DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of the Application
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are pending.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
PNG
media_image1.png
120
1248
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
PNG
media_image2.png
89
869
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 5-8, 16-18 is/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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 5, 16 recites “to allow for a degree of parallel application in a scanning tunneling microscope” but it is unclear to what degree is sufficient.
Claim 6, 17 recites “the relative motion is in a direction perpendicular to a sample surface and parallel to the sample surface” but it is unclear how motion can be both perpendicular and parallel to the same plane at the same time.
Claims 6-8, 17-18 are rejected due to their dependency from claim 5, 16.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 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:
PNG
media_image3.png
158
934
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4-7, 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Victor Ahlinder, Scanning Probe Microscopy With Gallium Nitride Nanowires, (Masters Thesis In Engineering Nanoscience) (June 2015), https://lup.lub.lu.se/luur/download?func=downloadFile&recordOId=8925305&fileOId=8925405, in view of Bi et al., InN quantum dots on GaNnanowires grown by MOVPE, Phys. Status Solidi C 11, No. 3–4, 421– 424 (2014), https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/pssc.201300551 [hereinafter Bi].
Regarding claim 1, Ahlinder teaches a method of forming an array of composite nanoscale tips for use in scanning tunneling microscopy or lithography, comprising:
growing a single crystal wide bandgap semiconductor nanowire on each selective growth area (see GaN nanowires, e.g. p19, figs 10-11);
separating the array of scanning tunneling tip precursors into subarrays (see e.g. region where the nanowires are picked up from, see p28, table 3) wherein each subarray contains at least one scanning tunneling tip (e.g. p28, sec. 5.3); and
mounting at least one of subarray of the array of scanning tunneling tip precursors for use in a scanning tunneling microscope (see e.g. p28, sec. 5.3; p30, conclusion).
Ahlinder may fail to explicitly disclose preparing an array of tip precursors on a crystalline substrate; providing an area for selective area growth of a wide bandgap semiconducting material on each tip precursor.
However, Ahlinder teaches their GaN nanowires were formed by a process by Bi and Ohlsson (see Ahlinder, p18, last para), and Bi teaches a known process to form the array of nanowires (note also Bi, fig 2, and Ahlinder, fig 10, which appear very similar), said process comprising preparing an array of tip precursors (see Bi, e.g. NH3, p422, col 1, para 1) on a crystalline substrate (see same, (111) substrate); providing an area for selective area growth of a wide bandgap semiconducting material (GaN) on each tip precursor (see same). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to combine the teachings of Bi in the system of the Ahlinder, because a skilled artisan would have been motivated to look for ways to enable the intended operation of providing the known effective GaN nanowires, in the manner taught by Bi.
Regarding claim 2, the combined teaching of Ahlinder and Bi teaches the single crystal wide bandgap semiconductor comprises a group III-N nanowire wherein a group III composition comprises one or more of Ga, In, or Al (see GaN, Ahlinder, p18, last para).
Regarding claim 4, the combined teaching of Ahlinder and Bi teaches a sub-array contains only a single scanning tunneling tip precursor (see Ahlinder, e.g. fig 10-11, defining single precursor as sub-array).
Regarding claim 5, the combined teaching of Ahlinder and Bi teaches a sub-array contains more than one scanning tunneling tip precursor (see Ahlinder, e.g. fig 10-11, defining plurality of precursors as sub-array) and provides for relative motion between multiple scanning tunneling tips (some relative motion is a natural result of operating nanowire tips, e.g. p27, fig 22; note also p26 last para) to allow for a degree of parallel application in a scanning tunneling microscope (natural result of operating the system; note alternately parallel application in manufacturing).
Regarding claim 6, the combined teaching of Ahlinder and Bi teaches the relative motion is in a direction perpendicular to a sample surface and parallel to the sample surface (see z direction, Ahlinder, p10, 2nd to last para).
Regarding claim 7, the combined teaching of Ahlinder and Bi teaches the relative motion is recorded by a computer to generate an image of surface topography (see Ahlinder, p28, last para).
