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 final rejection. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 9/9/25 has been entered.
Applicant's amendment/arguments filed on 9/9/25 as being acknowledged and entered. By this amendment claims 4, 8-21, and 27 are canceled and claims 1-3, 5-7, 22-26 and 28-36 are pending.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 5-7, 22-23, 25-26, 28-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Turner et al. (US 2020/0412328).
Claim 1: Turner teaches an acoustic resonator device comprising: a substrate 618 (Fig. 6A) having a front surface and a cavity 672 (Fig. 6C) and comprising a substrate material; a buried oxide layer 616 ([0074]) in the substrate 618 that defines a bottom of the cavity 672 (Fig. 6C), the buried oxide layer 616 comprising a vertical etch-stop material different from the substrate material 618; and lateral fences 624 (note: lateral etch-stop layer 624 acts as lateral fences) that defines a perimeter of the cavity 672 (Fig. 6C), the lateral fences 624 comprising a lateral etch-stop material ([0079], e.g. silicon oxide, [0038]) different from the substrate material 618 (i.e. silicon, [0074]); a piezoelectric layer 642 ([0082], Fig. 6B) having opposing front and back surfaces, the back surface attached to the front surface of the substrate 618/616 via one or more intermediate material layers 636/614 (Figs. 6B and 6C), the piezoelectric layer 642 having a portion that forms a diaphragm over the cavity 672; a trap rich layer (636) [0063-0065] disposed between the back surface of the piezoelectric layer and the buried oxide layer; and an interdigital transducer (IDT) 654 ([0083], Figs. 6B, 6C) on the front surface of piezoelectric layer 642 and having interleaved fingers 654 ([0083]) on the diaphragm. Paragraphs [0063-0065] teach that deposited silicon oxide layers have defects or traps, more so then grown oxide. Therefore, Turner’s layer (636) reads on the trap rich layer of the claim.
Claim 3: Turner (Fig. 6A~6C) and corresponding text, teach that the piezoelectric layer 642 and the IDT 654 are configured such that a radio frequency signal applied to the IDT excites a primary shear acoustic mode in the diaphragm ([0027] and claim 2), and the piezoelectric layer is one of lithium niobate and lithium tantalate ([0022], [0045], [0065], [0081]).
Claim 5: Turner (Fig. 6A~6C) and corresponding text, teach that in the substrate comprises: a device portion 614 having a device layer 614 ([0074]) of the substrate having a first surface and a second surface, wherein the second surface of the device layer is the front surface of the substrate, and wherein the cavity extends from the back surface of the piezoelectric layer though the device portion to the buried oxide layer.
Claim 6: Turner (Fig. 6A~6C) and corresponding text, teach that the substrate 618 is silicon ([0074]); the device layer 614 is silicon ([0074]), the buried oxide layer 616 is silicon dioxide ([0074]), and the lateral fences 624 are silicon dioxide (i.e. an etch-stop material which is silicon dioxide, [0038]).
Claim 7: Turner (Fig. 6A~6C) [0076-0079] teaches the cavity is formed by a frontside membrane release etch process; and the lateral fences and buried oxide layer are substantially impervious to the etch process. “The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Claim 22: Turner (Fig. 6A~6C) and corresponding text, teach an acoustic resonator device comprising: a substrate (618) comprising a substrate material (i.e. silicon, [0074]); a device portion (614) ([0074]) above the substrate; a piezoelectric layer (642) ([0082]) attached to the device portion and having a diaphragm that is over a cavity (672) in the device portion; a buried oxide layer (616) ([0074]) between the device portion and the substrate that defines a bottom of the cavity, the buried oxide layer comprising a vertical etch-stop material (i.e. an etch-stop material which is silicon dioxide, [0038]) different from the substrate material (i.e. silicon); a trap rich layer (636) [0063-0065] disposed between a surface of the piezoelectric layer and the buried oxide layer; and lateral fences (624) (note: lateral etch-stop layer 624 acts as lateral fences) that defines a perimeter of the cavity, the lateral fences comprising a lateral etch-stop material (i.e. an etch-stop material which is silicon dioxide, [0038]) different from the substrate material (i.e. silicon).
Claim 23: Turner (Fig. 6A~6C) and corresponding text, teach further comprising an interdigital transducer (IDT) 654 on a front surface of the piezoelectric layer 642 and having interleaved fingers 642 on the diaphragm D.
