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 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, 3-5, 10, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Aigner et al. (US 2005/0012568).
With respect to claim 1, Aigner et al. discloses a bulk acoustic wave device (Fig 1) with stacked piezoelectric layers (items 106 and 108), the bulk acoustic wave device comprising: a first electrode (item 104); a second electrode (item 110); and a plurality of stacked piezoelectric layers (items 106 and 108) positioned between the first electrode and the second electrode (Fig 1), the bulk acoustic wave device configured to excite an overtone mode as a main mode (Fig 1, paragraph 40). The language “the plurality of stacked piezoelectric layers including a piezoelectric layer formed by atomic layer deposition” is product-by-process language and it has been held that where a claimed product is the same as or obvious over a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even if the prior product was made by a different process (In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964). The language
With respect to claim 3, Aigner et al. discloses the bulk acoustic wave device of claim 1 wherein the piezoelectric layers have an opposite polarization to each other (Fig 1, paragraph 30). The remaining features of the claim are product-by-process language and it has been held that where a claimed product is the same as or obvious over a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even if the prior product was made by a different process (In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964).
With respect to claim 4, Aigner et al. discloses the bulk acoustic wave device of claim 1. The language “wherein the plurality of stacked piezoelectric layers includes a second piezoelectric layer formed by atomic layer deposition” is product-by-process language and it has been held that where a claimed product is the same as or obvious over a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even if the prior product was made by a different process (In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964).
With respect to claim 5, Aigner et al. discloses the bulk acoustic wave device of claim 1. The language “wherein the plurality of stacked piezoelectric layers includes alternating piezoelectric layers formed by atomic layer deposition and piezoelectric layers formed by a method different than atomic layer deposition” is product-by-process language and it has been held that where a claimed product is the same as or obvious over a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even if the prior product was made by a different process (In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964).
With respect to claim 10, Aigner et al. discloses the bulk acoustic wave device of claim 1 wherein each of the plurality of stacked piezoelectric layers includes aluminum nitride (Paragraph 30).
With respect to claim 20, Aigner et al. discloses a method of filtering a radio frequency signal, the method comprising: receiving a radio frequency signal at an acoustic wave filter (Fig 1) that includes a bulk acoustic wave resonator, the bulk acoustic wave resonator including a plurality of stacked piezoelectric layers (items 106 and 108), and the bulk acoustic wave resonator configured to excite an overtone mode as a main mode (Fig 1, paragraph 40); and filtering the radio frequency signal with the acoustic wave filter (Paragraph 5). The language “the plurality of stacked piezoelectric layers including a piezoelectric layer formed by atomic layer deposition” is product-by-process language and it has been held that where a claimed product is the same as or obvious over a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even if the prior product was made by a different process (In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964).
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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aigner et al. in view of Feng et al. (US 2013/0193808).
With respect to claim 2, Aigner et al. discloses the bulk acoustic wave device of claim 1.
Aigner et al. does not disclose that the piezoelectric layers have a same polarization.
Feng et al. teaches a piezoelectric resonator in which the piezoelectric layers may have either opposite or same polarization directions (Fig 1-2 of Feng et al.).
Before the effective filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the polarization directions of the piezoelectric layers taught by Feng et al. with the bulk acoustic wave device of Aigner et al. for the benefit of providing the desired frequency characteristics (Abstract of Feng et al.).
The remaining features of the claim are product-by-process language and it has been held that where a claimed product is the same as or obvious over a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even if the prior product was made by a different process (In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964).
Claims 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aigner et al. in view of Larson et al. (US 2014/0132117).
With respect to claim 6, Aigner et al. discloses the bulk acoustic wave device of claim 1.
Aigner et al. does not disclose that at least one of the piezoelectric layers includes a dopant.
Larson et al. teaches a piezoelectric acoustic wave device in which at least one of the piezoelectric layers includes a dopant (Paragraphs 12-13).
Before the effective filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the scandium-doped aluminum nitride of Larson et al. with the bulk acoustic wave device of Aigner et al. for the benefit of improved piezoelectric properties (Paragraphs 12-13 of Larson et al.).
The remaining features of the claim are product-by-process language and it has been held that where a claimed product is the same as or obvious over a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even if the prior product was made by a different process (In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964).
With respect to claim 7, Aigner et al. discloses the bulk acoustic wave device of claim 5.
Aigner et al. does not disclose that at least one of the piezoelectric layers includes a dopant.
Larson et al. teaches a piezoelectric acoustic wave device in which at least one of the piezoelectric layers includes a dopant (Paragraphs 12-13).
Before the effective filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the scandium-doped aluminum nitride of Larson et al. with the bulk acoustic wave device of Aigner et al. for the benefit of improved piezoelectric properties (Paragraphs 12-13 of Larson et al.).
The remaining features of the claim are product-by-process language and it has been held that where a claimed product is the same as or obvious over a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even if the prior product was made by a different process (In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964).
With respect to claim 8, the combination of Aigner et al. and Larson et al. discloses the bulk acoustic wave device of claim 6. Larson et al. discloses that the dopant is scandium (Paragraphs 12-13).
With respect to claim 9, Aigner et al. discloses the bulk acoustic wave device of claim 1, wherein the piezoelectric layer is undoped (Paragraph 30).
