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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 4-6 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.
In claim 4, the limitations “(in formula…of a c-axis.)” render the claim indefinite as it is unclear if the limitations in parenthesis are required or optional. The rejection can be overcome by removing the parenthesis, which is how the claim will be interpreted.
In claim 6, the limitations “(in formula…is 1.)” render the claim indefinite as it is unclear if the limitations in parenthesis are required or optional. The rejection can be overcome by removing the parenthesis, which is how the claim will be interpreted.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Claims 1-8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wang et al. (Appl. Phys. Lett., 2022, vol. 120, pgs. 012104-1 to 8).
With regard to claims 1-3, 6-8 and 10, Wang et al. teach the ScAlGaN alloy of sample S8, which has the atomic content that meets applicants’ formula (B) (Table 1, pg 012104-2). The sample S8 is grown as 100-120 nm film on a GaN substrate and has a wurtzite structure (pg. 012104-2, left column and 012104-3, right column). The alloy can be used in ferroelectric devices, which reads on applicants’ ferroelectric element (pg. 012104-7, left column).
With regard to claims 4 and 5, given the fact that the sample S8 has the same crystal structure and composition as preferentially claimed, it will inherently have the internal parameter claimed.
Claims 1-6 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ota et al. (“Crystal structure and ferroelectricity of (Al1-x-yGaxScy)N thin films”, Autumn Meeting of the Japan Society of Applied Physics, 20p-B103-10).
With regard to claims 1-6 and 10, Ota et al. teach (Al0.6Ga0.2Sc0.2)N films on a Pt/TiOx/Si substrate, which reads on applicants’ film and ferroelectric element. This alloy is a wurtzite structure (ウルツ鉱型構造). Given the fact that the film has the same crystal structure and composition as preferentially claimed, it will inherently have the internal parameter claimed.
Applicant cannot rely upon the certified copy of the foreign priority application to overcome this rejection because a translation of said application has not been made of record in accordance with 37 CFR 1.55. When an English language translation of a non-English language foreign application is required, the translation must be that of the certified copy (of the foreign application as filed) submitted together with a statement that the translation of the certified copy is accurate. See MPEP §§ 215 and 216.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (Appl. Phys. Lett., 2022, vol. 120, pgs. 012104-1 to 8).
Wang et al. teach all of the limitations of claim 1; however, they do not specifically teach the thickness claimed.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have made the thickness of the ScAlGaN alloy film any amount, including more than 250 nm as claimed, in order to adjust the properties of the film depending on the desired end use for the film.
Claims 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ota et al. (“Crystal structure and ferroelectricity of (Al1-x-yGaxScy)N thin films”, Autumn Meeting of the Japan Society of Applied Physics, 20p-B103-10).
Ota et al. teach all of the limitations of claim 1; however, they do not specifically teach the thickness claimed.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have made the thickness of the ScAlGaN alloy film any amount, including a thickness of 250 nm or less or more than 250 nm as claimed, in order to adjust the properties of the film depending on the desired end use for the film.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GERARD T HIGGINS whose telephone number is (571)270-3467. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-6pm.
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, Mark Ruthkosky can be reached at (571) 272-1291. 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.
/Gerard Higgins/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1785
Prosecution Insights