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 Objections
The previous claimed objections have been withdrawn upon entry of the applicant’s amendments.
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) 1-6, 13-14, 16-18, 27 and 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Takahashi (PG Pub 20140009032).
Considering claim 1, Takahashi (Figure 2) teaches an apparatus comprising: a microacoustic filter comprising: a substrate layer (21 + paragraph 0072); a piezoelectric layer (11 + paragraph 0072); an electrode structure in contact with the piezoelectric layer, the electrode structure (12) comprising multiple fingers (13a + 13b + paragraph 0072) arranged across a plane having a first axis (X-axis) that is perpendicular to the multiple fingers and a second axis that is parallel to the multiple fingers (Y-axis); and a dielectric (22 + paragraph 0071) configured to: separate the piezoelectric layer form the substrate layer, define a cavity (23 + paragraph 0071) between the piezoelectric layer and the substrate layer, support the piezoelectric layer across at least three points along the first axis, that correspond to three different position of the multiple fingers along the first axis (13a + 13b + 13a + paragraph 0072); and wherein a surface of the electrode structure (12 + paragraph 0072) faces towards the substrate layer and is in contact with a surface of the dielectric (22 + paragraph 0071) that faces away from the substrate layer.
Considering claim 2, Takahashi (Figure 2) teaches wherein the dielectric is configured to define the cavity (23 + paragraph 0071) between the substrate layer and at least part of the dielectric.
Considering claim 3, Takahashi (Figure 2) teaches wherein one or more points of the at least three points (13b + 13a + 13b + paragraph 0072) correspond to a position of one or more fingers of the multiple fingers along the first axis (X-axis).
Considering claim 4, Takahashi (Figure 2) teaches wherein the one or more fingers comprise a subset of the multiple fingers (13b + 13a + 13b + paragraph 0072).
Considering claim 5, Takahashi (Figure 2) teaches wherein the multiple fingers comprise all fingers of the electrode structure (13b + 13a + 13b + paragraph 0072).
Considering claim 6, Takahashi (Figure 2) teaches wherein the dielectric (22 + paragraph 0071) and the piezoelectric layer (11 + paragraph 0072) are adhered together.
Considering claim 13, Takahashi (Figure 2) teaches wherein the electrode structure (12 + paragraph 0072) is disposed on a surface of the piezoelectric layer (11 + paragraph 0072) that faces away from the substrate layer.
Considering claim 14, Takahashi (Figure 2) teaches wherein the cavity is at least partially filled with a gas and the gas comprises air (23 + paragraph 0072).
Considering claim 16, Takahashi teaches wherein a thickness of the dielectric is between approximately fifty nanometers and two micrometers (paragraph 0096).
Considering claim 17, Takahashi teaches wherein the piezoelectric layer is configured to excite an antisymmetric plate mode (implicit since the same structure is taught).
Considering claim 18, Takahashi (Figure 2) teaches wherein a dielectric layer (22 + paragraph 0071) disposed on a surface of the piezoelectric layer that faces away from the substrate layer.
Considering claim 27, Takahashi (Figure 2) teaches wherein a microacoustic filter comprising: an electrode structure (12 + paragraph 0072) comprising multiple fingers (13a + 13b + paragraph 0072) arranged across a plane having a first axis (X-axis) that is perpendicular to the multiple fingers and a second axis (Y-axis) that is parallel to the multiple fingers; a substrate layer (21 + paragraph 0072); a piezoelectric layer (11 + paragraph 0072) having a surface that faces the substrate layer; a dielectric comprising: an intermediate layer (22 + paragraph 0071) disposed across the surface of the piezoelectric layer, the intermediate layer having a surface facing the substrate layer (21 + paragraph 0072) and is configured to support the piezoelectric layer; at least three pillars (13b + 13a + 13b + paragraph 0072) extending past a plane defined by the surface of the intermediate layer and toward the substrate layer to define a cavity (23 + paragraph 0071) between the intermediate layer and the substrate layer, the at least three pillars positioned across at least three points along the first axis (13b + 13a + 13b + paragraph 0071), corresponding to at least three different positions of the multiple fingers along the first axis (X-axis); and wherein a surface of the electrode structure (12 + paragraph 0072) faces towards the substrate layer and is in contact with a surface of the dielectric (22 + paragraph 0071) that faces away from the substrate layer.
Considering claim 29, Takahashi (Figure 2) teaches wherein the piezoelectric layer has a crystalline structure operative to excite a plate mode (paragraph 0060 + implicit since the same structure is taught).
Claim(s) 7-10 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi (PG Pub 20140009032) and in view of Inoue (PG Pub 200800678896).
Considering claim 7, Takahashi (Figure 2) teaches wherein the piezoelectric layer (11 + paragraph 0072) has a surface facing the substrate layer (21 + paragraph 0072).