Aigner et al. does not disclose that a piezoelectric layer includes a dopant.
Larson et al. teaches a piezoelectric acoustic wave device in which a piezoelectric layer includes a dopant (Paragraphs 12-13).
Before the effective filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the scandium-doped aluminum nitride of Larson et al. with the bulk acoustic wave device of Aigner et al. for the benefit of improved piezoelectric properties (Paragraphs 12-13 of Larson et al.).
The remaining features of the claim are product-by-process language and it has been held that where a claimed product is the same as or obvious over a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even if the prior product was made by a different process (In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964).
Claims 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aigner et al. in view of Matsuo (US 2020/0091886).
With respect to claims 11-14, Aigner et al. discloses the bulk acoustic wave device of claim 1.
Aigner et al. does not disclose that the overtone mode has a frequency in a range of 10 GHz to 40Ghz, 20 GHz to 30GHz, 24 GHz to 30GHz, or 10 GHz to 20 GHz.
First, it has been held that the mere optimization of a device by routine experimentation is obvious (In re Aller, 103 USPQ 233). It is well known that the resonant frequency of bulk acoustic wave devices is related to the dimensions of the layers of the device, and it would therefore be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adjust the dimensions of the layers of the device in order to achieve the desired frequency of operation.
Furthermore, Matsuo teaches a piezoelectric bulk acoustic wave device in which the overtone mode has a frequency in a range of 10 GHz to 40Ghz, 20 GHz to 30GHz, 24 GHz to 30GHz, or 10 GHz to 20 GHz (Paragraph 61).
Before the effective filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the frequency of operation of Matsuo with the bulk acoustic wave device of Aigner et al. for the benefit of providing a wide range of frequencies for use with the bulk acoustic wave device (Paragraph 61 of Matsuo).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aigner et al. in view of Rudy (US 2007/0063622).
With respect to claim 15, Aigner et al. discloses the bulk acoustic wave device of claim 1.
Aigner et al. does not disclose an interposer layer positioned between the piezoelectric layer formed by atomic layer deposition and another one of the plurality of stacked piezoelectric layers.
Rudy teaches a piezoelectric bulk acoustic wave device including an interposer layer (item 361) positioned between the piezoelectric layers (items 351 and 371).
Before the effective filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the interposer layer of Rudy with the bulk acoustic wave device of Aigner et al. for the benefit of providing improved thermal characteristics (Paragraph 45 of Rudy).
The remaining features of the claim are product-by-process language and it has been held that where a claimed product is the same as or obvious over a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even if the prior product was made by a different process (In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964).
Claims 16, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aigner et al. in view of Ando et al. (US 20190319772).
With respect to claim 16, Aigner et al. discloses an acoustic wave filter (Fig 1) configured to filter a radio frequency signal, the acoustic wave filter including bulk acoustic wave resonator, the bulk acoustic wave resonator including a plurality of stacked piezoelectric layers (items 106 and 108), and the bulk acoustic wave resonator configured to excite an overtone mode as a main mode (Paragraph 40);
Aigner et al. does not disclose a packaged radio frequency module including a radio frequency circuit element; and a package structure enclosing the acoustic wave filter and the radio frequency circuit element.
Ando et al. teaches a packaged radio frequency module including a radio frequency circuit element; and a package structure enclosing the acoustic wave filter and the radio frequency circuit element (Paragraphs 104-109).
Before the effective filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the RF module components of Ando et al. with the bulk acoustic wave device of Aigner et al. for the benefit of providing the signal processing necessary for integration with electronic devices such as telephones (Paragraph 116 of Ando et al.).
With respect to claim 18, the combination of Aigner et al. and Ando et al. discloses the packaged radio frequency module of claim 16. Ando et al. discloses that the radio frequency circuit element includes a radio frequency switch (Paragraphs 104-109).
With respect to claim 19, the combination of Aigner et al. and Ando et al. discloses the packaged radio frequency module of claim 16. Ando et al. discloses that the radio frequency circuit element includes a radio frequency amplifier (Paragraphs 104-109).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aigner et al. in view of Ando et al. and Matsuo.
With respect to claim 17, the combination of Aigner et al. and Ando et al. discloses the packaged radio frequency module of claim 16.
Aigner et al. does not disclose that the overtone mode has a frequency in a range of 10 GHz to 40Ghz.
First, it has been held that the mere optimization of a device by routine experimentation is obvious (In re Aller, 103 USPQ 233). It is well known that the resonant frequency of bulk acoustic wave devices is related to the dimensions of the layers of the device, and it would therefore be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adjust the dimensions of the layers of the device in order to achieve the desired frequency of operation.
Furthermore, Matsuo teaches a piezoelectric bulk acoustic wave device in which the overtone mode has a frequency in a range of 10 GHz to 40Ghz (Paragraph 61).
Before the effective filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the frequency of operation of Matsuo with the bulk acoustic wave device of Aigner et al. for the benefit of providing a wide range of frequencies for use with the bulk acoustic wave device (Paragraph 61 of Matsuo).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Derek John Rosenau whose telephone number is (571)272-8932. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7 am to 5:30 pm Central Time.
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.
/DEREK J ROSENAU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2837