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.
Claim(s) 1, 4-7, 9, 11, 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mattson (US5903087A).
Mattson discloses the claimed invention as follows (refer to Fig. 5; please first read the description of the embodiments of Figs. 3 and 4 in columns 4-6):
Claim 1. A method comprising:
defining a pulse function (“periodic patterns” in col. 7, lns. 27-30) to create a contour line of a bulk acoustic wave resonator (resonator 20 comprises piezoelectric plate 22, upper electrode 26 and a lower electrode; see col. 4, lns. 49-56; see col. 7, lns. 40-47);
providing segments (30, 36, 42, 46 Fig. 50) of the contour line based on pulse function amplitude, period and contour length1 (see Fig. 5; see col. 7, lns. 40-47); and
connecting endpoints of the segments to form a closed-loop contour line enclosing an effective area of the BAW resonator (see Fig. 5);
wherein forming the closed contour line comprises forming a zig-zag shaped contour (see “triangular” and “sawtooth” in col. 8, ln. 29) along each edge of a bottom electrode, a top electrode or both of the bottom electrode and the top electrode, (see Fig. 5; see col. 7, lns. 40-47) wherein the zig-zag shaped contours on two opposite edges of the bottom electrode, or the zig-zag shaped contours on two opposite edges of the top electrode, are aligned (see Response to Arguments) to each other.
Claim 4. The method according to claim 1, wherein the zig-zag shaped contour has triangular functions (see “triangular” and “sawtooth” in col. 7, ln. 29) along the perimeter of the bottom electrode, the top electrode or both.
Claim 5. The method according to claim 4, further comprising: forming the top and bottom electrodes in a rectangular shape or a regular polygon shape. See Fig. 5.
Claim 6. The method according to claim 5, further comprising: forming an acoustic layer (22, Fig. 5) between the top and bottom electrodes (resonator 20 comprises piezoelectric plate 22, upper electrode 26 and a lower electrode; see col. 4, lns. 49-56; see col. 7, lns. 40-47).
Claim 7. The method according to claim 6, wherein the acoustic layer comprises a piezoelectric material (resonator 20 comprises piezoelectric plate 22, upper electrode 26 and a lower electrode; see col. 4, lns. 49-56; see col. 7, lns. 40-47).
Claim 9. The method according to claim 1, wherein the pulse periodic pattern of the contour line comprises a concave pattern, a convex pattern or a combination of concave and convex patterns along a perimeter of the bottom electrode, the top electrode or both, wherein the top and bottom electrodes comprise a rectangular shape or a regular polygon shape. See Fig. 5.
Claim 11. A method comprising:
patterning a bottom electrode (see Fig. 5; see col. 6, lns. 27-33 and 49-60) of a resonator;
patterning a top electrode (see Fig. 5; see col. 6, lns. 27-33 and 53-60) of the resonator; and
intersecting areas of the top and bottom electrodes to provide an effective area (see col. 6, lns. 49-52) of the resonator,
wherein the effective area comprises a closed-loop contour line including a pulse function pattern with pre-defined amplitude, period and a number of repetitions of pulses along the closed-loop contour line, wherein each edge of the bottom electrode is a zig-zag shaped edge (see “triangular” and “sawtooth” in col. 7, ln. 29), wherein the zig-zag shaped edges on two opposite sides of the bottom electrode, or the zig-zag shaped edges on two opposite sides of the top electrode, are aligned (see Response to Arguments) to each other.
Claim 14. The method according to claim 11, wherein an acoustic layer (22, Fig. 5) is disposed between the top and bottom electrodes. Resonator 20 comprises piezoelectric plate 22, upper electrode 26 and a lower electrode; see col. 4, lns. 49-56; see col. 7, lns. 40-47.
Claim 15. The method according to claim 14, wherein the acoustic layer comprises a piezoelectric material. Resonator 20 comprises piezoelectric plate 22, upper electrode 26 and a lower electrode; see col. 4, lns. 49-56; see col. 7, lns. 40-47.
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.
Claim(s) 2 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mattson.
Regarding claims 2 and 12, Mattson defines the waveform (e.g., pulse function) to suppress undesired vibrational modes (see col. 4 ln. 63 to col. 5, ln. 9; see col. 6, lns. 27-48; see col. 7, lns. 1-11). Whereas Mattson does not specifically mention the Q factor, undesirable vibration modes degrade the Q factor. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious, when designing a BAW resonator, to specify target parameters such as target Q factor and, in implementing specific waveforms along the edges of the electrodes for the purpose of suppressing undesirable vibration modes, adjusting the pulse function parameters (e.g., pulse type, period, amplitude) to achieve a target Q factor of the resonator by suppressing undesirable vibration modes to a sufficient degree. See for example col. 7, lns. 12-48 emphasizing selecting the shape, amplitude, and other pattern parameters to generate a desired response.
Further regarding claim 12, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to establish, such as via simulation, the effect of modifying the closed-loop contour line pulse function pattern on the quality factor, to determine a pulse function that achieves the desired undesirable vibration mode suppression while also achieving the target Q factor for the resonator.
Claim(s) 8 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mattson in view of Kawamura (EP1887688A1, previously cited).
Mattson discloses the claimed invention, except for the BAW resonator comprising a longitudinal-mode BAW resonator.
As described in more detail in the Office action mailed 1/3/2025, Kawamura is related to a BAW resonator, as in Mattson, edges of the electrodes include a pattern such as triangular is provided, in order to suppress spurious modes (i.e., undesirable vibration modes). In Kawamura the resonator is a thickness-extensional mode, i.e., longitudinal mode BAW resonator. See [0002].
Mattson applies the inventive concept to thickness-shear mode resonators (see col. 10-31 and col. 4, lns. 33-49). Since Kawamura shows the concept of providing a pattern such as a triangular pattern along edges of the electrodes to suppress undesired vibrational modes, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to apply the concept disclosed by Mattson with respect to Fig. 5, with all four edges being patterned, to a linear mode BAW resonator, choosing suitable pattern type, amplitude and other parameters as needed, to minimize undesirable vibration modes for the longitudinal BAW resonator.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues Mattson does not disclose the limitations added to claims 1 and 11, showing an annotated version of the application Fig. 4, with lines drawn from peak to peak of the zig-zag shape of the opposite edge contours, and showing that in Mattson lines passing through a peak on one edge do not pass through a peak at the opposite edge.
The examiner respectfully submits Mattson discloses the claimed “aligned” limitation. As noted by Applicant, “the first periodic pattern 28 on the first edge 30 is offset about one-quarter wavelength from the second periodic pattern 34 on the second edge 36 along the length direction 32 of the plate 22”. A one-quarter wavelength offset merely changes the angle of the lines relative to each other.
PNG
media_image1.png
730
1070
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Additionally, the term “aligned” does not actually imply to any degree this very specific interpretation proposed by Applicant. For example, it can be said the two patterns 28 and 34 are aligned because both are parallel to a same line.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 LIVIUS R CAZAN whose telephone number is (571)272-8032. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday noon-8:30 pm ET.
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, Thomas Hong can be reached at 571-272-0993. 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.
/LIVIUS R. CAZAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3729
1 Clearly, a pulse function has been defined, by selecting the waveform as well as its period and amplitude.