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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after allowance or after an Office action under Ex Parte Quayle, 25 USPQ 74, 453 O.G. 213 (Comm'r Pat. 1935). Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, prosecution in this application has been reopened pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 01/20/2026 has been entered.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information disclosure statement (IDS) filed on 01/20/2026 has been acknowledged.
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 of this title, 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, 8-12, 15, and 17-25 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 7,161,283 to Geefay in view of US 2007/0115078 to Sano.
As per claims 1 and 11, Geefay discloses a method of manufacturing a packaged acoustic wave component, the method comprising:
forming or providing a device substrate (see device substrate 204 in Fig 2; Col 2 line 6-11);
forming a metal layer (see bottom contact metal 502 in Fig 5 and/or bottom electrode contact pad 602 and top electrode contact pad 604 in Fig 6; Col 2 line 31-48) over the device substrate, the forming the planar metal layer including forming spaced apart metal layer portions (see bottom electrode contact pad 602 and top electrode contact pad 604 in Fig 6);
forming or providing a bulk acoustic wave resonator device (see bottom electrode 1202, piezoelectric layer 1302, and top electrode 1604 formed over the contact pads 602 and 604 as shown in Fig 12-17 that form a bulk acoustic wave resonator device; Col 3 line 12-63); and
mounting the bulk acoustic wave resonator over and in direct contact with at least a portion of a first metal layer portion (see bottom electrode contact pad 602 in Fig 12-17) of the planar metal layer (Col 3 line 12-63).
As per claim 1, Geefay discloses the elements of the current invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Geefay further discloses that the metal layer formed over the device substrate includes planar portions (see bottom contact metal 502 in Fig 5 that is a planar metal layer uniformly sputtered over the substrate 204), but does not explicitly disclose that the acoustic wave device is in direct contact with these planar portions of the metal layer.
Sano discloses a similar method of manufacturing an acoustic wave component including forming or providing a bulk acoustic wave resonator (see bottom electrode 14, piezoelectric layer 15, and top electrode 16 in Fig 1-2 and 12-13) and mounting the bulk acoustic wave resonator over a provided substrate (see substrate 11 in Fig 1-2 and 12-13) and a metal layer (see intermediate electrode 13 in Fig 1-2 and intermediate electrode 23 in Fig 12-13) formed over the substrate, wherein the metal layer is a planar metal layer this is in direct contact with the bulk acoustic wave resonator (see Fig 1-2 and 12-13; Para 0088-0099 and 0132-0146).
At the time the application was filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill it the art to modify the metal layer of Geefay to include a planar portion which the bulk acoustic wave component is in direct contact with as taught by Sano. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a mere change in the shape or location of a metal layer is nothing more than one or numerous shapes or locations that that one of ordinary skill in the art would find obvious to provide based on the suitability for the intended final application, and that Geefay and Sano are both directed towards methods of manufacturing acoustic resonator devices and therefore it would have been a routine matter for one of ordinary skill in the art to look to Sano for improvements to Geefay; the obvious advantage of providing the planar metal layer in direct contact with the bulk acoustic wave component being that this would allow for the margin and electrical characteristics of the acoustic resonator to be improved (Sano: Para 0085-0086).
As per claim 1, Geefay and Sano disclose the elements of the current invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Geefay discloses that the acoustic wave device is mounted on a first metal layer portion (602) and a second metal layer portion (604) that are spaced apart from each other, but does not explicitly disclose mounting a second acoustic wave device over and in direct contact with a second metal layer portion of the planar metal layer wherein the first metal layer portion and the second metal layer portion spaced apart.
Sano further discloses embodiments in which the formed planar metal layer for a single acoustic wave device to be formed on can include spaced apart portions (see intermediate electrodes 33 in Fig 22-23) and embodiments in which plural acoustic wave devices (see Fa, Fb, Fc, Fd, Fe, Ff, and Fg in Fig 19-20, 24, and 26) are formed over plural spaced apart planar metal layer portions (see intermediate electrodes 33a, 33f, and 33g in Fig 20 and intermediate electrodes 23, 23f, and 23g in Fig 24-25 and intermediate electrodes 13, 13f, and 13g in Fig 26-27) wherein different acoustic wave devices are formed over different of the spaced apart planar metal layer portions (see Fig 19-20 and 24-27) such that a ladder type micro mechanical filter can be created (see Para 0184-0215).