However, Takahashi does not teach the dielectric comprises: an intermediate layer disposed across the surface of the piezoelectric layer, the intermediate layer having a surface facing the substrate layer; and at least three pillars extending past a plane defined by the surface of the intermediate layer and toward the substrate layer to define the cavity between the intermediate layer and the substrate layer, the at least three pillars positioned at the at least three points along the first axis.
Inoue (Figures 4A-4B) teaches wherein the dielectric comprises: an intermediate layer (14 + paragraph 0042) disposed across the surface of the piezoelectric layer, the intermediate layer having a surface facing the substrate layer; and at least three pillars (area between electrode 12 as showed in Figure 4B) extending past a plane defined by the surface of the intermediate layer and toward the substrate layer to define the cavity (20a + paragraph 0042) between the intermediate layer and the substrate layer, the at least three pillars positioned at the at least three points along the first axis (left to right direction of Figure 4B).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date to include the dielectric comprises: an intermediate layer disposed across the surface of the piezoelectric layer, the intermediate layer having a surface facing the substrate layer; and at least three pillars extending past a plane defined by the surface of the intermediate layer and toward the substrate layer to define the cavity between the intermediate layer and the substrate layer, the at least three pillars positioned at the at least three points along the first axis into Takahashi’s device for the benefit of improving temperature coefficient of frequency and an improved loss.
Considering claim 8, Inoue (Figures 4A-4B) teaches wherein a pillar of the at least three pillars is positioned between a finger of the multiple fingers (12 + paragraph 0042) and the substrate layer along a third axis (thickness direction when looking at Figure 4B) that is perpendicular to the first axis and the second axis.
Considering claim 9, Inoue (Figures 4A-4B) teaches the pillars except for wherein a width of the pillar is less than a width of the finger; and a length of the pillar is approximately equal to a length of the finger. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have the pillars except for wherein a width of the pillar is less than a width of the finger; and a length of the pillar is approximately equal to a length of the finger, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Considering claim 10, Inoue (Figures 4A-4B) teaches wherein: the electrode structure (12 + paragraph 0042) is at least partially embedded within the dielectric (14 + paragraph 0042); and a surface of the electrode structure (12 + paragraph 0042) faces away from the substrate layer (16 + paragraph 0042) and is in contact with a surface of the piezoelectric layer (10 + paragraph 0042) that faces the substrate layer.
Considering claim 15, Inoue (Figures 7A-7B) teaches wherein the dielectric comprises one or more of the following: silicon dioxide (paragraph 0042); doped silicon dioxide; silicon nitride; aluminum oxide or aluminum nitride.
Claim(s) 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi (PG Pub 20140009032) and in view of Nagatomo (WO 2022019170 for translation purposes examiner cites PG Pub 20230163747).
Considering claim 11, Takahashi (Figure 2) teaches the electrode structure as described above.
However, Takahashi does not teach wherein the electrode structure is partially embedded with the dielectric and partially embedded within the piezoelectric layer.
Nagatomo (Figure 27) teaches wherein the electrode structure (18 + paragraph 0050) is partially embedded with the dielectric (15A + paragraph 0053) and partially embedded within the piezoelectric layer (14 + paragraph 0053).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include wherein the electrode structure is partially embedded with the dielectric and partially embedded within the piezoelectric layer into Takahashi’s device for the benefit of obvious design choice.
Considering claim 12, Nagatomo (Figure 27) teaches the electrode structure (18 + paragraph 0050) is at least partially embedded within the piezoelectric layer (14 + paragraph 0053) and a surface of the electrode structure faces towards the substrate layer (15A + paragraph 0053) and is in contact with a surface of the dielectric that faces away from the substrate layer.
Claim(s) 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi (PG Pub 20140009032) and in view of Campanella-Pineda (PG Pub 20190348966).
Considering claim 19, Takahashi teaches the claimed invention as described above.
However, Takahashi does not teach at least one acoustic mirror disposed between the dielectric and the substrate layer.
Campanella-Pineda (Figure 15) teaches at least one acoustic mirror (1401 + paragraph 0039) disposed between the dielectric and the substrate layer.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include at least one acoustic mirror disposed between the dielectric and the substrate layer into Takahashi’s device for the benefit of concentrating and amplifying sound waves.
Considering claim 20, Campanella-Pineda (Figure 15) teaches a charge-trapping layer (1407 + paragraph 0039) disposed between the dielectric and the substrate layer.
Claim(s) 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi (PG Pub 20140009032) and in view of Yamazaki (PG Pub 20220321097).
Considering claim 30, Takahashi teaches the microacoustic filter wherein: a third axis (Z-axis) is normal to the first axis and the second axis (Y-axis).
