DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of group I claims 1-11 and 20-21 in the reply filed on 1 May 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the restriction made is not proper because the product and the process of making product are not distinct. This is not found persuasive because claims 12-19 were amended after the restriction was mailed and initiated by the restriction. The requirement is still deemed proper at this time.
Notice of 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 .
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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 19 December 2023 and 26 October 2022 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
FIG. 2 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because paragraph [0007] of the Specification addresses FIG. 2 as “FIG. 2 is an illustration of a cross-sectional view of a conventional BAW device.” See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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.
Claims 1-6 and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Pang et al. (CN 113630099A). Pang et al. is listed in the IDS of 19 December 2023. The machine translation of Pang et al. is provided by the Examiner.
Regarding independent claim 1, Pang et al. (e. g. see FIG. 1) discloses
a bulk acoustic wave (BAW) device (FIG. 1) comprising:
a piezoelectric layer (2);
a first top electrode (10) on a top side of the piezoelectric layer (2) in a first region (left or right side of FIG. 1) of the piezoelectric layer (2);
a second top electrode (10) on the top side of the piezoelectric layer (2) in a second region (right or left side of FIG. 1) of the piezoelectric layer (2);
an acoustic mirror (12) on a bottom side of the piezoelectric layer (2); and
a bottom electrode (4) between the acoustic mirror (12) and the piezoelectric layer (2),
wherein the piezoelectric layer (2) comprises a recess on the bottom side in the second region (right or left side of FIG. 1) of the piezoelectric layer (2).
Regarding claim 2, Pang et al. (e. g. see FIG. 1) discloses the bottom electrode (4) is disposed in the recess on the bottom side of the piezoelectric layer (2).
Regarding claim 3, Pang et al. (e. g. see FIG. 1) discloses the bottom electrode (4) comprises: a first bottom electrode (part of bottom electrode 4 in second region) disposed in the recess in the second region (right or left side of FIG. 1) of the piezoelectric layer (2); and a second bottom electrode (part of bottom electrode 4 in first region) disposed in the first region (left or right side of FIG. 1) of the piezoelectric layer (2).
Regarding claim 4, Pang et al. (e. g. see FIG. 1) discloses a surface on the top side of the piezoelectric layer (2) is planar.
Regarding claim 5, Pang et al. (e. g. see FIG. 1) discloses the acoustic mirror (12) comprises a first material disposed in the recess.
Regarding claim 6, Pang et al. (e. g. see FIG. 1) discloses the acoustic mirror (12) comprises: a first material disposed on the bottom electrode (4); a first layer (2) of a second material disposed on the first material at a first distance from the top side of the piezoelectric layer (2) in the first region (left or right side of FIG. 1); and a second layer (2) of the second material disposed on the first material at a second distance from the top side of the piezoelectric layer (2) in the second region (right or left side of FIG. 1).
Regarding claim 8, Pang et al. (e. g. see FIG. 1) discloses a substrate (5, 6, 7) coupled to the acoustic mirror (12).
Regarding claim 9, Pang et al. (e. g. see FIG. 1) discloses a bonding interface (a substrate 7 is bonded to the lower side surface of the first acoustic impedance layer 5) between the acoustic mirror (12) and the substrate (5, 6, 7).
Regarding claim 10, Pang et al. (e. g. see FIG. 1) discloses a first lateral acoustic feature disposed around a perimeter of the first top electrode (10); and a second lateral acoustic feature disposed around a perimeter of the second top electrode (10).
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.
PNG
media_image1.png
255
650
media_image1.png
Greyscale
FIG. 1 of Pang et al.
Claims 7, 11 and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pang et al. (CN 113630099A).
Regarding claim 7, Pang et al. (e. g. see FIG. 1) discloses the first distance is greater than the second distance.
