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
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: a typo is present in the phrases “growing base oxide” in line 4, “planarising surface” in line 21, “top of buried oxide” in line 24, and “align with Pillar Poly” in lines 2 and 5 (second page) which are being interpreted to read “growing a base oxide”, “planarising a surface”, “top of a buried oxide”, and “align with a Pillar Poly”, respectively, given claim context. Further, the quotes utilized in lines 24-25 and 30 around the words “device” and “handle” should be removed. 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 1-16 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. Specifically, the instances of claim 1 language creating a lack of clarity are manifold to such a degree that Examiner is requesting Applicant to review claim 1, along with claims 2-16, for other instances of claim language creating a lack of clarity akin to those instances outlined below.
In lines 3 and 24, the limitations begin with “starting from” and “starting with” which each creates a lack of clarity as to what is meant in this regard.
In lines 5-6, 16, 28 and 30 of page 1 and line 14 of page 2, the limitations begin with “patterning with” various elements but do not disclose what structure is being patterned which creates a lack of clarity as to the scope being claimed.
In lines 11-12, the phrase “a concentration approaching its respective solid solubility limit” is indefinite and creates a lack of clarity as to what concentration (or range of concentrations) is being claimed.
In line 13, the phrase “subsequently depositing a dielectric layer” lacks clarity as to where the dielectric layer is being deposited.
In line 15, the phrase “a stack of high relative permittivity materials” is indefinite and creates a lack of clarity as to how ‘high relative permittivity’ is to be construed.
In line 16, the phrase “a dielectric layer that is deposited over the titanium” lacks clarity as the phrase ‘a dielectric layer’ was already introduced in line 13 and therefore makes it unclear as to which dielectric layer is being referenced and if another dielectric layer is present.
In line 18, the phrase “the patterned dielectric” lacks antecedent basis and lacks clarity as to which ‘dielectric’ is being referenced.
In line 19, the phrases “an alternative wet etch process” and “sequentially excavating” lack clarity as it is unclear what ‘alternative’ is to be referenced against and what action ‘sequentially excavating’ is referencing.
In line 20, the phrase “exposed polysilicon” lacks clarity as it is unclear which ‘polysilicon’ is being referenced given that both ‘polysilicon (208)’ and ‘doped polysilicon’ have already been introduced.
In line 22, the phrase “for eventual bonding” is indefinite lacks clarity as to how the modifier ‘eventual’ is to be construed.
In line 27, the phrase “the aluminium layer is Metal 2 (220)” creates a lack of clarity as to how ‘Metal 2’ is to be construed.
In lines 2 and 5 of page 2, the phrase “Pillar Poly” lacks clarity as to how ‘Poly’ is to be construed given other instances of ‘polysilicon’ have already been introduced.
In lines 6 and 10 of page 2, the phrase “polysilicon (208) and aluminium” lacks clarity as to whether this is referencing the ‘doped polysilicon’ or the excavated ‘exposed polysilicon’ or something else and which aluminium is being referenced given ‘aluminium’ was already introduced twice.
In line 7 of page 2, the phrase “a certain thickness of the Metal 2 (220) is consumed” is indefinite and lacks clarity as to how a ‘certain thickness’ is to be construed and it is further unclear what is meant by the Metal 2 (220) being ‘consumed’.
In line 8 of page 2, the phrase “the Titanium (Ti) (210) alloy in parallel” lacks clarity as a ‘titanium alloy’ has not been previously introduced and therefore lacks antecedent basis and it is further unclear what ‘in parallel’ is being referenced against and how this should be construed.
In lines 9 and 12 of page 2, the phrase “the cavity” has not been previously introduced and therefore lacks antecedent basis.
In line 11 of page 2, the phrase “residual Nitrogen and Oxygen” lacks clarity as to how Nitrogen and Oxygen relate to the rest of the claim language, e.g. is this referring to atmospheric air having N and O in the cavity?
In line 11 of page 2, the label “(c)” creates a lack of clarity if this limitation is being included in the list with ‘(a)’ and ‘(b)’ given that the limitation content does not fit with that listing. Rather, it appears this should instead read “(iii)” and be included in the list with ‘(i)’ and ‘(ii)’.
In line 12 of page 2, the phrase “improving vacuum” is indefinite and creates a lack of clarity as to how ‘improving’ is be construed.
In line 13 of page 2, the phrase “an entire wafer” lacks clarity as it is unclear how this new ‘entire wafer’ is related to the rest of the claim language.
In line 15 of page 2, the phrase “isolate CMUT cells from mechanical coupling” lacks clarity as it is unclear how these ‘cells’ are related to the rest of the claim language and further to what the ‘mechanical coupling’ is related.
In line 16 of page 2, the phrase “bond pads” lacks clarity as it is unclear how these ‘pads’ are related to the rest of the claim language.
Claims 2-16 are similarly rejected for depending upon rejected claim 1. Applicant is further requested to review claims 2-16 for similar issues that were identified above in claim 1 as well as to go through and verify the claim language is clear. In spite of these numerous issues related to the clarity of claim 1, Examiner will attempt to examine claim 1 as best understood.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-16, as best understood, would be allowed but for the numerous 35 USC 112(b) rejections. Examiner emphasizes that amendments made to claim 1 to overcome the 35 USC 112(b) rejections will very likely meaningfully change the scope of claim 1 and so would require a further determination of allowability after such amendments are made. In reviewing current claim 1, as best understood, Examiner incorporates by reference the analysis provided in the PCT Search Report Written Opinion of Form PCT/ISA/237 Box No. V of December 27, 2022 and notes US 2019/0210869 A1 to Rothberg et al., US 2015/0008788 A1 to El-Gamal et al., and US 2016/0016198 A1 to Emadi et al. as being particularly relevant to current claim 1. However, Examiner does not reach the same conclusion that Rothberg and El-Gamal collectively disclose claim 1. Examiner further notes that US 2021/0291228 A1 to Alie et al., US 2021/0114060 A1 to Rothberg et al., and US 2019/0164956 A1 to Rothberg et al. each detail similar but slightly different CMUT device disclosures relative to US 2019/0210869 A1 to Rothberg et al. cited in the PCT Search Report Written Opinion.
Conclusion
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: US 2021/0260622 A1 to Lin et al., US 2023/0412989 A1 to Kim et al., and WO 2013/089648 A1 to Guo et al. each disclose CMUT device arrangements having similar production methods to the presently claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to IAN DEGRASSE whose telephone number is (571) 272-0261. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 8:30a until 5:00p.
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, JEFF NATALINI can be reached on (571) 272-2266. 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. 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.
/IAN DEGRASSE/Examiner, Art Unit 2818
/JEFF W NATALINI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2818
Prosecution Insights