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.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Matsuo (PG Pub 20210075391).
Considering claim 1, Matsuo (Figure 1) teaches a bulk acoustic wave resonator having a central region (150 + paragraph 0035), an outer region (region outside of 160) and a raised frame region (160 + paragraph 0036) between the central region and the outer region, the bulk acoustic wave resonator comprising: a piezoelectric layer (115 + paragraph 0035); and a top electrode (120 + paragraph 0034) over the piezoelectric layer, the top electrode disposed at least in the central region, the outer region, and the raised frame region, the top electrode configured such that a resonant frequency in the outer region is higher than a resonant frequency in the central region (It has been held that where the structure recited in a reference is the same as the claimed structure, claimed properties and functions are presumed to be inherent (In re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433)).
Considering claim 2, Matsuo (Figure 1) teaches wherein an resonant frequency in the raised frame region (160 + paragraph 0036) is lower than the resonant frequencies in the central region and the outer region (It has been held that where the structure recited in a reference is the same as the claimed structure, claimed properties and functions are presumed to be inherent (In re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433)).
Considering claim 3, Matsuo (Figure 1) teaches wherein a thickness of the top electrode in the raised frame region (160 + paragraphs 0034-0036) is greater than a thickness of the top electrode in the central region and a thickness of the top electrode in the outer region.
Considering claim 6, Matsuo (Figure 1) teaches a bottom electrode (125 + paragraph 0034) disposed such that the piezoelectric layer (115 + paragraph 0034) is positioned between the top electrode (120 + paragraph 0034) and the bottom electrode, wherein an end of the bottom electrode where the bottom electrode terminates is positioned in the raised frame region or the outer region.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuo (PG Pub 20210075391).
Considering claim 7, Matsuo discloses wherein the end of the bottom electrode is positioned between the raised frame region and the outer region except for wherein the bottom electrode is positioned within 1 microns from an intersection between the raised frame region and the outer region. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the bottom electrode is positioned within 1 microns from an intersection between the raised frame region and the outer region, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art , discovering the optimum where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
Considering claim 8, Matsuo teaches is a mesa type bulk acoustic wave resonator and further comprising: a substrate (110 + paragraph 0034); and an air cavity (135 + paragraph 0034) disposed between the substrate and the bottom electrode.
Claim(s) 4-5 and 9-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuo (PG Pub 20210075391) and in view of Sadhu (PG Pub 20180175821).
Considering claim 4, Matsuo teaches the bulk acoustic wave resonator as described above.
However, Matsuo does not teach wherein the top electrode in the raised frame region includes a first layer and a second layer.
Sadhu (Figure 1) teaches wherein the top electrode in the raised frame region includes a first layer and a second layer (20 + paragraph 0039).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the top electrode in the raised frame region includes a first layer and a second layer into Matsuo’s device for the benefit of improving the performance of BAW resonators.
Considering claims 5 and 13, Sadhu teaches wherein materials of the first layer and the second layer are selected from molybdenum (Mo), tungsten (W) (paragraph 0039), platinum (Pt), ruthenium (Ru), iridium (Ir) or osmium (Os).
Considering claim 9, Matsuo (Figure 2) teaches a bulk acoustic wave resonator having a central region (150 + paragraph 0036), a first outer region (region outside of 160 on the right side), a second outer region (region outside of 160 on the left side), a first raised frame region (160 + (right side) + paragraph 0036) between the central region and the first outer region and a second raised frame region (160 + (left side) + paragraph 0036) between the central region and the second outer region, the bulk acoustic wave resonator comprising: a top electrode (220 + paragraph 0038); a bottom electrode (125 + paragraph 0038); and a piezoelectric layer (115 + paragraph 0038) between the first electrode and the second electrode, an resonant frequency in the first and second outer region being higher than an resonant frequency in the central region (It has been held that where the structure recited in a reference is the same as the claimed structure, claimed properties and functions are presumed to be inherent (In re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433)).
