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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 11-19 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection is made in view of Shirakawa et al. (DE Patent Publication No. 102018117520B3 equivalent to US patent publication No. 2021/0143793).
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 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 11-18 is/are stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dellas et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2021/0067126) in view of Shirakawa et al. (DE Patent Publication No. 102018117520B3 equivalent to US patent publication No. 2021/0143793) and further in view of Hurwitz (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2018/0278227).
Referring to figures 1-2, Dellas et al. teaches a resonator, comprising:
a substrate (110);
a first acoustic reflector (112) over the substrate;
a first electrode (130) over the first acoustic reflector (112);
a piezoelectric film (140) over the first electrode;
a second electrode (150) over the piezoelectric film; and
a second acoustic reflector (160) over the second electrode (see figure 1a).
However, the reference does not clearly teach the first acoustic reflector comprises first layers with a first acoustic impedance and second layers with second acoustic impedance, wherein the first layers and the second layer are alternated; both the first layers with the first acoustic impedance and the second layers with the second acoustic impedance of the first acoustic reflector extend laterally beyond outermost sides of the first electrode, and wherein the first electrode has a bottommost surface above an uppermost surface of the first acoustic reflector; a piezoelectric film over the first electrode, wherein the piezoelectric film has a bottommost surface above an uppermost surface of the first electrode.
Shirakawa et al. teaches the first acoustic reflector (AM)comprises first layers (M2) with a first acoustic impedance and second layers (M1) with second acoustic impedance, wherein the first layers and the second layer are alternated; both the first layers with the first acoustic impedance and the second layers with the second acoustic impedance of the first acoustic reflector extend laterally beyond outermost sides of the first electrode(BE), and wherein the first electrode has a bottommost surface above an uppermost surface of the first acoustic reflector (M2); a piezoelectric film (PM) over the first electrode(BE), wherein the piezoelectric film (PM) has a bottommost surface above an uppermost surface of the first electrode (BE, see figures 2-3);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the requisite art at the time of the invention was filed would form the first acoustic reflector comprises first layers with a first acoustic impedance and second layers with second acoustic impedance, wherein the first layers and the second layer are alternated; both the first layers with the first acoustic impedance and the second layers with the second acoustic impedance of the first acoustic reflector extend laterally beyond outermost sides of the first electrode and wherein the first electrode has a bottommost surface above an uppermost surface of the first acoustic reflector, a piezoelectric film over the first electrode, wherein the piezoelectric film has a bottommost surface above an uppermost surface of the first electrode in Dellas et al. as taught by Shirakawa et al. because it is known in the art to improve the quality factor at resonance frequency (see paragraph# 12).
However, the reference does not clearly teach the piezoelectric film is single crystalline and has a thickness that is 0.5um or less, an isolation trench through and enclosing a portion of the piezoelectric film, the isolation trench defines a resonating portion of the piezoelectric film within the portion enclosed by the isolation trench and a static portion of the piezoelectric film outside the enclosure.
Hurwitz teaches a resonator having the piezoelectric film (18) is single crystalline and has a thickness that is 0.5um or less (see paragraph# 144, meeting claim 11), an isolation trench (54) through and enclosing a portion of the piezoelectric film (18, meeting claim 16), the isolation trench (54) defines a resonating portion of the piezoelectric film within the portion enclosed by the isolation trench and a static portion of the piezoelectric film outside the enclosure (see figure 1, 12, paragraph# 144), meeting claim 17).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the requisite art at the time of the invention was filed would form piezoelectric film is single crystalline and has a thickness that is 0.5um or less, an isolation trench through and enclosing a portion of the piezoelectric film, the isolation trench defines a resonating portion of the piezoelectric film within the portion enclosed by the isolation trench and a static portion of the piezoelectric film outside the enclosure in Dellas et al. as taught by Hurwitz because forming single crystal piezoelectric would minimize the lost energy and forming the isolation trench would separate the resonator that art connected in series (see paragraphs# 127, 134).
Regarding to claim 12, the piezoelectric film comprises AIN, ScAlN, PZT, LiNbO3, or LiTaO3 (see paragraph# 18).
Regarding to claim 13, further comprising: a dielectric layer (130) surrounding the first electrode, the piezoelectric film, and the second electrode (see figure 1a).
Regarding to claim 14, the first acoustic reflector (112) and the second acoustic reflector (160) comprise: first layers with a first acoustic impedance; and second layers with a second acoustic impedance, wherein the first layers and the second layers are alternated (114/116/118/120; 162/164/166/168; see figure 1a, paragraphs# 16-30).
Regarding to claim 15, the first layers comprise W, and wherein the second layers comprise SiO2(see figure 1a, paragraphs# 16-17)
Regarding to claim 18, further comprising: a plurality of conductive vias through the static portion of the piezoelectric film, wherein the plurality of conductive vias (150a) are electrically coupled to the first electrode (150, see figure 1a).
Claim(s) 19 is/are stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dellas et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2021/0067126) in view of Shirakawa et al. (DE Patent Publication No. 102018117520B3 equivalent to US patent publication No. 2021/0143793) and Hurwitz (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2018/0278227) as applied to claim 11-18 above, further in view of Wang et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2006/0232361).
Referring to figures 1-2, Dellas et al. teaches a resonator, comprising: a substrate (110);
a first acoustic reflector (112) over the substrate; a first electrode (130) over the first acoustic reflector (112); a piezoelectric film (140) over the first electrode; a second electrode (150) over the piezoelectric film; and a second acoustic reflector (160) over the second electrode (see figure 1a).
However, the reference does not clearly teach a silicon layer between the piezoelectric film and the second electrode.
Wang et al. teaches resonator having having a piezoelectric (213) and a silicon layer (250, see paragraphs# 54-55) and forming a second electrode (222/226, see figure5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the requisite art at the time of the invention was filed would form it would form a silicon layer between the piezoelectric film and the second electrode in Dellas et al. as taught by Wang et al. because choosing an optimum material for a layer only involve routine skill in the art to form an optimum
device.
Conclusion
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 Thanh Nguyen whose telephone number is (571) 272-1695, or by Email via address Thanh.Nguyen@uspto.gov. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday from 6:00AM to 3:30PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Yara Green, can be reached on (571) 270-3035. The fax phone number for this Group 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://pairdirect.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to thy Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/THANH T NGUYEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2893
Prosecution Insights