Regarding claim 9, the combined teaching of Ahlinder and Bi teaches the mounting comprises affixing the single crystal wide band-gap semiconductor to a substantially flat end surface of an electrically conductive wire to form a composite tip (see Ahlinder, p27, fig 22).
Claim(s) 3, 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Ahlinder and Bi, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lieber et al. (US 20020122766 A1) [hereinafter Lieber].
Regarding claim 3, the combined teaching of Ahlinder and Bi teaches the selective area growth comprises a metal organic chemical vapor deposition (see MOVPE, Ahlinder, p18, last para) and the selective area growth is controlled to provide a sharp tip of the nanowire (see p19, figs 10-11). The combined teaching may fail to explicitly state a radius of less than about 2 nm without further processing. However, the tip appears to have a diameter of less than 4 nm in figs 10-11 of Ahlinder. However, it has held that when the reference discloses all the limitations of a claim except a property or function, and the examiner cannot determine whether or not the reference inherently possesses properties which anticipate or render obvious the claimed invention but has basis for shifting the burden of proof to applicant as in In re Fitzgerald, 619 F.2d 67, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980). See MPEP §§2112-2112.02. Alternately Lieber teaches that a smaller tip is desirable to avoid loss of resolution (see Lieber, [0076]) in STM applications, including enabling nanotweezer functionality (see [0088]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to combine the teachings of Lieber in the system of the prior art because a skilled artisan would have been motivated to look for ways to improve resolution of the STM and/or enable the additional ability to enable nanotweezer functionality, as taught by Lieber.
Regarding claim 11, the combined teaching of Ahlinder and Bi teaches each nanowire has a faceted diameter of about 0.1 to 0.5 µm (see Ahlinder, p19, last para, 300nm), and with a controlled doping (see p18, last para). The combined teaching may fail to explicitly state a tip radius of about or less than about 2 nm, but the differences would have been obvious in view of Lieber, for similar reasons as claim 3 above. It is unclear if the combined teaching discloses a resistivity of about 10-2 Ohm-cm. However, It has been held that when the reference discloses all the limitations of a claim except a property or function, and the examiner cannot determine whether or not the reference inherently possesses properties which anticipate or render obvious the claimed invention but has basis for shifting the burden of proof to applicant as in In re Fitzgerald, 619 F.2d 67, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980). See MPEP §§2112-2112.02. Furthermore, Ahlinder teaches that doping is controlled to change the resistivity of the tip (see p8, para 1), and it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to adjust the conductivity of the tip to balance ensuring effective STM microscopy while not wasting time with unnecessary doping. It has held that discovering an optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claim(s) 5-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Ahlinder and Bi, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Marnani et al. (US 20150185248 A1) [hereinafter Marnani].
Regarding claim 5, the combined teaching of Ahlinder and Bi teaches a sub-array contains more than one scanning tunneling tip precursor (see Ahlinder, e.g. fig 10-11, defining plurality of precursors as sub-array) and provides for relative motion between multiple scanning tunneling tips (some relative motion is a natural result of operating nanowire tips, e.g. p27, fig 22; note also p26 last para) to allow for a degree of parallel application in a scanning tunneling microscope (natural result of operating the system; note alternately parallel application in manufacturing). Alternately, it is noted that the use of multiple tips for parallelization was well known in the art at the time the application was effectively filed. For example, Marnani teaches using multiple probes in parallel to improve throughput and parallelize measurement of different regions (see e.g. Marnani, [0005-06]), said system comprising providing for relative motion between multiple scanning tunneling tips (see e.g. fig 2) to allow for a degree of parallel application in a scanning tunneling microscope (see [0008]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to combine the teachings of Marnani in the system of the prior art to try to enable the improved throughput and parallelization, in the manner taught by Marnani.
Regarding claim 6, the combined teaching of Ahlinder and Bi teaches the relative motion is in a direction perpendicular to a sample surface and parallel to the sample surface (see z direction, Ahlinder, p10, 2nd to last para).
Regarding claim 7, the combined teaching of Ahlinder, Bi, and Marnani teaches the relative motion is recorded by a computer to generate an image of surface topography (see Ahlinder, p28, last para).
