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
Amendment filed on 18 June 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-15 are now pending in the application.
Amendments to the claims 1, 10 and 11 to overcome the informalities are acceptable. Therefore, claim objections have been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 6, filed on 18 June 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 3, 7-10 and 13-15 under 35 U.S.C 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of newly found prior art reference(s).
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.
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.
Claims 1-15 are 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.
In claim 1, the limitations “an arbitrary functional substrate” in line 2, and “the arbitrary functional substrate comprising physical phenomena” in line 10 render claim indefinite because it is unclear what the recited “arbitrary function” and the “physical phenomena” are. One of ordinary skill in the art could not define the boundaries of the subject matter and hence the metes and bounds of the claim is unclear. The term “arbitrary” in general interpreted as random, subjective, or erratic (see merriam-webster.com). Further, the recited limitation “the arbitrary functional substrate comprising physical phenomena”, (emphasis added) deemed to read as, the substrate possess more than one phenomenon, as applicant agrees in Page 6, in which it is unclear what phenomena the substrate possess. Though, claim 15 recites “physical phenomena comprise at least one of: electrical phenomena; optical phenomena; thermal phenomena; and magnetic phenomena.”, would an acoustic device substrate exhibit at least one of the recited phenomena?
In claim 1, the limitation “epitaxially growing a piezoelectric transducer” renders claim indefinite because, one of ordinary skill in the art would have known that, a piezoelectric transducer comprises piezoelectric layer AND metal electrodes. Therefore, it is unclear how a piezoelectric transducer having metal electrodes is epitaxially growing as recited “epitaxially growing a piezoelectric transducer”. What does “epitaxially growing a piezoelectric transducer” mean? It is evident from claim 1 line 5, “forming at least one top metal electrode on a top surface” that, the recited “epitaxially growing a piezoelectric transducer” does not have an electrode. Therefore, the recited “epitaxially growing a piezoelectric transducer” is an ambiguous limitation.
In claim 1, the limitation in lines 6-8 “etching the sacrificial layer to release the piezoelectric transducer and removing the piezoelectric transducer from the host substrate while maintaining its epitaxial nature and materials properties” renders claim indefinite because, it is unclear what does “while maintaining its epitaxial nature and materials properties” mean. How the claimed “epitaxial nature” is maintained and by what mechanism. Further, which structure (sacrificial layer or piezoelectric transducer) having the epitaxial nature maintained? Unless otherwise defined the term “etching”, one of ordinary skill in the art would have known that, etching and transferring an epitaxial layer maintains its epitaxial nature.
In claim 1, the limitation “the piezoelectric transducer comprising acoustic waves/phonons” is illogical and unclear. Piezoelectric transducer does not comprise acoustic waves or phonons. A piezoelectric transducer generates acoustic waves or phonons only after biasing the transducer with a required voltage. As best understood, it appears that the limitation “the piezoelectric transducer comprising acoustic waves/phonons” actually intends that “the piezoelectric transducer causes acoustic waves/phonons”, or the like.
The recited limitation in claim 1, “the arbitrary functional substrate comprising physical phenomena, the piezoelectric transducer comprising acoustic waves/phonons, the physical phenomena being coupled to the acoustic waves/phonons.” does not contribute any meaningful process steps in the claimed method for fabricating an integrated acoustic device.
Same issues are there in claim 11, for the limitations “an arbitrary functional substrate”; “epitaxially growing a piezoelectric transducer”; “physical phenomena from the piezoelectric transducer”. Further, claim 11 recited the limitation “the arbitrary functional substrate provides critical functionality to the acoustic microsystem”, in which the metes and bounds of the “critical functionality” are unclear. What does “critical functionality” mean and what critical function it provides? One of ordinary skill in the art would have known that, unless otherwise defined, a substrate provides at least one critical function (such as electrical coupling, mechanical support) to an acoustic device. Therefore, unless otherwise defined, the limitations “the arbitrary functional substrate provides critical functionality to the acoustic microsystem” does not contribute an inventive steps.
Claims 2-10 and 12-15 depend on claim 1. Therefore, claims 1-15 are rejected.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7-10 and 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meyer (US 20150021624) in view of Harries (US 20120293023).
[AltContent: textbox (piezoelectric transducer)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (functional substrate)][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
372
459
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 1, Meyer.
