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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 1-20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “latticeconstant” which should be written as “lattice constant”.
Claim 6 recites “single-\crystalline” which should be written as “single-crystalline”.
Claim 7 ends with two periods.
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 1-20 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 claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors.
Claim 1 requires providing a nanomembrane comprised of stacked layer and also requires a varying lattice constant across the thickness of a semiconductor multi-layer and it is not clear how the “semiconductor multi-layer” relates to the claimed method. For the purposes of this examination the “stacked layers” and the “semiconductor multi-layer” will be considered the same. Clarification on this issue is requested.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the deposition of an amorphous layer". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Furthermore, it is not clear how the “amorphous layer” relates to the claimed method. For the purposes of this examination claim 1 will be taken to require that the stacked comprised an amorphous layer.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "said one of amorphous oxide layer". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3 is indefinite because the claim discloses “Si1-xGex” and does not disclose what the range of “x” is.
Claim 3 is indefinite because the claim discloses “one of said staked layers is an amorphous oxide layer SrTiO3/Si/ Si1-xGex” and it is not clear if the amorphous oxide layer has to include all thee materials. According to Figure 2A of the specification these three materials represent separate layers in the nanomembrane. Based on the specification of the present application claim 3 will be considered to require that the stacked layers of nanomembrane comprised separate layers of SrTiO3, Si and Si1-xGex.
Claim 4 is indefinite because the claim discloses “one or said stacked layers is an amorphous oxide layer is SrTiO3/Si” and it is not clear if the amorphous layer had to include both materials. According to Paragraph 00080 of the specification as originally filed SrTiO3 and Si are separate layers having different thicknesses. Therefore, for the purposes of this examination SrTiO3 and Si will be considered separate layers.
Claim 4 is indefinite because the claim discloses “one or said stacked layers is an amorphous oxide layer is SrTiO3/LaAlO3” and it is not clear if the amorphous layer had to include both materials. According to Paragraph 00083 of the specification as originally filed SrTiO3 and LaAlO3 are separate layers forming a bilayer nanomembrane. Therefore, for the purposes of this examination SrTiO3 and LaAlO3 will be considered separate layers.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "said roll". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "said rolled-up tube". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
Claims 1, 6-11, 16-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Li et al (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2015/0099116).
In the case of claim 1, Li teaches a method for producing a radial geometry in a planar nanomembrane in the form of forming a chiral structured comprised of an elongates strip in a rolled-up configuration (Abstract) wherein the strip was a nanomembrane having a thickness in the nano-range (Page 4 Paragraph 0039) and comprised stacked layers (Page 3 Paragraphs 0027-0028). The method of Li comprised providing the nanomembrane/strained sheet 140 on a sacrificial layer 145 which was on a substrate 150 followed by removing/etching the sacrificial layer 145 which released the nanomembrane 140 and caused it to produce a radial geometry by rolling up (Pages 1-2 Paragraph 0018 and Figures 1A-1D).
Li further teaches that the nanomembrane/strip was semiconducting and comprised amorphous layers (Page 3 Paragraph 0028-0029). Furthermore, Li teaches that the radial geometry/roll-up was caused the elastic relaxation of stress caused by differences/variances in the lattice constant/parameters across the strip (Page 3 Paragraph 0030) and by stress/strain resulting from depositing an amorphous layer (Page 3 Paragraph 0031).
As for claims 6 and 7, Li teaches that the strip comprised single-crystalline layers and/or poly-crystalline layers (Page 3 Paragraph 0028).
As for claims 8 and 9, Li teaches that the nanomembrane was formed into a rolled-up tube having a plurality of windings 100 (Page 2 Paragraph 0018 and Figure 1D).
As for claims 10 and 11, Li teaches having heated/annealed the nanomembrane after release to reduce the diameter of the structure thereby increasing the number of windings (Page 7 Paragraphs 0061-0063).
As for claims 17 and 18, Li teaches that the sacrificial layer comprised amorphous and/or intrinsic Si or Ge (Page 4 Paragraph 0044).
As for claims 18 and 20, Li teaches that the stacked layers included oxides and amorphous oxides (Page 3 Paragraphs 0028-0029).