Regarding claim 11, Pang et al. (e. g. see FIG. 1) does not explicitly disclose the BAW device integrated into a device selected from the group consisting of: a set-top box; an entertainment unit; a navigation device; a communications device; a fixed location data unit; a mobile location data unit; a global positioning system (GPS) device; a mobile phone; a cellular phone; a smartphone; a session initiation protocol (SIP) phone; a tablet; a phablet; a server; a computer; a portable computer; a mobile computing device; a wearable computing device; a desktop computer; a personal digital assistant (PDA); a monitor; a computer monitor; a television; a tuner; a radio; a satellite radio; a music player; a digital music player; a portable music player; a digital video player; a video player; a digital video disc (DVD) player; a portable digital video player; an automobile; a vehicle component; avionics systems; a drone; and a multicopter.
However, it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987).
Regarding independent claim 20, Pang et al. (e. g. see FIG. 1) discloses
a bulk acoustic wave (BAW) device (e. g. see FIG. 1) comprising:
a piezoelectric layer (2); a first top electrode (10) on a top side of the piezoelectric layer (2) in a first region (left or right side of FIG. 1) of the piezoelectric layer (2);
a second top electrode (10) on the top side of the piezoelectric layer (2) in a second region (right or left side of FIG. 1) of the piezoelectric layer (2);
an acoustic mirror (12) on a bottom side of the piezoelectric layer (2); and
a bottom electrode (4) between the acoustic mirror (12) and the piezoelectric layer (2), the bottom electrode (4) having a first thickness in the first region (left or right side of FIG. 1) of the piezoelectric layer (2) and a second thickness in the second region (right or left side of FIG. 1) of the piezoelectric layer (2)
Pang et al. does not explicitly disclose the second thickness is different than the first thickness.
However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice bounded by well-known usage of BAW and by ascertainable routine experimentation and optimization to choose these particular first thickness and second thickness of the bottom electrode. The adjustment of these thicknesses would have been a known option within the technical grasp of a person having ordinary skill in the art to control the resonant frequency by generating the frequency shift to from the filter passband.
Regarding claim 21, Pang et al. (e. g. see FIG. 1) discloses every aspect of the invention except for “a first distance from the first layer of the second material to the first top electrode is greater than a second distance from the second layer of the second material to the second top electrode.”
However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice bounded by well-known usage of BAW and by ascertainable routine experimentation and optimization to choose these particular first distance and second distance of the top electrode. The adjustment of these distances would have been a known option within the technical grasp of a person having ordinary skill in the art to provide improved high-coupling, large-bandwidth and high-performance for BAW.
Examiner’s Note:
In this Office Action, Examiner has cited particular figures, column numbers, paragraph numbers, and line numbers of the prior arts applied in the rejections. However, other figures and passages of the same prior arts may anticipate the claim limitations as well. Therefore, Applicants are respectfully requested to consider the prior arts in their entirety as potentially teaching claimed invention.
For amendment purpose, Applicants are very much appreciated for indicating the portion(s) of the specification which dictates the structure(s) relied on for proper interpretation as well as for verification and determination of the metes and bounds of the claimed invention. Applicants’ indication of the specific figures and items of figures which represent features of the invention disclosed in the amended claims, is also expected.
Additionally, in the event that other prior art(s) is/are provided and made of record by the Examiner as being relevant or pertinent to applicant's disclosure but not relied upon, the examiner requests that the reference(s) be considered in any subsequent amendments, as the reference(s) is also representative of the teachings of the art and may apply to the specific limitations of any newly amended claim(s).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kawakubo et al. (U. S. Patent No. 6870445) discloses a thin film bulk acoustic wave resonator, which has a resonant excitation portion free from damage caused by etching, a high electromechanical coupling coefficient and a high quality coefficient value, and to provide a thin film bulk acoustic wave resonator having a plurality of different resonant frequencies, which can be formed on the same substrate without increasing number of lithography process.
Chang et al. (U. S. Patent No. 11070185) discloses a bulk acoustic wave filter and a method of frequency tuning for a bulk acoustic wave resonator of a bulk acoustic wave filter, especially a method of precision frequency tuning for a bulk acoustic wave resonator of a bulk acoustic wave filter. The BAW is configured to avoid the complexity for fabricating BAW and to achieve the expected effect of the resonance frequency differences.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EMILY P. PHAM whose telephone number is (571) 270-3046. The examiner can normally be reached MON-FRI 8:00AM-5:00PM.
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 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.
7 April 2026
/EMILY P PHAM/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2837
Prosecution Insights