or high power operation. Suzuki further teaches that N-polarity can be induced by growing films on an oxide ingot or by growing films with an RF bias of 0-0.75W (by enhancing ion beam irradiation during film growth). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to control the polarity of the grown ScAlN film of Akiyama, as informed by Suzuki, by growing the film on an oxide ingot or in an RF bias of 0-0.75W such that N-polarity is achieved which can be used for obtaining high-performance piezoelectric-based devices and arrive at the limitation as claimed. Hiru teaches modification of AlN structures/nitride materials. Hiru discloses that including Sc can lower shared valence and increase piezoelectricity of the doped AlN (see Fig 8). Hiru also teaches electron substitution via Al-replacement by Si. Si can serve as a deep level donor that can reduce conductivity. Additionally, Hiru discloses other compounds useful in mixing with AlN to form a doped AlN material includes Ge3N4 as Ge crystallizes into a defect-containing wurtzite structure in which cation vacancies are ordered. Hiru does not disclose specific amounts of Si or Ge to include. Mizuno similarly teaches modification of aluminum nitride thin films, although specific to AlN as opposed to ScAlN. Mizuno does not teach away from modifying scandium aluminum nitrides though, thus the teachings of Hiru above work in convergence with Mizuno to modify embodiments of Akiyama and Suzuki. Mizuno specifically teaches modification of AlN with doping of Germanium to control piezoelectric polarity helping to expand AlN applications which is analogous to teachings of Suzuki. Mizuno found that Ge doping into AlN thin film inverses polarity to nitrogen polarity without degrading piezoelectricity. Thus, the high piezoelectric constant of Akiyama would be expected to maintain if modifying with Ge doping to obtain nitrogen polarity. Mizuno finds that Ge doping pushes N-polarity (Fig. 4) around concentrations of 1 at% (Y = 0.01 as claimed) up to at% of around 23% (Y = 0.23 as claimed). Thus, Mizuno suggests Ge doping in ranges greater than 0 and less than or equal to 0.23 which overlaps with the claimed range. In combination with the overlapping range of Akiyama for Sc content, the ratio of X/Y maintains overlapping ranges whereby X/Y is less than or equal to 5 as well. Overlapping ranges have been held to present a prima facie case of obviousness over the prior art. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to select from the overlapping portion of the range of including Ge to dope an aluminum nitride based piezoelectric in order to obtain nitrogen polarity without degrading piezoelectricity to arrive at the invention as claimed. Thus, Akiyama, Suzuki, Hiru, and Mizuno teach the claimed “A nitride material represented by the chemical formula ScxMyAl1-x-yN and having nitrogen polarity, wherein: M is at least one or more elements among Si, Ge, and Sn; X is greater than 0 and not greater than 0.4; Y is greater than 0 and not greater than 0.2; and X/Y is less than or equal to 5”.
Regarding claim 2, Akiyama, Suzuki, Hiru, and Mizuno teach the nitride material of claim 1. Mizuno teaches specifically doping with solely Ge in order to obtain nitrogen polarity. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to dope the scandium aluminum nitride film with Ge to obtain nitrogen polarity without degrading piezoelectricity to obtain a high-performance piezoelectric-based device and arrive at the invention as claimed. Thus, Akiyama, Suzuki, Hiru, and Mizuno teach the claimed “The nitride material according to claim 1, wherein M is any one element among Si, Ge, and Sn”.
Regarding claim 3, Akiyama, Suzuki, Hiru, and Mizuno teach the nitride material of claim 2. As described in the rejection of claim 1, Akiyama and Mizuno teach overlapping ranges for X (Akiyama) and for Y (Mizuno) whereby X/Y could also be less than or equal to 5. The claimed range for Y is identical to that of claim 1 while the claimed range of X is reduced from 0.4 to 0.35. Akiyama teaches that the piezoelectric coefficient peaks up to a Sc content of 0.43 but the coefficient remains sufficiently high for use in devices up to ~0.3 (Fig. 3) before sharply dropping around 0.35 and spiking again at 0.4-0.43. Thus, Akiyama still teaches a strongly overlapping range whereby the coefficient remains sufficiently high between 0 and ~0.3 Sc. Overlapping ranges have been held to present a prima facie case of obviousness over the prior art. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to select from the overlapping portion of the range for including a Sc content to obtain a sufficiently high or desired piezoelectric constant of the nitride material to arrive at the invention as claimed. Thus, Akiyama, Suzuki, Hiru, and Mizuno teach the claimed “The nitride material according to claim 2, wherein: X is greater than 0 and not greater than 0.35; Y is greater than 0 and not greater than 0.2; and X/Y is less than or equal to 5”.