At the time the application was filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill it the art to modify the above combination of Geefay and Sano to mount a second acoustic wave device over and in direct contact with at least a portion of a second metal layer portion of the planar metal layer spaced apart from the first metal layer portion as taught by Sano. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that adding one or more additional acoustic wave devices also provided over and in contact with a spaced apart metal layer portion would be a mere duplication of parts that would have been an obvious choice for one of ordinary skill in the art since it has been held that a mere duplication of working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art and would be an obvious choice depending on a given circumstance, and that Geefay and Sano are both directed towards methods of manufacturing acoustic resonator devices and therefore it would have been a routine matter for one of ordinary skill in the art to look to Sano for improvements to Geefay such as the adding of additional acoustic wave devices and/or forming different devices using the acoustic wave devices; the obvious advantage of providing multiple acoustic wave devices each mounted and in direct contact with spaced apart metal layer portions of the planar metal layer as taught by Geefay being that this would allow for the creation of a ladder type micro mechanical filter (Geefay: Para 0184, 0206, 0209, and 0215).
As per claims 3, 12, 22, and 23, Geefay and Sano disclose the elements of the current invention as detailed above with respect to claims 1 and 11 respectively. Geefay further discloses forming one or more vias (see vias 1902 and 1904 in Fig 19) that extend through the device substrate and are disposed under the planar metal layer.
As per claims 6 and 15, Geefay and Sano disclose the elements of the current invention as detailed above with respect to claims 1 and 11 respectively. Geefay further discloses that forming the planar metal layer includes forming filled sacrificial layer portions (see sacrificial material 702 in Fig 7-8) interposed between the metal layer portions.
As per claims 8 and 17, Geefay and Sano disclose the elements of the current invention as detailed above with respect to claims 1 and 11 respectively. Geefay further discloses that forming the planar metal layer includes forming filled dielectric layer portions (see sacrificial material 702 in Fig 7-8 which Col 2 line 55 indicates can be PSG ‘phosphosilicate glass’, which is a dielectric material) between the planar metal layer portions.
As per claims 9 and 18, Geefay and Sano disclose the elements of the current invention as detailed above with respect to claims 1 and 11 respectively. Geefay further discloses that forming the planar metal layer includes forming an offset portion (see portions of the bottom contact metal 502 inside the pit 202 in Fig 5 that are patterned into the contact pads 602 and 604 in Fig 6) of the planar metal layer that defines a recessed cavity (see pit 202 in Fig 2-6).
As per claims 10 and 19, Geefay and Sano disclose the elements of the current invention as detailed above with respect to claims 9 and 18 respectively. Geefay further discloses that forming or providing the device substrate includes forming a recessed portion (see pit 202 in Fig 2) in the device substrate that receives the offset portion of the planar metal layer (see Fig 5-6).
As per claims 20 and 21, Geefay and Sano disclose the elements of the current invention as detailed above with respect to claims 1 and 11 respectively. Geefay further discloses that the device substrate is planar (see Fig 2 that shows that the device substrate 204 is planar, i.e. flat in the form of a plane).
As per claims 24 and 25, Geefay and Sano disclose the elements of the current invention as detailed above with respect to claims 1 and 11 respectively. Geefay further discloses an optional cap (see 1802 in Fig 18) used to package the acoustic wave component wherein buried metal layers are formed between the device substrate (204) and a peripheral wall of the packaged substrate (see bottom electrode contact pad 602 and top electrode contact pad 604, vertical traces 602A and 604A, bottom electrode 1202 and top electrode contact pad 1204 in Fig 18 all of which can be considered “buried” and are provided between the substrate 204 and a wall of the cap 1802).
