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 with traverse of Group I, claims 1-10, in the reply filed on 12/08/25 is acknowledged. Applicant(s) requests reconsideration of the restriction/election dated 9/8/25 has been carefully noted and not found to be persuasive because: invention I directed to a method and Invention II directed to a product, and the method step of depositing a piezoelectric layer over the lower acoustic reflector can be used to make another and materially different product other than the product invention II where the piezoelectric layer has a thickness of 700nm. Or the product II as claimed can be made by other regardless to whatever process, where the piezoelectric layer formed by another material different depositing process different such as where the piezoelectric layer is chosen from Aluminum Nitride (AIN). Support for the above can be found in (MPEP § 806.05(c) and § 806.05(f)). Further, inventions I-II each have a separate status in the art method versus product and clearly have a separate field of search (as indicated in page 2 ¶ [0002] of the previous OA dated 9/8/25) which would be non-coextensive while creating a burden for each search of each invention and/or the prior art applicable to one invention (method) would not likely be applicable to another invention; and/or the invention are likely to raise different non-prior art issues under 35 U.S.C. 101 and/or 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph. Therefore, the Restriction mailed on or about 12/8/25 is now made Final. Applicants are required to cancel all non- elected invention II (claims 11-20) or take other appropriate action.
An O.A. on the merits of claims 1-10 as follows:
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 abstract should be revised to reflect method invention (as elected).
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 Objections
Claims 1-10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Since the scope of the claim directed to the making of “a bulk acoustic wave (BAW) resonator” and claim recites a width of the formed ring guard in a number of measurements (see claim 1 and 3) and a thickness of the piezoelectric layer (claim 4) is/are not positive method feature. 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.
Claims 5-9 are 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.
Since scope of the claim directed to the method of forming the BAW resonator and claims 5-9 directed to the range and operation factors in terms of operation frequency which do not further limit the claimed manufacturing method since no inventive method features existed in above claims.
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 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Yen et al (20200373908) in view of Applicant admitted prior art (APA), see Figs. 2-3 of Yen et al.
Yen et al discloses the claimed method of forming a bulk acoustic wave (BAW) resonator, comprising:
forming a lower acoustic reflector 821 including alternating dielectric layers of lower and higher acoustic impedance materials over a substrate 810 (see Figs. 8-9);
depositing a piezoelectric layer 803 over the lower acoustic reflector 821 (see Fig. 8);
forming an upper acoustic reflector 820 including alternating dielectric layers of lower and higher acoustic impedance materials over the piezoelectric layer 803 (see Fig. 8).
The Yen et al is in silent regarding to limitation of “forming a metal guard ring between the piezoelectric layer and the upper acoustic reflector”. The APA discloses the above metal guard ring 205/305 (see Figs. 2-3) can be place or arranging in invention in between the piezoelectric layer and the upper acoustic reflector or between elements in a particular configuration is known in the art. Since the prior arts teach the same known structural elements as the claimed. And further regarding to where “the guard ring having a width no greater than 3.5 µm” is not method inventive feature and is matter of design choice. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having an ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to utilize the APA’s teaching as noted above in combination with the size configuration as of matter of design choice in order to facilitate the fabrication process by utilizing with the known and available process. The motivation for the combination can be obtained by either reference since they’re all in same endeavor field invention.
Claims 1-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Segovia Fernandez et al (US 11264970) in view of Endo et al (US 5990537).
Segovia Fernandez et al discloses the claimed method of forming a bulk acoustic wave (BAW) resonator, comprising:
forming a lower acoustic reflector 806 including alternating dielectric layers of lower and higher acoustic impedance materials over a substrate 820 (see Figs. 8-9);
depositing a piezoelectric layer 803 over the lower acoustic reflector 805 (see Fig. 8);
forming an upper acoustic reflector 804 including alternating dielectric layers of lower and higher acoustic impedance materials over the piezoelectric layer 803 (see Fig. 8).
forming a metal guard ring 830 between the piezoelectric layer 803 and the upper acoustic reflector 804 (see Figs. 8-9). If argues that the Segovia Fernandez et al does not teach the forming a metal guard ring. The Endo et al discloses such metal guard ring 41 in light of discussion in col. 4, lines 49-55, the metal guard rings can be substitute for the existed 830 element of the Segovia Fernandez et al which located in between the piezoelectric layer and the upper acoustic reflector or between elements. Further regarding to where “the guard ring having a width no greater than 3.5 µm” is not method inventive feature and it would have been obvious matter of design choice to select a metal ring guard width includes where a width less or equal to 3.5 µm in order to facilitate the fabrication process.
Limitation of claim 2 is also met by the combination references above , Applicant(s) refers to Fig. 8 of the Segovia Fernandez et al which depicts an electrode 801 which is formed over the piezoelectric layer 803, the metal guard ring 830 located between the electrode 801 and the upper acoustic reflector 804.
As applied to claim 3, regarding to the guard ring has a width no less than 2.5 µm is not method inventive feature and it would have been obvious matter of design choice to select a metal ring guard width includes where a width no less than 2.5 µm in order to facilitate the fabrication process.
As applied to claim 4, regarding the piezoelectric layer has a thickness of about 700 nm. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make or form a particular thickness of piezoelectric layer include the piezoelectric layer has a thickness of about 700 nm, 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. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Limitations of claims 5-9 as best understood appears to meet by the above, since no inventive method effort exist in the product specifications in claims above.
As applied to claim 10 regarding to the material of the piezoelectric layer in form of AIN. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to form the piezoelectric layer includes AIN material, since AIN materials are well known in area of BAW making process and AIN is/are selected based on design considerations and tradeoffs between cost, mechanical properties, and electrical properties.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
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, Thomas J Hong can be reached at 571-272-0993. 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