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 Arguments
Applicant has traverse the examiner’s assertion of official notice. However, MPEP 2144.03 C states: “If applicant adequately traverses the examiner’s assertion of official notice, the examiner must provide documentary evidence in the next Office action if the rejection is to be maintained. See 37 CFR 1.104(c)(2). See also Zurko, 258 F.3d at 1386, 59 USPQ2d at 1697 ("[T]he Board [or examiner] must point to some concrete evidence in the record in support of these findings" to satisfy the substantial evidence test). If the examiner is relying on personal knowledge to support the finding of what is known in the art, the examiner must provide an affidavit or declaration setting forth specific factual statements and explanation to support the finding. See 37 CFR 1.104(d)(2).”
If the examiner adds a reference in the next Office action after applicant’s rebuttal, and the newly added reference is added only as directly corresponding evidence to support the prior common knowledge finding, and it does not result in a new issue or constitute a new ground of rejection, the Office action may be made final. If no amendments are made to the claims, the examiner must not rely on any other teachings in the reference if the rejection is made final. If the newly cited reference is added for reasons other than to support the prior common knowledge statement or a new ground of rejection is introduced by the examiner that is not necessitated by applicant’s amendment of the claims, the rejection may not be made final. See MPEP § 706.07(a).
US 2007/0057344 discloses an interdigitated structure comprising a first interdigitated capacitor structure formed on one side of a substrate and a second interdigitated capacitor structure formed on the other side of the substrate. The interdigitated designs provides both lateral (side-to-side) and vertical (layer-to-layer) capacitance, resulting in significantly higher total capacitance than conventional parallel-plate (layer-to-layer) capacitor design.
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: “VARACTOR HAVING SCANDIUM ALUMINUM NITRIDE FERROELECTRIC MATERIAL”.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, and 7-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gevorgyan et al. (US 2008/0197947) in view of Mi et al. (US 2024/0242963) and Lee (US 2007/0057344).
Regarding claim 1, Gevorgyan et al. disclose a varactor comprising:
a ferroelectric material (2) having a first surface and a second surface, wherein the first surface is opposite the second surface, wherein the ferroelectric material comprises a tunable material [0039];
a first electrode (11) on the first surface of the ferroelectric material (2); and
a third electrode (12), on the second surface of the ferroelectric material (2).
Gevorgyan et al. disclose the claimed invention except for:
the ferroelectric material is a scandium aluminum nitride (ScAlN) and
the varactor comprises a second electrode positioned on the first surface of the ferroelectric material and interdigitated with the first electrode, and a fourth electrode positioned on the second surface of the ferroelectric material and interdigitated with the third electrode.
Mi et al. disclose a tunable ferroelectric material comprising ScAlN [0101].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to form the varactor of Gevorgyan et al. using a ScAlN as taught by Mi et al., since such a modification would form a varactor using a material with significantly enhanced electrical, piezoelectric properties. ScAlN can work in high-power and high-frequency electronics.
Lee teaches in Fig. 3A, that it is known in the electrode art to form a first (shaded in layer 204) and second electrode (non-shaded in layer 204) on a first surface (bottom) of a substrate and a third (non-shaded in layer 203) and fourth electrode (shaded in layer 203) on a second surface of a substrate (top); wherein the first and second electrodes are interdigitated and the third and fourth electrodes are interdigitated.
Lacking unexpected results, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the electrode art before the effective filing date of the invention to form the device of Gevorgyan et al. so that the varactor comprises a second electrode positioned on the first surface of the ferroelectric material and interdigitated with the first electrode, and a fourth electrode positioned on the second surface of the ferroelectric material and interdigitated with the third electrode, since such a modification would form a device having increased capacitance.
Regarding claim 7, the modified Gevorgyan et al. disclose the varactor can be integrated into a filter [0002].
Regarding claim 8, the modified Gevorgyan et al. disclose the varactor can be integrated into a resonator ([0002], VCOs, tunable filters).
Regarding claim 9, the modified Gevorgyan et al. disclose the varactor can be integrated into an oscillator [0002].
Regarding claim 10, the modified Gevorgyan et al. disclose a direct current (DC) bias applied to the ferroelectric material to set a permittivity of the ferroelectric material [0002].
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gevorgyan et al. (US 2008/0197947), Mi et al. (US 2024/0242963), and Lee (US 2007/0057344) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lee et al. (US 2018/0233283).
Regarding claim 5, Gevorgyan et al. disclose the claimed invention except for the first electrode and the second electrode are positioned along a vertical side of the ferroelectric material.
Lee et al. disclose a capacitor device having electrodes (110, 120) disposed on a dielectric layer (130), wherein the electrodes are positioned along a vertical side of the dielectric (fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to form the device of Gevorgyan et al. so that the first electrode and the second electrode are positioned along a vertical side of the ferroelectric material, since such a modification would form an ultra-thin varactor.
Claim(s) 15-16, and 20, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gevorgyan et al. (US 2008/0197947) in view of Mi et al. (US 2024/0242963), Lee (US 2007/0057344), and Li et al. (CN 108336482).
Regarding claim 15, Gevorgyan et al. disclose a varactor comprising:
a ferroelectric material (2) comprising a tunable material [0039];
a first electrode (11) on a first surface of the ferroelectric material (2); and
a third electrode (12), on a second surface of the ferroelectric material (2)
Gevorgyan et al. disclose the claimed invention except for:
the ferroelectric material is a scandium aluminum nitride (ScAlN); and
the varactor comprises a second electrode positioned on the first surface of the ferroelectric material and interdigitated with the first electrode, and a fourth electrode positioned on the second surface of the ferroelectric material and interdigitated with the third electrode.
the varactor is formed in a transceiver for use in a mobile terminal.
Mi et al. disclose a tunable ferroelectric material comprising ScAlN [0101].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to form the varactor of Gevorgyan et al. using a ScAlN as taught by Mi et al., since such a modification would form a varactor using a material with significantly enhanced electrical, piezoelectric properties. ScAlN can work in high-power and high-frequency electronics.
B) Lee teaches in Fig. 3A, that it is known in the electrode art to form a first (shaded in layer 204) and second electrode (non-shaded in layer 204) on a first surface (bottom) of a substrate and a third (non-shaded in layer 203) and fourth electrode (shaded in layer 203) on a second surface of a substrate (top); wherein the first and second electrodes are interdigitated and the third and fourth electrodes are interdigitated.
Lacking unexpected results, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the electrode art before the effective filing date of the invention to form the device of Gevorgyan et al. so that the varactor comprises a second electrode positioned on the first surface of the ferroelectric material and interdigitated with the first electrode, and a fourth electrode positioned on the second surface of the ferroelectric material and interdigitated with the third electrode, since such a modification would form a device having increased capacitance.
C) Li et al. disclose a mobile terminal (P: 6 translation) having a transceiver (P: 6 translation) and a varactor (P: 6 translation).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to form the varactor of the modified Gevorgyan et al., since such a modification would form a device having a varactor with high tunability.
Regarding claim 19, the modified Gevorgyan et al. disclose the varactor can be integrated into a filter [0002].
Regarding claim 20, the modified Gevorgyan et al. disclose the varactor can be integrated into a resonator ([0002], VCOs, tunable filters).
Conclusion
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 ERIC THOMAS whose telephone number is (571)272-1985. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 6:00 AM-2:30 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, Timothy Dole can be reached at 571-272-2229. 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.
/ERIC W THOMAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2848
ERIC THOMAS
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2848