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’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 7 have been considered but are moot on grounds of new rejection.
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 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inoue et al. (Inoue) (WO 2020261630 A1) as evidenced by or in view of Hines et al. (Hines) (CN 104579224 B).
In regards to claim 1, Inoue (Fig. 4 and associated text) discloses a microelectromechanical resonator with tailored oxide interface comprises: a resonator body (item 10); an electromechanical transducer (item F3 or F3 plus F21); and at least one top metal (item E2); wherein the resonator body (item 10) is an oriented silicon-on-insulator (SOI) wafer (See First Embodiment, fourth paragraph beginning with “The resonator 10”, items 10 plus 20 plus 30), the silicon layer being n-doped with phosphorous (See First Embodiment); wherein the electromechanical transducer includes a thermal oxide layer (item F21), the thermal oxide layer being wet etched, the electromechanical transducer (item F3 plus F21) includes an Aluminum nitride (AIN) thin film (item F3) deposited on the thermal oxide layer (item F21), the AIN thin film being wet etched; wherein the at least one top metal (item E2, Mo, W or the like) deposited on the Aluminum nitride thin film (item F3); followed by a patterned Aluminum layer (item C3).
The method of forming a device is not germane to the issue of patentability of the device itself. Therefore, the limitations “the thermal oxide layer being wet etched” and “the AIN thin film being wet etched” have not been given patentable weight.
Inoue does not specifically disclose wherein the at least one top metal includes a 20 nm patterned chrome layer deposited on the Aluminum nitride thin film; followed by a 1000 nm patterned Aluminum layer.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the invention to include at least one top metal including a 20 nm patterned chrome layer deposited on the Aluminum nitride thin film; followed by a 1000 nm patterned Aluminum layer, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)). Examiner notes the Applicant has not given any criticality to the claimed values as to where they yield an unexpected result and/or advantage.
It would have been obvious to modify the invention to include at least one top metal including a chrome layer, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use (In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416).
Inoue does not specifically disclose the microelectromechanical resonator with tailor oxide interface.
Hines (Figs. 5A-6E and associated text) discloses the microelectromechanical resonator (MEM or NEM) with tailor oxide interface (550 nm, silicon oxide, or items 50, 52, silica/silicon dioxide).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to before the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of Hines for the purpose of obtaining a desired photonic circuit (See manufacturing of photonic wafer).
Inoue as modified by Hines does not specifically disclose the microelectromechanical resonator with tailor oxide interface is exposed to a 1 Mrad(Si) dose of irradiation to alter the acoustic velocity of the material.
The method of forming a device is not germane to the issue of patentability of the device itself. Therefore, the limitations “the microelectromechanical resonator with tailor oxide interface is exposed to a 1 Mrad(Si) dose of irradiation to alter the acoustic velocity of the material” has not been given patentable weight.
"Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F. 2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (fed Cir. 1985).
In regards to claim 7, Inoue as modified by Hines does not specifically disclose wherein the dose of irradiation is a dose of Co-60 gamma ray radiation.
The method of forming a device is not germane to the issue of patentability of the device itself. Therefore, the limitations “wherein the dose of irradiation is a dose of Co-60 gamma ray radiation” has not been given patentable weight.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Arft et al. (US 9022644 B1, US 9677948 B1, US 9945734 B1, US 10458858 B1) and Bosco et al. (US 2003/0015768 A1) both disclose a microelectromechanical resonator with a tailored oxide interface.
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 TELLY D GREEN whose telephone number is (571)270-3204. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm.
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, Jessica Manno can be reached at 571-272-2339. 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.
TELLY D. GREEN
Examiner
Art Unit 2898
/TELLY D GREEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2898 September 23, 2026
Prosecution Insights