Regarding claim 1, Mayer teaches, a method for fabricating an integrated acoustic device on an arbitrary functional substrate, comprising:
epitaxially growing a sacrificial layer on a host substrate (sacrificial layer 2, annotated Fig. 1, growing an epitaxial sacrificial layer 2 on the SiC substrate 1 prior to growing the remainder of the epitaxial device layers 3, para. [0027]);
epitaxially growing a piezoelectric transducer on the sacrificial layer (epitaxial device layers 3, Fig.1, one or more epitaxial device layers on the sacrificial layer, Abstract; group III-Nitrides (III-Ns) including gallium nitride (GaN), aluminum nitride (AlN), indium nitride (InN), para. [0005], epitaxial device structures using the III-N material system, para, [0028], in which, GaN, AIN, InN are piezoelectric layers, which are identical to the disclosed piezoelectric layers in the application specification para. [0014, 0033]);
forming at least one top metal electrode on a top surface of the piezoelectric transducer (any materials added to the device layer(s) 3, i.e. metals, para. [0032]);
etching the sacrificial layer to release the piezoelectric transducer and removing the piezoelectric transducer from the host substrate while maintaining its epitaxial nature and materials properties (see Fig. 3, separating the device layers from the substrate by etching the sacrificial layer to completely remove the sacrificial layer without damaging or consuming the substrate or any device layer, Abstract; separating the device layers from the substrate by etching the sacrificial layer to completely remove the sacrificial layer without damaging or consuming the substrate or any device layer, claim 1); and
transferring the released piezoelectric transducer to the arbitrary functional substrate (carrier substrate 5, Fig. 3, alternatively application substrate 7, Fig. 7, device layer(s) 3 may be debonded from the carrier substrate 5 and bonded to another substrate that enhances the intended application of the device 7, Fig. 7, para. [0031]).
Though, Meyer teaches in para. [0029], “bonding layer 4 and carrier substrate 5 would have properties (i.e. electrical or mechanical) advantageous to the device layer(s) 3 application”, Meyer does not explicitly teach the substrate comprising physical phenomena. However, Harries teaches, a method for fabricating an integrated acoustic device including single crystal piezoelectric layers, forming top metal electrodes, and transferring to an arbitrary functional substrate comprising physical phenomena (a voltage-tunable microwave magnetic device includes a ferrite substrate, such as…yttrium iron garnet (YIG) substrate, para. [0011], a ferrite layer is typically bonded to a piezoelectric layer to form a ferrite/piezoelectric composite element, para. [0007]), the piezoelectric transducer comprising acoustic waves/phonons, the physical phenomena being coupled to the acoustic waves/phonons (a mechanical strain in the piezoelectric layer that transmits a force to the ferrite layer. The force transmitted to the ferrite layer of the composite element manifests itself as an internal magnetic field that can change the phase shift of the electromagnetic waves propagating through the ferrite layer…the magnetic permeability of the respective ferrite substrates is varied by external, voltage-tuned, magnetic fringe fields created by one or more magnetoelectric (ME) transducers, para. [0007, 0010]).
Therefore, in view of the teachings of Harris, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method for fabricating an integrated acoustic device of Meyers and to replace the carrier substrate 5 in Fig. 3 of Meyers with YIG substate as Harries taught in para. [0011] so that it enables forming voltage tunable magnetoelastic devices having improved bandwidth, reduced DC power consumption and improved response time as Harries disclosed in para. [0013]. Moreover, bonding a piezoelectric transducer to a functional substrate is known in the art. If applicant disagrees, see Polzikova, page 056128-2 (Polzikova, N. I., et.al., Frequency and magnetic field mapping of magnetoelastic spin pumping in high overtone bulk acoustic wave resonator, AIP ADVANCES 8, 056128, 2018); Kryshtal, (R.G. Kryshtal, A.V. Medved, Nonreciprocity of spin waves in magnonic crystals created by surface acoustic waves in structures with yttrium iron garnet, J. of Magnetism and Magnetic materials, 395, 180-184, 2015). Such a combination would have been done by one of ordinary skill in the art without any need for experimentation and with reasonable expectations of success.
Regarding claim 2, Mayer in view of Harries teaches the recited limitations. Mayer further teaches, the method according to claim 1, wherein the piezoelectric transducer comprises a piezoelectric thin film (group III-Nitrides (III-Ns) including gallium nitride (GaN), aluminum nitride (AlN), indium nitride (InN), para. [0005]).
Regarding claim 3, Mayer in view of Harries teaches the recited limitations. Mayer further teaches, the method according to claim 1, wherein the piezoelectric transducer comprises an epitaxial III-Nitride piezoelectric transducer (epitaxial device layers on the sacrificial layer, Abstract; group III-Nitrides (III-Ns) including gallium nitride (GaN), aluminum nitride (AlN), indium nitride (InN), para. [0005]).