Regarding claim 6, Akiyama, Suzuki, Hiru, and Mizuno teach the nitride material of claim 1. Akiyama teaches there is a high-demand for piezoelectric sensors and that scandium aluminum nitride are commonly used as piezoelectric thin films which are both piezoelectric bodies. Akiyama prepares their nitride material as a piezoelectric film, thus a piezoelectric body. Thus, Akiyama, Suzuki, Hiru, and Mizuno teach the claimed “A piezoelectric body formed of the nitride material according to claim 1.”.
Claims 4-5 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akiyama et al (NPL "Enhancement of Piezoelectric Response...") in view of Suzuki et al (NPL "Polarity-inverted ScAlN film growth..."), Hiru et al (JP2020526471A), and Mizuno et al (NPL "Germanium aluminum nitride thin films...") as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Gibb et al (US PGPub 20190259934).
Regarding claim 4, Akiyama, Suzuki, Hiru, and Mizuno teach the nitride material of claim 1. Akiyama teaches growth of the nitride material onto a substrate without mentioning an intermediate layer. Gibb similarly teaches implementation/use of aluminum nitride materials for use in piezoelectrics. From paragraphs [0081-83], Gibb teaches growing the nitride material (single crystal material) on a nucleation layer which is disposed directly upon the substrate. In paragraph [0083], Gibb discloses that the nucleation layers can be any single or combination of “AlN, AlGaN, GaN, InN, InGaN, AlInN, AlInGaN, and BN”. As described in paragraph [0081], Gibb teaches that the nucleation layer can be used to engineer strain in the subsequently formed structure. From paragraph [0084], strain engineering via growth parameter modification enables changing the piezoelectric properties of the grown epitaxial films. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to include an intermediate layer, such as a nucleation layer, between the nitride material and the substrate, for strain engineering and modifying piezoelectric properties of the growing nitride material. Thus, Akiyama, Suzuki, Hiru, Mizuno, and Gibb teach the claimed “A nitride material comprising the nitride material according to claim 1, the nitride material being disposed on a substrate, wherein at least one intermediate layer is disposed between the nitride material and the substrate”.
Regarding claim 5, Akiyama, Suzuki, Hiru, Mizuno, and Gibb teach the nitride material of claim 4. In paragraph [0083], Gibb discloses that the nucleation layers can be any single or combination of “AlN, AlGaN, GaN, InN, InGaN, AlInN, AlInGaN, and BN”. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to select from the overlapping list of nucleation layers as known suitable nucleation layers for growth of nitride materials in piezoelectrics and arrive at the invention as claimed. Thus, Akiyama, Suzuki, Hiru, Mizuno, and Gibb teach the claimed “The nitride material according to claim 4, wherein the intermediate layer contains at least one of aluminum nitride, gallium nitride, indium nitride, titanium nitride, scandium nitride, ytterbium nitride, molybdenum, tungsten, hafnium, titanium, ruthenium, ruthenium oxide, chromium, chromium nitride, platinum, gold, silver, copper, aluminum, tantalum, iridium, palladium, and nickel”.
Regarding claim 10, Akiyama, Suzuki, Hiru, and Mizuno teach the nitride material of claim 1 which can be broadly implemented into piezoelectric-based devices such as those claimed. Gibb teaches that nitride materials can be applied to electronic devices such as high electron mobility transistors or heterojunction bi-polar transistors (paragraph [0005]). Thus, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to implement the nitride material into known devices such as transistors due to their improved piezoelectric performance and arrive at the invention as claimed. Thus, Akiyama, Suzuki, Hiru, Mizuno, and Gibb teach the claimed “A transistor, an inverter, a transducer, a SAW device, or a ferroelectric memory using the nitride material according to claim 1”.
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akiyama et al (NPL "Enhancement of Piezoelectric Response...") in view of Suzuki et al (NPL "Polarity-inverted ScAlN film growth..."), Hiru et al (JP2020526471A), and Mizuno et al (NPL "Germanium aluminum nitride thin films...") as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Soric et al (US PGPub 20220085795).
