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 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 1-3, 6, 8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Noguchi (JP2007037271, hereinafter Noguchi).
Regarding claim 1, Noguchi discloses a film structure comprising: a substrate (14); a buffer film containing ZrO2 (page 6, paragraph 7 of the provided machine translation) and formed on the substrate (14); and a piezoelectric film made from a nitride (2, page 10, first paragraph) formed on the buffer film, wherein the substrate is a Si substrate (page 6, paragraph 6), and a polarization direction of the piezoelectric film is preferentially oriented perpendicularly to the substrate (page 5, paragraph 3).
Regarding claim 2, a metal film (lower electrode 3) is formed on the buffer film.
Regarding claim 3, the metal film is a Pt film (page 7, first paragraph).
Regarding claim 6, Noguchi discloses the use of AlN (page 10, first paragraph).
Regarding claim 8, the Si substrate is a Si(100). See page 10, last paragraph.
Regarding claim 10, the electronic device is anticipated by Noguchi.
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 1-3, 6, 10, 13-15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murai (US20020123158, hereinafter Murai) in view of Noguchi.
Regarding claim 1, Murai discloses a film structure comprising: a substrate (1); a buffer
film containing ZrO₂ (6, paragraph [0085]) and formed on the substrate; and a piezoelectric film
(9) formed on the buffer film (6), wherein the substrate is a Si substrate (paragraph [0080]), and
a polarization direction of the piezoelectric film is preferentially oriented perpendicularly to the
substrate (paragraph [0005]). Murai fails to disclose the piezoelectric layer comprising a nitride. Noguchi discloses the use aluminum nitride as the piezoelectric film instead of a PZT layer. Selection from among known, suitable materials has long been held to be within the skill expected of the routineer and therefore obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. The specific material is a lead-free piezoelectric material with excellent piezoelectric characteristics. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the before the effective filing date of the instant application to use aluminum nitride piezoelectric layer since it provides excellent piezoelectric characteristics and it is known to be a lead-free alternative piezoelectric material.
Regarding claim 2, a metal film (8, 71) is formed on the buffer film.
Regarding claim 3, the metal film is a Pt film (71) or titanium (8).
Regarding claim 6, Noguchi discloses the use of aluminum nitride (page 10, first paragraph).
Regarding claim 10, the electronic device is anticipated by Murai.
Regarding claim 13-15, Fig. 3F discloses the hollow portion (10), the electrodes sandwiching the piezoelectric layer and the electrode area being smaller than the cavity.
Regarding claims 17, Murai discloses forming a silicon oxide layer (5) on the substrate.
6. Claims 1-4, 6, 8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over are Kijima et al. (US20200357978, hereinafter Kijima) in view of Noguchi.
Regarding claim 1, Kijima discloses a film structure comprising: a substrate (11); a buffer film containing ZrO₂ (12, paragraph [0082]) and formed on the substrate; and a piezoelectric film (15) formed on the buffer film (12), wherein the substrate is a Si substrate (paragraph [0082]), and a polarization direction of the piezoelectric film is preferentially oriented perpendicularly to the substrate (paragraph [0144]). Kijima fails to disclose the piezoelectric layer comprising a nitride. Noguchi discloses the use aluminum nitride as the piezoelectric film as an alternative to a PZT layer or a BT layer. Selection from among known, suitable materials has long been held to be within the skill expected of the routineer and therefore obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. The specific aluminum nitride material is a lead-free piezoelectric material with excellent piezoelectric characteristics. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the before the effective filing date of the instant application to use aluminum nitride piezoelectric layer since it provides excellent piezoelectric characteristics and it is known to be a lead-free alternative piezoelectric material.
Regarding claim 2, a metal film (13) is formed on the buffer film.
Regarding claim 3, the metal film is a Pt film.
Regarding claim 4, an SRO film (14a) formed on the metal film.
Regarding claim 6, Noguchi discloses the use of aluminum nitride (page 10, first paragraph).
Regarding claim 8, the silicon substrate is a Si (100) (abstract).
Regarding claim 10, the electronic device is disclosed by Kijima.
Claims 7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noguchi or Murai or Kijima.
Regarding claim 7, Noguchi discloses the invention as explained above, but fail to explicitly disclose the use of aluminum nitride doped with Sc to form the piezoelectric layer.
Selection from among known, suitable materials has long been held to be within the skill expected of the routineer and therefore obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Aluminum nitride doped with scandium is an old and well known material with increased dielectric constant and uniform crystal growth. In addition, the specific material is a lead-free piezoelectric material with excellent piezoelectric characteristics. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with
ordinary skill in the before the effective filing date of the instant application to use a scandium
doped-aluminum nitride piezoelectric layer since it provides excellent piezoelectric characteristics.
Regarding claim 9, Murai and Noguchi disclose the invention as explained above, but fail to explicitly disclose the silicon substrate made form Si(111) film. Selection from among known, suitable materials has long been held to be within the skill expected of the routineer and therefore obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. The orientation of the silicon substrate can be chosen depending on the desired orientation of the piezoelectric layer and the buffer layer in order to obtain the desired vibration characteristics of the device. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to provide a substrate made from Si(111) film as necessitated by the specific requirements of the particular application.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11, 12, 18 and 19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-4 and 6-19 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892.
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 Jaydi San Martin whose telephone number is (571)272-2018. The examiner can normally be reached on M-Th 7:45-6:00pm.
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, Dedei Hammond can be reached on 571-270-7938. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/J. San Martin/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2837
Prosecution Insights