Regarding claim 4, Mayer in view of Harries teaches the recited limitations. Mayer further teaches, the method according to claim 1, wherein the piezoelectric transducer comprises a piezoelectric heterostructure (heteroepitaxial growth of Group III-Nitrides (III-Ns) including gallium nitride (GaN), aluminum nitride (AlN), indium nitride (InN), para. [0005]).
Regarding claim 5, Mayer in view of Harries teaches the recited limitations. Mayer further teaches, the method according to claim 1, wherein the piezoelectric transducer comprises a GaN, AIN, ScAIN, InAIN, InGaN, or AlGaN-based heterostructure (para. [0005]).
Regarding claim 7, Mayer in view of Harries teaches the recited limitations. Mayer further teaches, the method according to claim 1, wherein the host substrate comprises 4H-SiC, 6H-SiC, or sapphire (SiC substrate 1, para. [0027]).
Regarding claims 8-9, Mayer does not teach the recited limitations. However, Harries further teaches,
8. The method according to claim 1, wherein the functional substrate comprises a ferrite magnetic material (ferrite substrate 208 can be implemented as a YIG substrate, para. [0031]).
9. The method according to claim 1, wherein the functional substrate comprises a ferrite yttrium-iron-garnet (YIG) substrate (para. [0031]).
Therefore, in view of the teachings of Harris, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method for fabricating an integrated acoustic device of Meyers and to replace the carrier substrate 5 in Fig. 3 of Meyers with YIG substate as Harries taught in para. [0011] so that it enables forming voltage tunable magnetoelastic devices having reduced DC power consumption and improved response time.
Regarding claim 10, Mayer in view of Harries teaches the recited limitations. Mayer further teaches, the method according to claim 1, wherein said transferring the released piezoelectric transducer to the arbitrary functional substrate comprises: depositing an adhesion layer (bonding layer 4, Figs. 2 and 3) on an upper surface of the arbitrary functional substrate and placing the released piezoelectric transducer onto the adhesion layer (see Figs. 2 and 3), the acoustic waves/phonons passing from the piezoelectric transducer through the adhesion layer to the arbitrary functional substrate so that the physical phenomena are coupled to the acoustic waves/phonons waves/photons.
Regarding claim 12, Mayer in view of Harries teaches the recited limitations. Mayer further teaches, the method according to claim 1, wherein the piezoelectric transducer comprises an AlGaN/GaN/AIN/NbN heterostructure grown on a 6H-SiC host substrate by molecular beam epitaxy (grown by electron beam evaporation molecular beam epitaxy, para. [0027]).
Regarding claim 13, Mayer in view of Harries teaches the recited limitations. Mayer further teaches, the method according to claim 1, wherein the sacrificial layer is a transition metal nitride (TMN) layer (the sacrificial layer is a transition metal nitride (TMN), Abstract, para. [0027]).
Regarding claim 14, Mayer in view of Harries teaches the recited limitations. Mayer further teaches, the method according to claim 1, wherein the sacrificial layer is niobium nitride (NbN) (sacrificial layer 2, …but could also be other transition metal nitrides (TMN) such as…NbN, para. [0027]).
Regarding claim 15, Harries further teaches, the method according to claim 1, wherein the physical phenomena comprise at least one of: electrical phenomena; optical phenomena; thermal phenomena; and magnetic phenomena (low-loss magnetic materials, such as yttrium iron garnet (YIG), para. [0004], ferrite substrate such as YIG substrate, para. [0011]).
Claim(s) 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meyer in view of Harries as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Gokhale (US 20210091746).
Regarding claim 6, modified Meyer does not teach, the piezoelectric transducer comprises a perovskite oxide piezoelectric transducer. However, Gokhale teaches, a method for fabricating an integrated acoustic device in Fig. 1, including epitaxial TMN layer 102, epitaxial III-N layer 103, forming a top metal electrode 105, and etching the TMN layer, in which, the method according to claim 1, wherein the piezoelectric transducer comprises a perovskite oxide piezoelectric transducer (intermediate epitaxial perovskite oxide (PO) layer 104, Fig. 1).
[AltContent: textbox (piezoelectric film)][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image2.png
339
453
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 1, Gokhale.
Therefore, in view of the teachings of Gokhale, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method for fabricating of the integrated acoustic device of Meyer and include epitaxially grown III-N materials such as aluminum nitride (AlN), gallium nitride (GaN) and scandium aluminum nitride (ScAlN) and an intermediate epitaxial perovskite oxide (PO) layer as Gokhale disclosed in Fig. 1 so that it enables forming a heterostructure comprising appropriate combinations of epitaxially grown metallic transition metal nitride, epitaxially grown Group III-Nitride (III-N) piezoelectric semiconductor thin film layers, and epitaxially grown perovskite oxide layers.
