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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-2, 7, 9-23, 26, 29, 32-36 are pending in the current application.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment of 12/24/25 does not render the application allowable.
Status of the Rejections
All rejections from the previous office action are withdrawn.
New grounds of rejection under 35 USC 102 and 103(a) are necessitated by the amendments.
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.
Claim 36 is 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.
Claim 36 is directed towards a polycrystalline AlScN film which is produced by the method of claim 1. While claim 1 is technically directed to ‘a process for the preparation of AlScN film”, it involves a substrate, Ti and TiN layers, and finally an AlScN layer formed thereon. It is therefore unclear as to whether the requirement that the AlScN film of claim 36 be produced by the method of claim 1 incorporate the additional structure beyond the AlScN product film required by claim 36.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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) 26 and 36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zywitzki (“Effect of scandium content on structure and piezoelectric properties of AlScN films deposited by reactive pulse magnetron sputtering” 15 January 2017).
As to claim 26, Zywitzki discloses a polycrastalline AlScN film (abstract; page 8 second paragraph: partial polycrystalline structure in diffraction results) with a 001/002 structure (page 5 section 3.3: structure with 001 and 002 results) in which the FWHM value is disclosed at 0.52° (section 3.3 first paragraph).
As to the limitation of the formation of the film by the method of claim 1, the method of forming the device is not germane to the issue of patentability of the device itself. Therefore, this limitation has not been given patentable weight.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grannen (Us 20170288628) in view of Zywitzki.
As to claim 29, Grannen discloses a piezoelectric device comprising:
a substrate (paragraph: chip or wafer substrate);
a first Ti layer on the substrate (paragraph 44: metal layer on underlying substrate; paragraph 32: first metal electrode layer may be Titanium);
An AlSc layer in the presence of nitrogen gas thus producing an AlScN layer(paragraph 44: AlSc target sputter deposited in nitrogen reactive gas atmosphere to form AlScN);
A top conductive layer (figure 4e; paragraph 36: top [second] electrode 440).
As to the claim limitation of a TiN layer between the first Ti layer and AlScN layer, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that nitrogen reactive gas, when provided at the time of sputtering onto a titanium layer, would form a TiN on the surface of the Ti to some extent. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that a TiN would be formed between the AlScN layer and the Ti layer by the method of Grannen
As to the AlScN layer having the structural requirements of claim 26, Zywitzki discloses a polycrystalline AlScN layer with the requisite diffraction properties (as discussed above with respect to claim 26) for improvement in the desired piezoelectric properties of the film and its resulting structures (abstract).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the AlScN film of Zywitzki in the structure of Grannen, because this allows for improved piezoelectric properties of the structure.
Claim(s) 32-33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zywitzki, as applied to claim 26 above, and further in view of Littrell (US 20190289405).
As to claim 32-33, Zywitzki discloses deposition of an AlScN piezoelectric, but is silent as to the specific use in a cantilever or MEMS application.
Littrell discloses knowledge in the art of using thin film devices of electrodes and piezoelectric layers as part of MEMS devices including cantilevers to obtain increased functional effect (paragraph 35).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the product structure of Littrell with the piezoelectric layers formed by Zywitzki because this allows for increased functional piezoelectric effect.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-2, 7, 9-23, 34-35 are allowed.
Claim 1 requires a method of forming a Ti/TiN/AlScN layer structure in which specific heating temperatures and temperature exposure durations are provided for the steps. While prior art discloses knowledge in the art of forming these layers with temperature exposures within the requisite ranges (see prior office actions), the prior art does not teach the specific temperatures, order of exposures, time of exposures with the formation of the Ti/TiN/AlScN film structure.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection, as discussed above.
Conclusion
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 JASON BERMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5265. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8-4.
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, James Lin can be reached at (571) 272-8902. 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.
/JASON BERMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1794
Prosecution Insights