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
Claims 11-16, 21-27 are pending. claim 13 is rejected under prior art. Claims 23 and 26 are rejected under 112 rejections. Claims 11-12, 14-16, 21-27 are allowed over the applied prior art.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. It is not clear wherein the specification specifically describes “wherein the wet etching of the piezoelectric material includes wetting etching for a time based on the amount of scandium in the ScxAlI-xN film.”
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 26 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.
The limitation “wherein the wet etching of the piezoelectric material includes wetting etching for a time based on the amount of scandium in the ScxAl1-xN film” is vague and indefinite because it is not clear what it encompasses. It doesn’t have any instructions on how the etching time is calculated; therefore, one skilled in the art would not know how to determine the etching time. Furthermore, it is not clear how the etching time is determined when Sc=0 and the specification doesn’t provide any steps to calculate the wet etching time based on the amount of the Sc.
Claim 23 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 23 cites “the apparatus of claim 11” in the preamble; however, claim 11 is a method. It is not clear if it is a method or an apparatus claim. For the purpose of examination, it is considered as a method claim. Correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xie et al. (US 2023/0290834) and further in view of Wang et al. (CN 208368513U).
With respect to claim 13, Xie teaches forming a first mask AlGaN (32) on a piezoelectric material (10) and forming a second mask SiOx (34) on the first mask. Xie teaches patterning the first mask using the second mask with a dry etch (see step 506 in FIG. 5). Xie teaches wet etching the piezoelectric material using the patterned first mask and forming structures of the piezoelectric material having vertical sidewalls (see, for example, FIG. 5 and [0039]). Unlike claimed invention, Xie doesn’t teach using an inductively coupled plasma dry etch for dry etch of the first mask 32. Wang shows that using inductive couple plasma etching for material such as AlGaN is practiced by one skilled in the art (page 4, 5). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use inductively coupled plasma etching for AlGaN etch, in light of Xie, because using known method without changes in its functions, in this case etching the AlGaN with inductively coupled plasma etching, would remove the AlGaN with expected results.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 13 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection under Xie and Wang.
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Claims 11, 12, 21-23 are allowed over the applied prior art because Xie doesn’t teach that the second mask on the first mask being a metal mask comprise one or more metals.
Claims 14-16, 26, 27 are allowed over the applied prior art because Xie doesn’t the first mask is a silicon oxide mask, which is formed under a second mask. He teaches the SiOx mask is formed on top of a mask AlGaN 32.
Claims 24 and 25 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.
With respect to claim 24, the applied prior art of Xie and Wang fail to teach using CHF3 for the inductively coupled plasma dry etch of the first mask 32.
With respect to claim 25, the applied prior art of Xie and Wang fail to teach after using the inductively coupled plasma dry etch, applying a heat treatment to remove embedded impurities and repair damaged ions in the piezoelectric material.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DUY VU NGUYEN DEO whose telephone number is (571)272-1462. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5 M-F.
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, Joshua Allen can be reached at 571-272-3176. 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.
/DUY VU N DEO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1713
8/10/2026
Prosecution Insights