Claim(s) 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meyer in view of Harries, and further in view of Polzikova (Polzikova, N. I., et.al., Frequency and magnetic field mapping of magnetoelastic spin pumping in high overtone bulk acoustic wave resonator, AIP ADVANCES 8, 056128, 2018).
Regarding claim 11, Meyer teaches, a method for fabricating an integrated acoustic device on an arbitrary functional substrate, comprising:
epitaxially growing a sacrificial layer on a host substrate (sacrificial layer 2, annotated Fig. 1, growing an epitaxial sacrificial layer 2 on the SiC substrate 1 prior to growing the remainder of the epitaxial device layers 3, para. [0027]);
epitaxially growing a piezoelectric transducer on the sacrificial layer (epitaxial device layers 3, Fig.1, one or more epitaxial device layers on the sacrificial layer, Abstract; group III-Nitrides (III-Ns) including gallium nitride (GaN), aluminum nitride (AlN), indium nitride (InN), para. [0005], epitaxial device structures using the III-N material system, para, [0028], in which, GaN, AIN, InN are piezoelectric layers, which are identical to the disclosed piezoelectric layers in the application specification para. [0014, 0033]);
forming at least one top metal electrode (any materials added to the device layer(s) 3, i.e. metals, para. [0032]) on a top surface of the piezoelectric transducer;
etching the sacrificial layer to release the piezoelectric transducer and removing the piezoelectric transducer from the host substrate while maintaining its epitaxial nature and materials properties (see Fig. 3, separating the device layers from the substrate by etching the sacrificial layer to completely remove the sacrificial layer without damaging or consuming the substrate or any device layer, Abstract; separating the device layers from the substrate by etching the sacrificial layer to completely remove the sacrificial layer without damaging or consuming the substrate or any device layer, claim 1); and
transferring the released piezoelectric transducer to the arbitrary functional substrate (carrier substrate 5, Fig. 3, alternatively application substrate 7, Fig. 7, device layer(s) 3 may be debonded from the carrier substrate 5 and bonded to another substrate that enhances the intended application of the device 7, Fig. 7, para. [0031]);
Though, Meyer teaches in para. [0029], “bonding layer 4 and carrier substrate 5 would have properties (i.e. electrical or mechanical) advantageous to the device layer(s) 3 application”, Meyer does not explicitly teach, the substrate comprising physical phenomena. However, Harries teaches, a method for fabricating an integrated acoustic device including single crystal piezoelectric layers, forming top metal electrodes, and transferring to an arbitrary functional substrate comprising physical phenomena, wherein the arbitrary functional substrate provides critical functionality to the acoustic microsystem (a voltage-tunable microwave magnetic device includes a ferrite substrate, such as…yttrium iron garnet (YIG) substrate, para. [0011], a ferrite layer is typically bonded to a piezoelectric layer to form a ferrite/piezoelectric composite element, para. [0007]), the piezoelectric transducer comprising acoustic waves/phonons, the physical phenomena being coupled to the acoustic waves/phonons.
Therefore, in view of the teachings of Harris, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method for fabricating an integrated acoustic device of Meyers and to replace the carrier substrate 5 in Fig. 3 of Meyers with YIG substate as Harries taught in para. [0011] so that it enables forming voltage tunable magnetoelastic devices having reduced DC power consumption and improved response time as Harries disclosed in para. [0013].
PNG
media_image3.png
415
1035
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 1, Polzikova.
Modified Meyer does not teach, a high-overtone bulk acoustic resonator. However, Polzikova teaches, a method for fabricating an integrated acoustic device (see annotated Fig. 1), including forming a piezoelectric transducer comprising epitaxially growing piezoelectric film on an arbitrary functional substrate such as YIG film (a BAW transducer consisting of a piezoelectric film (ZnO) sandwiched between thin-film Al electrodes is deposited on one side of the YIG-GGG-YIG structure page 056128-2), wherein the integrated acoustic device comprises a magnetoelastic high-overtone bulk acoustic resonator (ME-HBAR) (see, Title, page 056128-1). Therefore, in view of the teachings of Polzikova, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method for fabricating an integrated acoustic device of Meyers and to bias the device to excite at magnetoelastic high overtone frequencies as Polzikova taught in Fig. 1 so that it enables forming spintronic devices having reduced DC power consumption as Polzikova disclosed in page 056128-1.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSE K. ABRAHAM whose telephone number is (571)270-1087. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30-4:30 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, THOMAS J. 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.
/JOSE K ABRAHAM/Examiner, Art Unit 3729
Prosecution Insights