However, Matsuo does not teach wherein a top electrode having a first portion and a second portion having a different material from the first portion.
Sadhu (Figure 1) teaches wherein the top electrode having a first portion and a second portion having a different material from the first portion (20 + paragraph 0039).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the top electrode having a first portion and a second portion having a different material from the first portion into Matsuo’s device for the benefit of improving the performance of BAW resonators.
Considering claim 10, Matsuo in view of Sadhu teaches wherein an resonant frequency in the first raised frame region and an resonant frequency in the second raised frame region are lower than the resonant frequencies in the central region and the first and second outer regions (It has been held that where the structure recited in a reference is the same as the claimed structure, claimed properties and functions are presumed to be inherent (In re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433)).
Considering claim 11, Matsuo (Figure 2) teaches wherein a thickness of the top electrode in the first raised frame region (160 + paragraphs 0034-0036) is greater than a thickness of the top electrode in the central region and a thickness of the top electrode in the first outer region.
Considering claim 12, Sadhu (Figure 1) teaches wherein the top electrode in the raised frame region includes a first layer and a second layer (paragraph 0039).
Considering claim 14, Matsuo (Figure 2) teaches wherein the resonant frequency in the first raised frame region and the resonant frequency in the second raised frame region are substantially the same (It has been held that where the structure recited in a reference is the same as the claimed structure, claimed properties and functions are presumed to be inherent (In re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433)).
Considering claim 15, Matsuo (Figure 2) teaches wherein the resonant frequency in the first outer region and the resonant frequency in the second outer region are substantially the same (It has been held that where the structure recited in a reference is the same as the claimed structure, claimed properties and functions are presumed to be inherent (In re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433)).
Considering claim 16, Matsuo (Figure 2) teaches wherein the top electrode (220 + paragraph 0038) extends from the first outer region through the first raised frame region (160 + right side), the central region (150 + paragraph 0035), and the second raised frame region (160 + left side), and terminates with an intersection between the second raised frame region and the second outer region.
Considering claim 17, Matsuo (Figure 2) teaches wherein the bottom electrode (125 + paragraph 0034) extends from the second outer region through the second raised frame region (160 + left side) and the central region, and an end of the bottom electrode where the bottom electrode terminates is positioned in the first raised frame (160 + right side) region or the first outer region.
Considering claim 18, Matsuo discloses wherein the end of the bottom electrode is positioned between the raised frame region and the outer region except for wherein the bottom electrode is positioned within 1 microns from an intersection between the raised frame region and the outer region. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the bottom electrode is positioned within 1 microns from an intersection between the raised frame region and the outer region, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art , discovering the optimum where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
Considering claim 19, Matsuo (Figure 2) teaches the bulk acoustic wave resonator is a mesa type bulk acoustic wave resonator and further comprising: a substrate (110 + paragraph 0034) and an air cavity (135 + paragraph 0034) disposed between the substrate and the bottom electrode.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuo (PG Pub 20210075391, in view of Sadhu (PG Pub 20180175821) and in view of Shin (PG 20200099359).
Considering claim 20, Matsuo (Figure 2) in view of Sadhu teaches a dielectric layer (230 + paragraph 0038) disposed over the top electrode (220 + paragraph 0038).
However, Matsuo in view of Sadhu does not teach wherein the dielectric layer being thicker in the central region than in a recessed frame region between the central region and the first raised frame region.
Shin (Figure 2) teaches wherein the dielectric layer (27 + paragraph 0073) being thicker in the central region than in a recessed frame region between the central region and the first raised frame region (see Figure 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the dielectric layer being thicker in the central region than in a recessed frame region between the central region and the first raised frame region into Matsuo’s device for the benefit of providing additional protection for BAW resonator.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRYAN P GORDON whose telephone number is (571)272-5394. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 a.m. - 4:30 p.m..
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 K 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.
/BRYAN P GORDON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2837
Prosecution Insights