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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, (claims 1-17) in the reply filed on 11/13/25 is acknowledged.
Claims 18-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 11/13/25. Note that a number distinctive species (see various process embodiments of Figs. 5-9) is/are also existed in the Group I invention however no burden at this point of time.
An OA on the merits of claims 1-17 as follows:
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the subject matter as representing in claim 11(entirely) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). 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 title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested:
-- TRANSVERSELY-EXCITED FILM BULK ACOUSTIC RESONATOR MANUFACTURING METHOD--
The lengthy 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 § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 11-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention. In this case the, the subject matter of claims 11-17 was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to make and use the invention. It is also noted that at best the specification discloses a process of “depositing a blanket conforming dielectric layer on the bottom surface of the piezoelectric wafer and on the sacrificial pillar to cover the sacrificial pillar;” in light of ¶ [0058] of Applicant’s specification but lacking of step (e.g., blanket layering a pillar material on a piezoelectric layer; patterning a top of the blanket layer of pillar material and etching through a resulting pattern to remove areas of the blanket layer of pillar material to leave a pillar of the pillar material) as set forth in detail in claim 11.
Claims 12-17 are also rejected as same rationale as base independent claim 11.
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.
Claims 11-17 are also 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.
The scope of the claims 11-17 is unclear since the elected invention clearly directed to the making of an ACOUSTIC RESONATOR and claim 11 directed to “a method” other than the method as elected which make scope of the claim unclear. Please be more specific to exactly what applicant(s) intends to claim. In formulate the rejection on the merits the examiner presumes that claims directed to the overlap method as representing in claim 1 and claims will be rejected accordingly and reasonably.
Claims 12-17are also rejected as indefinite, so rendered by virtue of their dependency upon the indefinite subject matter of independent claim 11.
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 and 11 as best understood is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi (20130234805) in view of Wang et al (CN20747550 U).
Takahashi discloses the claimed method of fabricating an acoustic resonator using sacrificial pillars, the method comprising:
forming a sacrificial pillar 105’ on a bottom surface of a piezoelectric wafer 103’ (see Fig. 3A);
depositing a blanket conforming dielectric layer 102 on the bottom surface of the piezoelectric wafer 103 and on the sacrificial pillar to cover the sacrificial pillar 105’ (see Fig. 3B);
bonding the planar bottom surface of the blanket conforming dielectric 102 layer to a front surface of a substrate wafer 101 (see Fig. 3B);
forming at least one conductor pattern 104 on a planar front surface of the piezoelectric wafer 103 (see Fig. 3C);
forming holes 103a’s through the piezoelectric wafer to the sacrificial pillar (see Fig. 3D); and
removing the sacrificial pillar 105’ using an etchant introduced through the holes in the piezoelectric wafer to form a cavity 105 under a diaphragm of the piezoelectric wafer spanning the cavity (see Fig. 3E). The Takahashi is in silent regarding the step of” polishing a bottom surface of the blanket conforming dielectric layer to form a bottom planar surface of the blanket conforming dielectric layer and to leave a thickness of the blanket conforming dielectric that covers the sacrificial pillar”, however, polishing dielectric layer or the like is commonly known in the art and in fact the examiner relies on the Wang et al in light of the discussion of page 4, ¶ [0009]) for above teaching. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having an ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to employ the Wang teaching as noted above onto invention of Takahashi in order to facilitate the fabrication process by utilizing the known and available concept. The motivation for the combination can be found by either reference since they both are in same endeavor field of invention.
Limitations of claim 11 is also met by the above discussion.
Potential Allowable claims
Claims 2-10 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MINH N TRINH whose telephone number is (571)272-4569. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH ~5:00-3:30.
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, Sunil K Singh can be reached at 571-272-3460. 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.
/MINH N TRINH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3729
mt