Claim 25: Turner (Fig. 6A~6C) and corresponding text, teach that the piezoelectric layer 642 and the IDT 654 are configured such that a radio frequency signal applied to the IDT excites a primary shear acoustic mode in the diaphragm D ([0027] and claim 2).
Claim 26: Turner (Fig. 6A~6C) and corresponding text, teach that the piezoelectric layer 642 is one of lithium niobate and lithium tantalate ([0022], [0045], [0065], [0081]).
Claim 28: Turner (Fig. 6A~6C) and corresponding text, teach that the substrate 618 is silicon ([0074]); the device layer 614 is silicon ([0074]), the buried oxide layer 616 is silicon dioxide ([0074]), and the lateral fences 624 are silicon dioxide (i.e. an etch-stop material which is silicon dioxide, [0038]).
Claim 29: Turner (Fig. 6A~6C) [0076-0079] teaches the cavity is formed by a frontside membrane release etch process; and the lateral fences and buried oxide layer are substantially impervious to the etch process. “The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Claim 30: Turner the trap rich layer comprises at least one of an amorphous silicon and a polysilicon [0042].
Claim(s) 1, 3, 5-7, 22-23, 25-26, 28-32, and 34-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Turner et al. (US 2020/0412328) in view of Turner et al. (US PGPub 2020/0373903).
Claim 31: Turner teaches an acoustic resonator device comprising: a substrate comprising a substrate material; a device portion above the substrate; a piezoelectric layer attached to the device portion and having a diaphragm that is over a cavity in the device portion; a buried oxide layer between the device portion and the substrate that defines a bottom of the cavity, the buried oxide layer comprising a vertical etch-stop material different from the substrate material; and lateral fences that defines a perimeter of the cavity, the lateral fences comprising a lateral etch-stop material different from the substrate material; a layer (636) disposed between a surface of the piezoelectric layer and a surface of the buried oxide layer, the layer comprising a trap rich layer. Turner (328) does not teach a layer disposed between a surface of the piezoelectric layer and a surface of the substrate, the layer comprising at one of an amorphous silicon layer and a polysilicon layer. Turner (903) teaches a trap rich layer (524) used in a piezoelectric device, the layer comprising at one of an amorphous silicon layer and a polysilicon layer to improve the function of the device [0039-0041]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the device taught by Turner (328) to have made the trap rich layer of the piezoelectric layer out of amorphous silicon and a polysilicon layer to improve the function of the device [0039-0041] as taught by Turner (903).
Claim 32: Turner (328) teaches an interdigital transducer (IDT) 654 ([0083], Figs. 6B, 6C) on the piezoelectric layer and having interleaved fingers on the diaphragm.
Claim 34: Turner (328) teaches(Fig. 6A~6C) the piezoelectric layer and the IDT are configured such that a radio frequency signal applied to the IDT excites a primary shear acoustic mode in the diaphragm ([0027] and claim 2),.
Claim 35: Turner (328) teaches the piezoelectric layer is one of lithium niobate and lithium tantalate ([0022], [0045], [0065], [0081]).
Claim 36: Turner (328) (Fig. 6A~6C) and corresponding text, teach that the substrate 618 is silicon ([0074]); the device layer 614 is silicon ([0074]), the buried oxide layer 616 is silicon dioxide ([0074]), and the lateral fences 624 are silicon dioxide (i.e. an etch-stop material which is silicon dioxide, [0038]).
Claims 2, 24, and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Turner et al. (US 2020/0412328), as applied to claims 1, 22, and 31 above, and further in view of Diem et al. (US Patent 5,576,250).
Regarding claims 2, 24, and 33, as described above, Turner (328) substantially reads on the invention as claimed, except Turner (328) does not teach the buried oxide layer comprises a layer annealed implanted oxygen and silicon substrate material. Diem teaches a buried oxide layer comprises a layer annealed implanted oxygen and silicon substrate material as an improved base for piezoelectric devices (col. 4). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the substrate to be comprised of a buried oxide layer comprises a layer annealed implanted oxygen and silicon substrate material as an improved base for piezoelectric devices as taught by Diem (col. 4).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s)1, 3-7, 22-26, and 28-36 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection reinterprets the previously used prior art as described above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARAH KATE SALERNO whose telephone number is (571)270-1266. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6:30am-2:30pm.
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, Wael Fahmy can be reached on 5712721705. 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.
/SARAH K SALERNO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2814