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 § 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 1-15 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.
Regarding claims 1 (line 7), claim 9 (line 3) and claim 15 (line 5), the phrase "in particular" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claims 2-14 are directly or indirectly depends on claim 1 and also include the limitation.
Regarding claim 2,line 7, the phrase " especially" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 8, line 3 (two occurances), the phrase "especially" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 10, line 6, the phrase "especially" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim is not a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter. The claimed “a computer program” is non-structural pre se, and the specification discloses a computer program comprising program code, which may be stored on a machine-readable carrier or storage medium, such as a semiconductor memory, a hard drive or an optical storage medium, (see page 7, lines 25-30 in the instant specification). Therefore, a reasonable interpretation in light of specification leads to the conclusion that the claim encompasses pure software, which does not fall within the definition of a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-13 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HELKE ET AL: "Large-scale fabrication of LP-CVD SiN photonic crystal structures as freestanding reflectors with 1 mm aperture for Fabry-Perot interferometers" (provided with IDS) in view of Cerini et al (US 2020/0382876).
Regarding claims 1-3, and 15, HELKE et al disclose (see figure 3) and discloses a method for producing a semiconductor device with an exposed membrane section, wherein the method includes the following steps:
- providing a semiconductor material comprising a carrier substrate (Si) provided with a passivation layer (Si02), wherein a membrane layer (Si3N4) is arranged on the passivation layer, and the membrane layer corresponds to the claimed “membrane ply”;
the membrane layer being covered by a protective layer (Al) on one side opposite the passivation layer;
- removing a portion of the carrier substrate using a wet-chemical process to obtain an exposed region of the passivation layer in a structured region of the semiconductor material (see, figure 3a); and
- exposing a section of the membrane layer in the structured region by means of a first dry-etching step for etching the protective layer (figure 3c) and a second wet-etching step for etching the passivation layer (figure 3d), to obtain the exposed membrane section (see page 3).
Unlike the instant invention, HELKE et al fail to disclose the membrane layer consists of a material that can be modified in terms of its structure and /or composition by water; and applying a second dry-etching to etch the passivation layer as required in the instant claim 1.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Cerini et al disclose a process of using silicon nitride, Si.sub.3N.sub.4, silicon carbide, SiC, or aluminum nitride, AlN) for membrane structure [0043], [0077], wherein wet or dry etching being performed to expose the membrane layer [0080], Figure 5j-5K); an aforesaid aluminum nitride is hydrolysable in water.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ Cerini et al's teaching of using
aluminum nitride (AlN) into the teaching of HELKE et al because both the silicon nitride and AlN are functionally equivalent and dry-etching could perform as suggested by Cerini et al.
Additionally, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to replace HELKE et al’s wet etching with dry etching of Cerini et al and dry etching is advantageous over wet etching as dry etching does not require after process handling of hazardous material as wet etching does.
Regarding claims 4-5, Cerini et al disclose that after removal of the carrier substrate and the passivation layer forming a through opening 28 (see Figure 5K); and also see the Figure 3 in HELKE et al).
Regarding claim 6, HELKE et al disclose the wet etching is performed by using potassium hydroxide (KOH) and the first or second dry etching is performed by ‘RIE (see page 3).
Regarding claim 7, it would have been obvious to have several semiconductor components on the carrier substrate because such would depend on the type of device to be formed.
Regarding claim 8, after exposing of the membrane, a cleaning step would have been obvious to remove residual material after the etching step.
Regarding claim 9, HELKE et al disclose that etching mask being used during the process steps (see the page 3).
Regarding claim 10, Cerini et al disclose above that aluminum nitride being as used for the membrane [0043].
Regarding claim 11, HELKE et al shows the wet etching using KOH forming the etched angle around 54.7 degree (see the Figure 3).
Regarding claim 12, HELKE et al disclose that the membrane thickness about 400 nm (see page 3).
Regarding claim 13, to be an apparatus, it should have some structures and claim 13 does not have any structural limitations.
HELKE et al disclose (see figure 3 and page 3) a method comprising wet etching of a Si substrate ("KOH pre-etching"), and a plurality of dry etching steps (RIE Al, RIE Si3N4, DRIE Si). This method therefore discloses a device for wet etching and for dry etching, and is therefore configured to carry out the steps (610, 620, 630) of the method (600) according to claim 1.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Stolovitzky et al (US 2013/0299448) disclose a process of fabricating a membrane structure (Figures 2A-2C; [0046]-[0052]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHAMIM AHMED whose telephone number is (571)272-1457. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH (8-5:30pm).
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, Joshua Allen can be reached at 571-270-3176. 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.
SHAMIM AHMED
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1713
/SHAMIM AHMED/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1713
Prosecution Insights