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
Claim 28 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 28 states “The microacoustic filter of claim 270…”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 1 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. In claim 1, the applicant claims “support the piezoelectric layer across at least three points along the first axis”. It is not clear where the “at least three points along the first axis” are located.
Claim 7 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. In claim 1, the applicant claims “the at least three pillars position across at least three points along the first axis” It is not clear where the “at least three points along the first axis” are located.
Claim 27 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. In claim 1, the applicant claims “the at least three pillars position across at least three points along the first axis” It is not clear where the “at least three points along the first axis” are located.
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, 17-18 and 21-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kay (PG Pub 20210028762).
Considering claim 1, Kay (Figures 7A-7B) teaches an apparatus comprising: a microacoustic filter comprising (700 + paragraph 0050): a substrate layer (720 + paragraph 0050); a piezoelectric layer (710 + paragraph 0050); an electrode structure in contact with the piezoelectric layer, the electrode structure (730 + paragraph 0050) comprising multiple fingers (736 + paragraph 0050) arranged across a plane having a first axis that is perpendicular to the multiple fingers and a second axis that is parallel to the multiple fingers; a dielectric configured to: separate the piezoelectric layer (710) from the substrate (720); define a cavity (740 + paragraph 0050) between the piezoelectric layer and the substrate layer and support the piezoelectric layer across at least three points along the first axis (See Figure 7B in the left to right direction).
Considering claim 2, Kay (Figures 7A-7B) teaches wherein the dielectric is configured to define the cavity (740 + paragraph 0050) between the substrate layer and at least part of the dielectric.
Considering claim 3, Kay (Figures 7A-7B) teaches wherein one or more points of the at least points correspond to a position of one or more fingers of the multiple fingers (736 + paragraph 0050) along the first axis.
Considering claim 4, Kay (Figures 7A-7B) teaches wherein the one or more fingers comprises a subset of the multiple fingers (736 + paragraph 0050).
Considering claim 5, Kay (Figures 7A-7B) teaches wherein the multiple fingers (736 + paragraph 0050) comprise all fingers of the electrode structure (730 + paragraph 0050).
Considering claim 6, Kay (Figures 7A-7B) teaches wherein the dielectric (740 + paragraph 0050) and the piezoelectric layer (710 + paragraph 0050) are adhered together.
Considering claim 13, Kay (Figures 7A-7B) teaches wherein the electrode structure (736 + paragraph 0050) is disposed on a surface of the piezoelectric layer (710 + paragraph 0050) that faces away from the substrate (720 + paragraph 0050).
Considering claim 14, Kay (Figures 7A-7B) teaches the cavity (740 + paragraph 0050) is at least partially filled with a gas and the gas comprises air (paragraph 0042).
Considering claim 17, Kay teaches wherein the piezoelectric layer is configured to excite an antisymmetric plate mode (the limitation is a goal of the invention).
Considering claim 18, Kay (Figure 6) teaches comprising a dielectric layer (650 + paragraph 0047) disposed on a surface of the piezoelectric layer that faces away from the substrate layer (620 + paragraph 0047).
Considering claim 21, 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.
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) 27-29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Inoue (PG Pub 200800678896).
Considering claim 27, Inoue (Figures 4A-4B) teaches a microacoustic filter comprising: an electrode structure (ITD0 + paragraph 0042) comprising multiple fingers (paragraph 0042) arranged across a plane having a first axis that is perpendicular (left to right direction in Figure 4B) to the multiple fingers and a second axis that is parallel to the multiple fingers (bottom to top direction in Figure 4A); a substrate layer (16 + paragraph 0042); a piezoelectric layer (10 + paragraph 0042) having a surface that faces the substrate layer; a dielectric comprising: 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 extending past a plane defined by the surface of the intermediate layer (area between electrode 12 as showed in Figure 4B) and toward the substrate layer to define a cavity (20a + paragraph 0042) between the intermediate layer and the substrate layer, the at least three pillars positioned across at least three points along the first axis (first axis is left to right direction in Figure 4B).
Considering claim 28, 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.
Considering claim 29, Inoue teaches wherein the piezoelectric layer has a crystalline structure operative to excite a plate mode (paragraph 0074).
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.
The factual inquiries 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.
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) 7-12 and 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kay (PG Pub 20210028762) and in view of Inoue (PG Pub 200800678896).
Considering claim 7, Kay (Figures 7A-7B) teaches wherein the piezoelectric layer (710 + paragraph 0050) has a surface facing the substrate layer (720 + paragraph 0050).
However, Kay 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 Kay’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.
Considering claim 16, Inoue teaches wherein a thickness of the dielectric is between approximately fifty nanometers and two micrometers (paragraph 0043).
Claim(s) 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inoue (PG Pub 200800678896) and in view of Yamazaki (PG Pub 20220321097).
Considering claim 30, Inoue teaches the microacoustic filter wherein: a third axis (a thickness direction) is normal to the first axis (left to right direction in Figure 4B) and the second axis (bottom to top direction in Figure 4B).
However, Inoue 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) 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kay (PG Pub 20210028762) and in view of Nagatomo (WO 2022019170 for translation purposes examiner cites PG Pub 20230163747).
Considering claim 11, Kay (Figures 7A-7B) teaches the electrode structure as described above.
However, Kay 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 Kay’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 Kay (PG Pub 20210028762) and in view of Campanella-Pineda (PG Pub 20190348966).
Considering claim 19, Kay teaches the claimed invention as described above.
However, Kay 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 Kay’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.
Conclusion
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