Claims 7 and 16 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 7,161,283 to Geefay and US 2007/0115078 to Sano in view of US 2007/0085632 to Larson.
As per claims 7 and 16, Geefay and Sano disclose the elements of the current invention as detailed above with respect to claims 1 and 11 respectively. Geefay further discloses filling the portions between the planar metal layer portions with a material that can be a dielectric sacrificial material (see sacrificial material 702 in Fig 7-8 which Col 2 line 55 indicates can be PSG ‘phosphosilicate glass’, which is a dielectric material), but does not explicitly disclose that the filling material can be a piezoelectric material.
However it has been held that a selection of a prior art material on the basis of its suitability for its intended purpose is within the level of ordinary skill and a mere change in the material of a component is nothing more than one of numerous materials that one of ordinary skill in the art would find obvious to provide based on the suitability for the intended final application since the filling material specifically being a piezoelectric material provides no criticality insofar as the record is concerned to the claimed method.
Larson discloses a similar method of manufacturing an acoustic wave component wherein a piezoelectric materials are interposed between adjacent metal layer portions (see piezo element 116 interposed between electrodes 112 and 152 in Fig 11B; see acoustic decoupler 130 interposed between electrodes 114 and 154 in Fig 11B, wherein Para 0076 indicates that the acoustic decoupler 130 can be poly(para-xylylene) which is known to be a piezoelectric material).
At the time the application was filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill it the art to have modified the above combination of Geefay and Sano as to change the material of the filling material to be a piezoelectric material as taught by Larson. One of ordinary skill in the art would have realized that a selection of a prior art material on the basis of its suitability for its intended purpose is within the level of ordinary skill and a mere change in the material of a component is nothing more than one of numerous materials that one of ordinary skill in the art would find obvious to choose based on the suitability for the intended final application; the obvious advantage of choosing to use a piezoelectric material as the filling material being that this would allow for the acoustic properties of the filling material to be controlled in a way that would affect the acoustic properties of the resultant acoustic wave component as would be generally understood by one of ordinary skill in the art, for example such that the piezoelectric material could provide decoupling between the substrate and the acoustic wave component as well as electrical insulation (Larson: Para 0065, 0068, 0070-0077)
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see response, filed 01/20/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 and 11 under AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 as being anticipated by US 2007/0115078 to Sano have been fully considered and are persuasive in view of the amendments filed 01/20/2026. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of US 7,161,283 to Geefay (see above 103 rejection).
Applicant's arguments filed 01/20/2026 with respect to the AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claims 1 and 11 as being unpatentable over US 7,161,283 to Geefay in view of US 2007/0115078 to Sano have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues that the previous office action admitted that the Sano reference does not disclose the features of claims 1 and 11 missing from the Geefay reference and therefore does not teach the new limitations added to claims 1 and 11.
However, the 08/20/2025 office action never mentions that the Sano reference does not disclose any claimed limitations missing from the Geefay reference, in contrast the office action states that the missing limitations from the Geefay reference, i.e. the acoustic wave device being in direct contact with the planar portions of the metal layer, is taught by the Sano reference. Further, the limitations added to claims 1 and 11 were not previously present in claims 1 and 11, and therefore it would not be possible to admit that the Sano reference did not disclose/teach these limitations. Therefore this argument is not persuasive.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Joshua D. Anderson, whose telephone number is (571) 270-0157. The examiner can normally be reached from Monday to Friday between 7 AM and 1 PM Arizona time.
If any attempt to reach the examiner by telephone is unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Thomas Hong, can be reached at (571) 272-0993.
Another resource that is available to applicants is the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR). Information regarding the status of an application can be obtained from the (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAX. 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, please feel free to contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Applicants are invited to contact the Office to schedule an in-person interview to discuss and resolve the issues set forth in this Office Action. Although an interview is not required, the Office believes that an interview can be of use to resolve any issues related to a patent application in an efficient and prompt manner.
/JOSHUA D ANDERSON/
Examiner, Art Unit 3729
/THOMAS J HONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3729