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 1-14 in the reply filed on 2/2/26 is acknowledged. Claims 15-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected inventions II-III, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 2/2/26.
An OA on the merits of claims 1-14 as follows:
Specification
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 1-14 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Since the scope of the claim directed to the making of a bulk acoustic wave device (BAW) and the recites of “providing a bulk acoustic wave device structure including a first piezoelectric layer” (claim 1, lines 3-4) directed to the device structure that already existed or preformed without any positive method steps as to how “a first piezoelectric layer” is forming. Please be more specific.
In formulate the rejection on the merits the Examiner presumes that the claim directed to the forming a first a first piezoelectric layer as part of the initially step for making of the BAW as mentioned in the preamble and claim will be rejected accordingly.
Claim 11 appears to be in structure form, and should be rewritten into method formats, thus, the phrase:” wherein the bulk acoustic wave device structure includes a first electrode under the first piezoelectric layer, and the method” (claim 11, line 1) should be updated to: --” wherein the providing of the bulk acoustic wave device structure “--.
Claims 12-14 directed to operation frequency and material selection, and outside oxygen source do not seem to further limit the method invention, since no method inventive feature existed in the above claims. 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 12, 14 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.
Claims 12, and 14 do not further limit the claimed method because claim 12 directed to an operating range of the formed device includes a resonant frequency, and claim 14 directed to an oxygen source associated in “vapor “appears to be an outside element which made scope of the claim unclear.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-12 is/are provisionally rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-16 of co-pending Application No. 17/937089 (reference application) hereinafter the ’089. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because every aspect limitation set forth in this instant Application are recited in the co- pending claim 1-16 of the ‘089.
The ‘089(co-pending Application) reference claims product by process for fabricating bulk acoustic wave resonator with mass adjustment structure, comprising following steps of:
providing a bulk acoustic wave device structure including a first piezoelectric layer (see lines 1-2 of claim 1 of the ‘089); and
forming a second piezoelectric layer over the first piezoelectric layer by atomic layer deposition, the second piezoelectric layer having an opposite polarization relative to the first piezoelectric layer (compare to product by process, claim 1, lines 5-7 of the’ 089).
Limitations of claims 2-5 is/are also claim by the ‘089 (see claims 2-3, 5-6).
As applied to claims 6-8, refer to claims 8-10 of the ‘089.
As applied to claims 9-10, refer to claims 12-13 of the ‘089.
Limitation of claim 11 also readable on claim 1, lines 8-10 of the ‘089
As applied to claim 12, refer to claim 14 of the ‘089.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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) 1-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aligner et al (200500125678) in view of Moon et al (2011/0140579) or Nersessian (20140159713).
Aligner et al discloses, regarding a method of manufacturing a bulk acoustic wave device, the method comprising:
providing a bulk acoustic wave device structure including a first piezoelectric layer 106 (see Fig. 1A); and forming a second piezoelectric layer 108 over the first piezoelectric layer 106, respectively (see Fig. 1A), the second piezoelectric layer having an opposite polarization relative to the first piezoelectric layer (as indicated by arrows of piezoelectric layers 106, 108 of Fig. 1A). of the use
PNG
media_image1.png
324
696
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Note: in page 5, see claim 11, lines 3-8 also discloses all above limitations).
The Aligner et al is in silent regarding the forming the second piezoelectric layer by atomic layer deposition (ALD). However, the process or procedure of using ALD to form piezoelectric layer is welly known to someone having an ordinary skill in the art or commonly use in areas of the fabrication thin film layers includes the above.
In fact, for Example, the Moon et al discloses the process of forming the second piezoelectric layer or piezoelectric layer 210 by atomic layer deposition (see Fig. 3, and discussion in ¶ [0038]).
Nersessian also discloses, a piezoelectric layer which is formed via ALD (see Fig. 21; and discussed in ¶¶¶¶ [0133-0134, 0142-0143]).
The Aligner et al further discloses, regarding,
Claim 8, comprising forming a third piezoelectric layer over the second piezoelectric layer, the third piezoelectric layer having a same polarization as the first piezoelectric layer (see Figs. 2A, 4A of the Aligner et al which depicts the polarization configurations above).
Claim 9, wherein at least one of the first piezoelectric layer and the second piezoelectric layer includes aluminum nitride (see discussion in ¶¶ [0063, 0072] of the Aligner et al).
As applied to claim 10, regarding to “sputtering the first piezoelectric layer”, Noting the Moon et al as discussed in ¶ [0038] discloses the above sputtering of the first piezoelectric layer 210 by sputtering process. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to employ the Moon ‘s teaching as noted above onto the Aligner et al in order to make and form the piezoelectric layer by utilizing the known and available process facilitate operation would result (e.g., thin or thick layer managing in nano or micron scale set, etc.,).
Claim 11 directed to product by process which is met by the Aligner et al (see Figs. 1A-B depict the arranging of where a second electrode 110 over the second piezoelectric layer such that at least the first piezoelectric layer and second piezoelectric layer are included between the first electrode 104 and the second electrode 110).
Claim 12 directed to the product and its associated operation range in resonant frequency in a range from 10 gigahertz to 40 gigahertz is not inventive method feature, since no forming method feature existed in claim 12.
Furthermore, regarding to the BAW has a resonant frequency in a range from 10 gigahertz to 40 gigahertz (see claim 12) is therefore not inventive method feature when departing from the modified Aligner et al as discussed in claim 1 above. The skilled person would utilize in fine tuning of the BAW as obtained by modified of Aligner et al in order to obtain the working resonant frequency within the range set forth in above claim without exercising any inventive skills.
As applied to claim 13, regarding” the second piezoelectric layer is a scandium doped aluminum nitride layer” refer to the Aligner et al about ¶¶ [0063, 0072] for the teaching of material associated with second piezoelectric layer includes scandium doped aluminum, or the like.
Claim(s) 14 as best understood is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aligner et al / Moon et al as modified above and further in view of Park et al (20210376222).
Claim 14, regarding “wherein an oxygen source is included in vapor for the atomic layer deposition of the second piezoelectric layer” is therefore not inventive method feature when departing from the modified Aligner et al as discussed in claim 1. Further, the Parker et al discloses wherein an oxygen source is included in vapor (see discussed in ¶¶¶ [0010, 0027, 0055, 0069]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to employ the Packer et al ‘s teaching as noted above onto the modified of Aligner et al /Moon et al for various known benefits that includes improving the stability and operation efficiency of the device.
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, 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