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.
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.
Claims 2-4 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Suzuki et al (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2017/0162332).
The teachings of Li as it applies to claim 1 have been discussed previously and are incorporated herein.
In the case of claim 2, though Li teaches that the stacked layer comprised amorphous oxides (Page 3 Paragraphs 0028-0029) Li does not teach that the nanomembrane comprised strontium titanate (SrTiO3).
Suzuki teaches a method for forming a roll-up type capacitor comprised of stacked layers including a diffusion-preventing layer formed by atomic layer deposition (Abstract and Page 1 Paragraph 0002). Suzuki teaches that the roll-up capacitor was formed by providing stacked layers/main body 12 on a sacrificial layer 20 followed by removing the sacrificial layer 20 which caused the main boy 12 to roll-up (Pages 1-2 Paragraph 0017-0018 and Figure 1). Suzuki teaches that the main body/laminate rolled-up due to the relaxation or internal stress by removing the sacrificial layer (Page 3 Paragraphs 0044-0045).
Suzuki teaches that the stacked layers/main body comprised a diffusion preventing layer in order to prevent diffusion of the sacrificial layer into the other layers and was an amorphous layer comprising metastable complex oxides including Sr-Ti complex oxide (SrTiO3) (Page 2 Paragraphs 0027-0028).
Based on the teachings of Suzuki, at the time the present invention was effectively filed it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have included an amorphous strontium titanate layer in the nanolaminate of Li in order to act as a diffusion-prevent layer preventing diffusion of the sacrificial layer into the other layers.
As for claims 3 and 4, as was discussed previously, it would have been obvious for one of the layers of Li in view of Suzuki to be strontium titanate. Furthermore, Li teaches that the nanolaminate comprised layers of silicon or Si-Ge/Si (Page 3 Paragraph 0029).
As for claim 19, as was discussed previously, it would have been obvious for one of the layers of Li in view of Suzuki to be strontium titanate and therefore a metastable complex oxide.
Claims 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al as applied to claims 10 and 11 above, and further in view of Lamontagne et al (U.S. Patent # 7,684,105).
The teachings of Li as it applies to claims 12 and 13 have been discussed previously and are incorporated herein.
In the case of claims 12 and 13, though Li teaches having heated/annealed the nanomembrane after release Li does not teach having formed a trench in the nanomembrane prior to heating.
Lamontagne teaches a process for forming a radial geometry in a membrane comprised of a stressed layer 5 having a plurality of sublayers wherein the stressed layer 5 was formed on a sacrificial layer 4 (Column 3 Lines 27-35 and Figure 1a to 1c). The process of Lamontagne comprised forming a trench/aperture 37/29a in the stressed layer 5 prior to removing the sacrificial layer 4 by etching in order to provide an opening for removal of the sacrificial layer 4 (Column 5 Lines 14-29, Column 5 Line 66 through Column 6 Line 3, Column 8 Lines 23-39 and Figures 2g and 3c).
Based on the teachings of Lamontagne, at the time the present invention was effectively filed it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have formed a trench in the nanomembrane of Li prior to release, and therefore prior to heating/annealing, in order to provide an opening for removing the sacrificial layer.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5, 14 and 15 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
In the case of claim 5, as was discussed previously, both Li and Suzuki teach having formed a stacked layer comprising amorphous oxide layers and Suzuki specifically teaches forming a layer of strontium titanate. However, neither reference fairly teaches or suggests forming stacked layers comprising SrTiO3 and LaAlO3.
In the case of claims 14 and 15, as was discussed previously, Lamontagne teaches having formed a trench in the nanomembrane/stressed layer prior to releasing. However, none of the references fairly teach or suggest having formed a trench in the nanomembrane and the substrate prior to releasing the nanomembrane.
Conclusion
Claims 1 through 20 have been rejected. No claims were allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL P WIECZOREK whose telephone number is (571)270-5341. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 6:00 AM - 3:30 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, Michael Cleveland can be reached at (571)272-1418. 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.
/MICHAEL P WIECZOREK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712
Prosecution Insights