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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show the specific structure of the piezoelectric layers (i.e. an ultrasonic transducer having multiple alternating piezoelectric layers, as well as a semiconductor heterostructure and/or a ring and pillar structure) as described in the specification. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 11-20 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.
Claims 11 and 20 recite “a multitude of alternatively deposited piezoelectric layers”. It is not clear what “alternatively deposited” means, or what particular structure or deposition method would meet this limitation (e.g. different piezoelectric materials alternating with each other, or piezoelectric layers alternating with non-piezoelectric layers, or simply multiple separate piezoelectric layers).
Claims 12-19 are rejected for their dependence on claim 11.
Claim 20 recites “the probe element” followed by “the element comprising a coating formed by a multitude of alternatively deposited piezoelectric layers”. It is not clear if the second element is the probe element or a different element. Since the specification does not appear to disclose that the probe element 16 comprises multiple piezoelectric layers, this is assumed to refer to the ultrasonic transducer 18.
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.
Claims 11-12, 14-16 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Es (US 20200249255 A1) in view of Rothberg (US 20200269280 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Van Es teaches an element (ultra sound transducer 17) of an AFM tool comprising a piezoelectric element (“one or more bodies of piezoelectric material”, [0036]).
Van Es does not teach that the element comprises a coating formed by a multitude of alternatively deposited piezoelectric layers.
Rothberg teaches a piezoelectric ultrasonic transducer ([0003]) comprising a coating formed by a multitude of alternatively deposited piezoelectric layers (layer of thin film piezoelectric micromachined ultrasonic transducers, [0007]; multitude of layers shown in piezoelectric materials 1308a-c in fig. 13).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art on or before the effective filing date of the invention to use the piezoelectric ultrasonic transducer of Rothberg as a substitute for the transducer of Van Es, as a matter of selecting a known piezoelectric element capable of operating with a high frequency range for shallow or deep ultrasonic imaging of a substrate ([0076]).
Regarding claim 12, Rothberg teaches that at least one of the layers is piezoelectric (piezoelectric material 1308a).
Regarding claim 14, Van Es teaches that the element (a coating formed by a multitude of alternatively deposited piezoelectric layers in the combination with Rothberg, above) is an ultrasound generation layer (ultrasound transducer 17) that may be provided on a cantilever arm (transducer may be located at an alternate location to excite vibrations via the probe tip, i.e. by being on the probe, [0036]).
Regarding claim 15, Rothberg teaches that the ultrasound generation layer comprises a composite layer having multiple individual layers (electrodes 1310 and 1312, piezoelectric material layers 1308a).
Regarding claim 16, Rothberg teaches that the multiple individual layers have different material compositions relative to each other (metal electrode layer, [0067]; piezoelectric layer may be PZT or aluminum nitrate, [0032]).
Regarding claim 18, Rothberg teaches that the composite layer having multiple individual layers is configured an a concentric rings geometry (rings 1102, 1104, fig. 11A) comprising different pillars with spatial separation wherein each pillar has multiple individual layers (pillars 1302, 1304, 1306 have different heights formed by multiple layers, fig. 13).
Regarding claim 19, Rothberg teaches that the pillars have different thickness obtained by different thicknesses of the individual layers forming the ultrasound generation layer (layers 1308a-c have different thicknesses, fig. 13, [0075]).
Claims 13 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Es in view of Rothberg and in further view of Sun (Sun et al, “Optical Piezoelectric Transducer-Based Nanoultrasonics”, Proceedings of the 7th IEEE International Conference on Nanotechnology, 2007).
Regarding claims 13 and 17, Van Es and Rothberg teach all the limitations of claims 11 and 16 as described above. Van Es and Rothberg do not teach that the layers are formed from semiconductor heterostructures, or that the multiple individual layers are formed from GaN and InGaN such that the ultrasound generation layer is a quantum well.
Sun teaches an ultrasonic generation layer formed from a semiconductor heterostructure, where the multiple individual layers are formed from GaN and InGaN such that the ultrasound generation layer is a quantum well (optical piezoelectric transducer, OPT, formed from InGaN/GaN multiple quantum wells, p. 263 col. 2 paragraph 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art on or before the effective filing date of the invention to substitute the semiconductor heterostructure of Sun for the ultrasonic generation system of Van Es, as Sun teaches that “the role of the OPT is similar to that of the piezoelectric transducer in a typical ultrasonic imaging system” (so that one of ordinary skill would be able to substitute it easily for the piezoelectric transducer of Van Es) and that the OPT of Sun allows ultrasonic imaging with nanometer resolution (p. 263, col. 2 paragraph 3).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Es (US 20220091069 A1, hereinafter Van Es 2022) in view of Rothberg.
Regarding claim 20, Van Es 2022 teaches a metrology tool for determining information about a target structure formed on a substrate using a lithographic process (imaging of lithographically formed layers, [0005]),
A cantilever probe (30) having a cantilever arm (33, fig. 4) and a probe element (transmission tip 31), the probe element configured to extend from the cantilever arm towards the target structure, the system comprising an element comprising a coating formed by piezoelectric layers (multiple piezoelectric elements of different thicknesses, [0049]);
An ultrasound generation system (signal generator 20 configured to generate ultrasound in cooperation with transmission tip, [0042]) configured to generate ultrasonic waves in the cantilever probe, such that the ultrasonic waves propagate through the probe element into the target structure and reflect back from the target structure into the probe element (receiving acoustic signal from reflections of ultrasound wave, [0042]); and
An ultrasound detection system (reception tip 32 and signal processor 50A) configured to detect the reflected ultrasonic waves (sensing received acoustic signal, [0042]).
Van Es 2022 does not explicitly teach that the piezoelectric element is on the cantilever arm. However in order to efficiently couple the piezoelectric element to the transmission tip 31, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to place the piezoelectric element on the cantilever arm, as a matter of arranging the parts of the invention with no unexpected result.
Van Es 2022 does not teach that the element comprises a coating formed by a multitude of alternatively deposited piezoelectric layers.
Rothberg teaches a piezoelectric ultrasonic transducer ([0003]) comprising a coating formed by a multitude of alternatively deposited piezoelectric layers (layer of thin film piezoelectric micromachined ultrasonic transducers, [0007]; multitude of layers shown in piezoelectric materials 1308a-c in fig. 13).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art on or before the effective filing date of the invention to use the piezoelectric ultrasonic transducer of Rothberg as a substitute for the transducer of Van Es 2022, as a matter of selecting a known piezoelectric element capable of operating with a high frequency range for shallow or deep ultrasonic imaging of a substrate ([0076]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID E SMITH whose telephone number is (571)270-7096. The examiner can normally be reached M to F 8:30 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, Robert Kim can be reached at 22293. 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.
/DAVID E SMITH/Examiner, Art Unit 2881
Prosecution Insights