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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of 05/18/2026 in the reply filed on 05/18/2026 is acknowledged.
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 1-5 and 12 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.
The term “thin” in claims 1-5 and 12 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “thin” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Regarding claims 1-5 and 12, it is not clear that “specified electrical field strength” is in what range.
Regarding claim 5, it is not clear that “specified resistance value” is in what range.
Regarding claim 12, it is not clear that “specified treatment time” is in what range.
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) 1-5 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20200098969A1.
Regarding claims 1, US20200098969A1 discloses recovering a degraded performance characteristic of the piezoelectric device. See [0004] and figure 1.
The piezoelectric device includes a semiconductor substrate. A first electrode is disposed over the semiconductor substrate. A piezoelectric structure is disposed on the first electrode. A second electrode is disposed on the piezoelectric structure. A heating element is disposed over the semiconductor substrate. The heating element is configured to heat the piezoelectric structure to a recovery temperature for a period of time, where heating the piezoelectric structure to the recovery temperature for the period of time improves a degraded electrical property of the piezoelectric device. See abstract. In some embodiments, the piezoelectric structure comprises, for example, lead zirconate titanate, See [0036]. Some piezoelectric devices include a piezoelectric structure deposited between a first electrode and a second electrode. When a voltage is applied between the first electrode and the second electrode, an electrical field generated. See [0016].
The recovery temperature is about a curie temperature of the piezoelectric material. See [0029].
It is known in the art that Curie temperature of lead zirconate titanate (PZT) ranges between 230°C and 495°C (446°F to 923°F). The reference differs from Applicant's recitations of claims by not disclosing identical ranges. However, the reference discloses "overlapping" ranges, and overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness (MPEP 2144.05). “About” permits some tolerance.
PNG
media_image1.png
475
703
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)
Regarding claim 2, it is known in the art that curie temperature of lead zirconate titanate (PZT) ranges between 230°C and 495°C (446°F to 923°F). The reference differs from Applicant's recitations of claims by not disclosing identical ranges. However, the reference discloses "close" ranges, and close ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness (MPEP 2144.05). “About” permits some tolerance.
Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)
Regarding claim 3, wherein the lead-zirconate-titanate thin film is heated using the heater from outside the lead-zirconate-titanate thin film. 104 is the heating element and it overlays on 102. Some part of 104 is from outside the lead-zirconate-titanate thin film.
PNG
media_image2.png
352
849
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4, the second electrode 106 is a heating element (illustrated by a resistor circuit symbol). The heating element is configured to generate heat 114 (e.g., via resistive heating) that emanates toward the piezoelectric structure 102. See [0020].
PNG
media_image1.png
475
703
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 5, Once it is determined that the performance characteristic has degraded, a recovery mode operation is performed. The recovery mode operation comprises heating the piezoelectric structure to a recovery temperature for a period of time by selectively passing a current through a heating element that is disposed over the semiconductor substrate. After the temperature of the piezoelectric device is at the recovery temperature for the period of time, the performance characteristic of the piezoelectric device may improve from the second value to a third value that is closer to the first value than the second value is to the first value. Accordingly, the performance characteristic of the piezoelectric device that has degraded from the first value to the second value may be improved to the third value, thereby recovering the degraded device performance of the piezoelectric device. See [0018]. Performance Characteristics of Piezoelectric Devices Including Resistance Effects.
Regarding claim 12, the bias circuitry 118 is configured to control an amount of current output by the current source 120 (e.g., by providing an electrical signal to the current source 120). See [0021]. The heating element is configured to heat the piezoelectric structure to a recovery temperature for a period of time, where heating the piezoelectric structure to the recovery temperature for the period of time improves a degraded electrical property of the piezoelectric device. See abstract.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHUANGYI ABU ALI whose telephone number is (571)272-6453. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00 am- 5:00 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, Amber Orlando can be reached at (571)270-3149. 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.
/SHUANGYI ABU ALI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1731
Prosecution Insights