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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I (encompassing claims 1-10 and 19) in the reply filed on 1/15/26 is acknowledged.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) were submitted on 11/16/23 and 9/13/24. The submissions are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements have been considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In line 2 change “or crystalline structure” to - - or has a crystalline structure - -.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 3 and 6-7 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.
Regarding claim 3, the term “large” in line 2 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “large” (as in the phrase “large number of lattice cells”) 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. For instance, what is considered a “large number”? Three? A thousand? For the purposes of examination, the examiner interprets “a large number” as “a plurality”. However, appropriate correction and/or clarification is requested.
Regarding claim 6, it is unclear to the examiner what is meant by the phrase “the layered structure is a structure of a layer of A/a layer of B/a layer of A' which shows that the layer of A, the layer of B, and the layer of A' are laminated in order”.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the layered structure" (lines 1-2), “the layer of A”, “the layer of B”, and “the layer of A’”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. For the purposes of examination, the examiner interprets claim 7 as depending on claim 6 to resolve the lack of antecedent basis. However, appropriate correction and/or clarification is requested.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 4-5, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Takayama et al. (U.S. 2019/0072387 A1; “Takayama”).
Regarding claim 1, Examiner notes that this claim is a device claim so method limitations (e.g., “hetero-bonded”, “thinned” or “thin-filmed in such a matter as to etch a lower silicon layer and a buried oxide layer (SiO2) layer of a silicon-on-insulator (SOI) substrate”) in this claim are examined with respect to the structural limitations implied (epitaxial oxide thin film layer attached to a thin silicon substrate, substrate either does not contact either a buried oxide (SiO2) and a lower silicon layer at least partially) by the method steps (See MPEP 2113).
Here, Takayama discloses a heterojunction semiconductor flexible substrate in which an epitaxial oxide thin film layer (20, Fig. 1) is attached to a thin silicon substrate (50, Fig. 1) using a metal layer (40, Fig. 1) ([0021]-[0027]). Furthermore, Takayama discloses the epitaxial silicon substrate (50, Fig. 1) does not contact either a buried oxide or a lower silicon layer.
Regarding claim 4, Takayama discloses the epitaxial oxide thin film layer (20, Fig. 1) is a piezoelectric oxide having a perovskite structure ([0022]).
Regarding claim 5, Takayama discloses the metal layer (40, Fig. 1) has a single layer structure composed of Au or Pt ([0026]).
Regarding claim 19, Takayama discloses the heterojunction semiconductor flexible substrate of claim 1 ([0021]-[0027]; Fig. 1) is applied to a sensor ([0042]).
Claim(s) 1, 4-5, 8-10, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kijima et al. (U.S. 2007/0054038 A1; “Kijima”).
Regarding claim 1, Examiner notes that this claim is a device claim so method limitations (e.g., “hetero-bonded”, “thinned” or “thin-filmed in such a matter as to etch a lower silicon layer and a buried oxide layer (SiO2) layer of a silicon-on-insulator (SOI) substrate”) in this claim are examined with respect to the structural limitations implied (epitaxial oxide thin film layer attached to a thin silicon substrate, substrate either does not contact either a buried oxide (SiO2) and a lower silicon layer at least partially) by the method steps (See MPEP 2113).
Here Kijima discloses a heterojunction semiconductor flexible substrate in which an epitaxial oxide thin film layer (24, Fig. 1) is attached to a thin silicon substrate (21, Fig. 1) using a metal layer (22, Fig. 1) ([0062], [0145]). Furthermore, Kijima discloses the silicon substrate (21, Fig. 1) does not contact either a buried oxide or a lower silicon layer.
Regarding claim 4, Kijima discloses the epitaxial oxide thin film layer (24, Fig. 1) is a piezoelectric oxide having a perovskite structure ([0064]).
Regarding claim 5, Kijima discloses the metal layer has a single layer structure composed Pt ([0062]).
Regarding claim 8, Kijima discloses a conductive metal oxide layer (23, Fig. 1) is further formed between the epitaxial oxide thin film layer (24, Fig. 1) and the metal layer (22, Fig. 1) ([0062]).
Regarding claim 9, Kijima discloses the conductive metal oxide layer (23, Fig. 1) comprises metal (Ni) ([0062]) which is able to form Schottky contact with the epitaxial oxide thin film layer.
Regarding claim 10, Kijima discloses the conductive metal oxide layer (23, Fig. 1) has a crystalline structure ([0062]).
Regarding claim 19, Kijima discloses the heterojunction semiconductor flexible substrate of claim 1 ([0062], [0145]; Fig. 1) is applied to an electro-electronic device ([0167]-[0170]).
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) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takayama et al. (U.S. 2019/0072387 A1; “Takayama”) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Youmans (U.S. 2020/0142396 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Examiner notes that this claim is a device claim so method limitations (e.g., “are patterned in a large number of lattice cells”) in this claim are examined with respect to the structural limitations implied (a “large number” or plurality of epitaxial oxide thin film layer and metal layer portions within lattice cells) by the method steps (See MPEP 2113). Takayama discloses the epitaxial oxide thin film layer (20, Fig. 1) and the metal layer (40, Fig. 1) are part of a sensor device ([0042]) but does not disclose they are formed as a plurality of lattice cells. However, Youmans discloses forming a plurality of sensors as a plurality of lattice cells ([0161]). This has the advantage of forming an orderly arrangement of a plurality of sensors. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the invention of Takayama with a plurality of epitaxial oxide thin film layer and metal layer portions within lattice cells, as taught by Youmans, so as to form an orderly arrangement of a plurality of sensors.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 2 is 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to REEMA PATEL whose telephone number is (571)270-1436. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8am-5pm 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, Christine Kim can be reached at (571)272-8458. 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.
/REEMA PATEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2812 1/28/26