Regarding claim 8, the combined teaching of Ahlinder, Bi, and Marnani teaches individual electrical excitation is provided to each tip within the array to generate a lithographic image on a sample surface (required for intended operation of STM, see Marnani, fig 2).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Ahlinder and Bi, as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Thompson et al. (WO2006042065A2) [hereinafter Thompson].
Regarding claim 10, the combined teaching of Ahlinder and Bi may fail to explicitly disclose the affixing comprises welding using a Pt ion source. However, Thompson teaches that welding via a platinum ion beam was known to be effective at attaching different atomically sharp STM tips to flat tops of different microtips (see e.g. Thompson, fig 6, p17, lines 9-11). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to combine the teachings of Thompson in the system of the prior art to enable the intended operation of attaching the nanowire to the probe body, because a skilled artisan would have been motivated to try the known effective and simple platinum welding technique to enable the ability to attach a wide range of STM tips to different probe bodies, in the manner taught by Thompson. It is also noted that applying known techniques to known devices to obtain predictable results supported a prima facie obviousness. See MPEP 2143.
Claim(s) 12-13, 15-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Victor Ahlinder, Scanning Probe Microscopy With Gallium Nitride Nanowires, (Masters Thesis In Engineering Nanoscience) (June 2015), https://lup.lub.lu.se/luur/download?func=downloadFile&recordOId=8925305&fileOId=8925405, in view of Bi et al., InN quantum dots on GaNnanowires grown by MOVPE, Phys. Status Solidi C 11, No. 3–4, 421– 424 (2014), https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/pssc.201300551 [hereinafter Bi] and Amakusa (US 20070157712 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Ahlinder teaches a method of forming an array of composite tips for use in scanning tunneling microscopy, comprising:
growing a single crystal wide bandgap semiconductor nanowire on each selective growth area (see GaN nanowires, e.g. p19, figs 10-11);
separating the array of scanning tunneling tip precursors into subarrays (see e.g. region where the nanowires are picked up from, see p28, table 3); and
mounting at least one of subarray of the array of scanning tunneling tip precursors (see e.g. p28, sec. 5.3; p30, conclusion) onto an actuated piezoelectric (see p10, last 3 para) tube (see e.g. p7, fig 3).
Ahlinder may fail to explicitly disclose preparing an array of scanning tunneling microscope tip precursors on a crystalline substrate; providing an area for selective area growth of a wide bandgap semiconducting material on each tip precursor.
However, Ahlinder teaches their GaN nanowires were formed by a process by Bi and Ohlsson (see Ahlinder, p18, last para), and Bi teaches a known process to form the array of nanowires (note also Bi, fig 2, and Ahlinder, fig 10, which appear very similar), said process comprising preparing an array of STM tip precursors (see Bi, e.g. NH3, p422, col 1, para 1) on a crystalline substrate (see same, (111) substrate); providing an area for selective area growth of a wide bandgap semiconducting material (GaN) on each tip precursor (see same). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to combine the teachings of Bi in the system of the Ahlinder, because a skilled artisan would have been motivated to look for ways to enable the intended operation of providing the known effective GaN nanowires, in the manner taught by Bi.
The combined teaching may fail to explicitly disclose a piezo tube.
However, the use of piezo tubes for STM was notoriously well known in the art at the time the application was effectively filed. For example, Amakusa teaches a known effective tubular system that compensates for temperature variations (see Amakusa, abstract). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to combine the teachings of Amakusa in the system of the prior art, to enable the intended operation of the system and/or try to compensate for temperature variations, as taught by Amakusa.
Regarding claim 13, the combined teaching of Ahlinder and Bi teaches the single crystal wide bandgap semiconductor comprises a group III-N nanowire wherein a group III composition comprises one or more of Ga, In, or Al (see GaN, Ahlinder, p18, last para).
Regarding claim 15, the combined teaching of Ahlinder and Bi teaches a sub-array contains only a single scanning tunneling tip precursor (see Ahlinder, e.g. fig 10-11, defining single precursor as sub-array).