Regarding claim 7, Akiyama, Suzuki, Hiru, and Mizuno teach the nitride material of claim 1. Akiyama teaches a piezoelectric thin film which includes the nitride material but does not disclose disposing this nitride material on the surface of a scandium-containing nitride material (SczAl1-zN where 0 < Z ≤ 0.4 or Sc included at 0-40 at%). Soric teaches a layering approach whereby each layer is a piezoelectric thin film containing ScAlN which can be utilized in acoustic based devices (paragraph [0023]). These ScAlN layers may comprise varied concentrations of Sc and may also alternate between higher and lower concentrations of Sc (i.e., one layer 0-25% Sc, the next 25-50% and so on, see paragraph [0020]). The higher concentration layers can be used as etch stops. Additionally, in paragraph [0021], Soric teaches that Sc concentrations >27% may provide ferro-electric properties and may be selected based on the desired frequency characteristics. Overlapping ranges have been held to present a prima facie case of obviousness over the prior art. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to select from the overlapping portion of the range to arrive at the invention as claimed or utilize “high” concentrations of 27% such that the ScAlN layer serves as an etch stop and provides ferro-electric properties or layer the original ScAlN embodiment of Akiyama alone as the scandium containing nitride material. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to dispose the nitride material of Akiyama, in view of Suzuki, Hiru, and Mizuno, onto the nitride material as informed by Soric for use in acoustic based devices. Thus, Akiyama, Suzuki, Hiru, Mizuno, and Soric teach the claimed “A piezoelectric body comprising the nitride material according to claim 1, wherein the nitride material is disposed on a surface of a scandium- containing nitride material represented by the chemical formula SczAl1-zN (0 < Z< 0.4)”.
Regarding claim 8, Akiyama, Suzuki, Hiru, Mizuno, and Soric teach the piezoelectric body of claim 7. Soric teaches layering the ScAlN structure as part of a bulk-acoustic wave resonator or other acoustic devices (paragraph [0023]). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to stack or layer the thin films for use in acoustic devices. Thus, Akiyama, Suzuki, Hiru, Mizuno, and Soric teach the claimed “A piezoelectric body comprising a stack of at least two or more piezoelectric bodies according to claim 7”.
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akiyama et al (NPL "Enhancement of Piezoelectric Response...") in view of Suzuki et al (NPL "Polarity-inverted ScAlN film growth..."), Hiru et al (JP2020526471A), and Mizuno et al (NPL "Germanium aluminum nitride thin films...") as applied to claims 6 and 1 above, and further in view of Teshigahara et al (US PGPub 20160064645).
Regarding claim 9, Akiyama, Suzuki, Hiru, and Mizuno teach the piezoelectric body of claim 6. The joint embodiments of Akiyama, Suzuki, Hiru, and Mizuno teach enablement of piezoelectric bodies for various implementation of piezoelectric-devices but do not specifically disclose a MEMS device. Teshigahara analogously teaches implementation of scandium aluminum nitrides for piezoelectrics. In paragraph [0003], Teshigahara discloses that piezoelectric thin films (or bodies) including scandium aluminum nitride can be applied to a microelectromechanical system (MEMS) and the like. Thus, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to implement the piezoelectric body including scandium aluminum nitride to a known device such as MEMS and arrive at the invention as claimed. Thus, Akiyama, Suzuki, Hiru, Mizuno, and Teshigahara teach the claimed “A MEMS device using the piezoelectric body according to claim 6”.
Regarding claim 10, Akiyama, Suzuki, Hiru, and Mizuno teach the nitride material of claim 1. The joint embodiments of Akiyama, Suzuki, Hiru, and Mizuno teach enablement of piezoelectric bodies for various implementation of piezoelectric-devices but do not specifically disclose the devices as claimed. Teshigahara analogously teaches implementation of scandium aluminum nitrides for piezoelectrics. In paragraph [0003], Teshigahara discloses that piezoelectric thin films including scandium aluminum nitride can be applied to a surface acoustic wave (SAW) element. Thus, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to implement the piezoelectric body including scandium aluminum nitride to a known device such as a SAW device and arrive at the invention as claimed. Thus, Akiyama, Suzuki, Hiru, Mizuno, and Teshigahara teach the claimed “A transistor, an inverter, a transducer, a SAW device, or a ferroelectric memory using the nitride material according to claim 1”.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-10 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant’s Remarks request for an interview. However since the previous rejection is not what has been maintained and the amended claims require a substantial new grounds of rejection, request for interview is denied until the new grounds of rejection is of record and Applicant reviews the new grounds of rejection.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Sadhu et al (US PGPub 20190305752) teach motivation for nitrogen and/or aluminum polarity of aluminum nitride materials.
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 Noa W. F. Grooms whose telephone number is (571)272-9981. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-3:30PM EST.
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, Curtis Mayes can be reached at (571) 272-1234. 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.
/NWFG/Examiner, Art Unit 1759
/MELVIN C. MAYES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1759
Prosecution Insights