However, Takahahsi does not teach an orientation of the first axis, the second axis, and the third axis is relative to the crystalline structure of the piezoelectric layer as defined by Euler angles lambda, mu and theta; and the piezoelectric layer comprises: lithium niobate with a value of the Euler angle lambda being approximately 0 degrees, a value of the Euler angle mu being approximately 38 degrees, and a value of the Euler angle theta being approximately 0 degrees; the lithium niobate with the value of the Euler angle lambda being approximately 0 degrees, the value of the Euler angle mu being approximately 0 degrees, and the value of the Euler angle theta being approximately 90 degrees or lithium tantalate with the value of the Euler angle lambda being approximately 0 degrees, the value of the Euler angel mu being approximately 42 degrees, and a value of the Euler angle theta being approximately 0 degrees.
Yamazaki teaches an orientation of the first axis, the second axis, and the third axis is relative to the crystalline structure of the piezoelectric layer as defined by Euler angles lambda, mu and theta; and the piezoelectric layer comprises: lithium niobate with a value of the Euler angle lambda being approximately 0 degrees, a value of the Euler angle mu being approximately 38 degrees, and a value of the Euler angle theta being approximately 0 degrees; the lithium niobate with the value of the Euler angle lambda being approximately 0 degrees, the value of the Euler angle mu being approximately 0 degrees, and the value of the Euler angle theta being approximately 90 degrees (paragraph 0054) or lithium tantalate with the value of the Euler angle lambda being approximately 0 degrees, the value of the Euler angel mu being approximately 42 degrees, and a value of the Euler angle theta being approximately 0 degrees.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include teach an orientation of the first axis, the second axis, and the third axis is relative to the crystalline structure of the piezoelectric layer as defined by Euler angles lambda, mu and theta; and the piezoelectric layer comprises: lithium niobate with a value of the Euler angle lambda being approximately 0 degrees, a value of the Euler angle mu being approximately 38 degrees, and a value of the Euler angle theta being approximately 0 degrees; the lithium niobate with the value of the Euler angle lambda being approximately 0 degrees, the value of the Euler angle mu being approximately 0 degrees, and the value of the Euler angle theta being approximately 90 degrees or lithium tantalate with the value of the Euler angle lambda being approximately 0 degrees, the value of the Euler angel mu being approximately 42 degrees, and a value of the Euler angle theta being approximately 0 degrees into Inoue’s device for the benefit of using a common and well known piezoelectric for the matter of obvious design choice.
Claim(s) 21-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi (PG Pub 20140009032) and in view of Kay (PG Pub 20210028762).
Considering claim 21, Takahashi teaches the microacoustic filter.
However, Takahashi does not teach the microacoustic filter comprises multiple cascaded resonator; and a resonator of the multiple cascaded resonators comprises the substrate layer, the piezoelectric layer, the electrode structure and the dielectric.
Kay (Figure 5) teaches the microacoustic filter comprises multiple cascaded resonators (510A + 510B + 510C + paragraphs 0044-0045) and a resonator of the multiple cascaded resonators comprises the substrate layer, the piezoelectric layer, the electrode structure and the dielectric.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to include the microacoustic filter comprises multiple cascaded resonator; and a resonator of the multiple cascaded resonators comprises the substrate layer, the piezoelectric layer, the electrode structure and the dielectric into Takahashi’s device for the benefit of improving resonator technology for used with higher frequencies.
Considering claim 22, Kay teaches a wireless transceiver coupled to at least one antenna, the wireless transceiver comprising the microacoustic filter and configured to filter, using the microacoustic filter, a wireless signal communicated via the at least one antenna (paragraph 0005 + implicit there would be an antenna for helping wireless transmission).
Claim(s) 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi (PG Pub 20140009032) and in view of Inoue (PG Pub 200800678896).
Considering claim 28, Takahashi teaches the microacoustic filter.
However, Takahashi does not teach the microacoustic filter wherein the electrode structure is positioned on a side of the piezoelectric layer that faces the substrate layer.
Inoue (Figures 4A-4B) teaches wherein the electrode structure (12 + paragraph 0042) is positioned on a side of the piezoelectric layer that faces the substrate layer.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the microacoustic filter wherein the electrode structure is positioned on a side of the piezoelectric layer that faces the substrate layer into Takahashi’s device for the benefit of having an acoustic wave device having an improved temperature coefficient of frequency and an improved loss.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 27 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. The examiner has found prior art Takahashi which teaches the applicant’s claimed limitations.
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 BRYAN P GORDON whose telephone number is (571)272-5394. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 a.m. - 4:30 p.m..
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, Dedei K Hammond can be reached at 571-270-7938. 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.
/BRYAN P GORDON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2837
Prosecution Insights