Regarding claim 16, the combined teaching of Ahlinder and Bi teaches a sub-array contains more than one scanning tunneling tip precursor (see Ahlinder, e.g. fig 10-11, defining plurality of precursors as sub-array) and provides for relative motion between multiple scanning tunneling tips (some relative motion is a natural result of operating nanowire tips, e.g. p27, fig 22; note also p26 last para) to allow for a degree of parallel application in a scanning tunneling microscope (natural result of operating the system; note alternately parallel application in manufacturing).
Regarding claim 17, the combined teaching of Ahlinder and Bi teaches the relative motion is in a direction perpendicular to a sample surface and parallel to the sample surface (see z direction, Ahlinder, p10, 2nd to last para).
Regarding claim 18, the combined teaching of Ahlinder and Bi teaches the relative motion is recorded by a computer to generate an image of surface topography (see Ahlinder, p28, last para).
Regarding claim 19, the combined teaching of Ahlinder and Bi teaches the mounting comprises affixing the single crystal wide band-gap semiconductor to a substantially flat end surface of an electrically conductive wire to form a composite tip (see Ahlinder, p27, fig 22).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Ahlinder, Bi, and Amakusa, as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Lieber et al. (US 20020122766 A1) [hereinafter Lieber].
Regarding claim 14, the combined teaching of Ahlinder, Bi, and Amakusa teaches the selective area growth comprises a metal organic chemical vapor deposition (see MOVPE, Ahlinder, p18, last para) and the selective area growth is controlled to provide a sharp tip of the nanowire (see p19, figs 10-11). The combined teaching may fail to explicitly state a radius of less than about 2 nm without further processing. However, the tip appears to have a diameter of less than 4 nm in figs 10-11 of Ahlinder. However, it has held that when the reference discloses all the limitations of a claim except a property or function, and the examiner cannot determine whether or not the reference inherently possesses properties which anticipate or render obvious the claimed invention but has basis for shifting the burden of proof to applicant as in In re Fitzgerald, 619 F.2d 67, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980). See MPEP §§2112-2112.02. Alternately Lieber teaches that a smaller tip is desirable to avoid loss of resolution (see Lieber, [0076]) in STM applications, including enabling nanotweezer functionality (see [0088]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to combine the teachings of Lieber in the system of the prior art because a skilled artisan would have been motivated to look for ways to improve resolution of the STM and/or enable the additional ability to enable nanotweezer functionality, as taught by Lieber.
Regarding claim 20, the combined teaching of Ahlinder and Bi teaches each nanowire has a faceted diameter of about 0.1 to 0.5 µm (see Ahlinder, p19, last para, 300nm), and with a controlled doping (see p18, last para). The combined teaching may fail to explicitly state a tip radius of about or less than about 2 nm, but the differences would have been obvious in view of Lieber, for similar reasons as claim 3 above. It is unclear if the combined teaching discloses a resistivity of about 10-2 Ohm-cm. However, It has been held that when the reference discloses all the limitations of a claim except a property or function, and the examiner cannot determine whether or not the reference inherently possesses properties which anticipate or render obvious the claimed invention but has basis for shifting the burden of proof to applicant as in In re Fitzgerald, 619 F.2d 67, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980). See MPEP §§2112-2112.02. Furthermore, Ahlinder teaches that doping is controlled to change the resistivity of the tip (see p8, para 1), and it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to adjust the conductivity of the tip to balance ensuring effective STM microscopy while not wasting time with unnecessary doping. It has held that discovering an optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claim(s) 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Ahlinder, Bi, and Amakusa, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Marnani et al. (US 20150185248 A1) [hereinafter Marnani].
Regarding claim 16, the combined teaching may fail to explicitly disclose the claimed limitation(s). However, the differences would have been obvious in view of Marnani, for similar reasons as claim 5 above.
Claim 17 is rejected for similar reasons as claim 6 above.
Claim 18 is rejected for similar reasons as claim 7 above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to James Choi whose telephone number is (571) 272 – 2689. The examiner can normally be reached on 9:30 am – 6:00 pm M-F.
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, Georgia Epps can be reached on (571) 272 – 2328. 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.
/JAMES CHOI/Examiner, Art Unit 2878
Prosecution Insights