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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in China on 9/22/2021. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the CN202111105960.0 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Interpretation
Note that the rejections below groups the apparatus claim with corresponding method claims, since the method claims are generic forming steps in which the apparatus structure would anticipate such steps.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 3-5, 10, 11, 14 and 19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1 and 10, line 8 of each claim; Claims 3-5, line 1 of each claim; and claim 19, line 9: at each instance the examiner suggests rewriting “the arcs” to --the M arcs-- to provide consistency in the claim language.
Claim 3, line 2, the examiner suggests rewriting “a convex arc” to --the convex arc-- to avoid an antecedent issue.
Claim 3, line 3, the examiner suggests rewriting “a concave arc” to --the concave arc-- to avoid an antecedent issue.
Claim 11, line 2, the examiner suggests rewriting “a closed figure having an outline shape” to --the closed figure having the outline shape-- to avoid an antecedent issue.
Claim 11, line 4, the examiner suggests rewriting “an axisymmetric figure” to --the axisymmetric figure-- to avoid an antecedent issue.
Claim 14, line 2, the examiner suggests rewriting “a first cavity” to --the cavity-- to avoid an antecedent issue and to provide consistency in the claim language.
Claim 14, line 2, the examiner suggests rewriting “the first cavity” to --the cavity-- to provide consistency in the claim language.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 9, 10, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) or 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Lochner et al. (US2022/0263488 A1).
In regards to claims 1, 9, 10 and 19 Lochner et al. teaches in annotated Fig. 4 below a filter, comprising a bulk acoustic resonator, wherein the bulk acoustic resonator comprises:
A substrate having a cavity (not shown, see Paragraph [0009] which discloses that the bulk acoustic resonator is a FBAR which comprises a cavity with a substrate below the resonator), and a bottom electrode (BE), a piezoelectric layer (PM) and a top electrode (TE) that are sequentially arranged on the substrate, wherein an overlapping area of orthographic projections of the bottom electrode, the piezoelectric layer and the top electrode on the substrate forms a resonance area; and
In the resonance area, an outline shape of the orthographic projection of each of the piezoelectric layer, the bottom electrode and the top electrode on the substrate is a closed figure formed by connecting M=6 arcs end to end, and the closed figure is an axisymmetric figure (see Paragraph [0049], which discloses that there a symmetry axis based on the center of the resonator) , wherein M is an integer greater than or equal to 2, and the M arcs comprise a concave arc (Annotated Arcs B1, B2 and B3) that is concave toward a center of the resonance area and a convex arc (Annotated Arcs A1, A2 and A3) that is convex away from the center of the resonance area.
In regards to claims 2 and 20, based on annotated Fig. 4 the concave arc (Annotated Arcs B1-B3) and the convex arc (Annotated Arcs A1-A3) are alternatively arranged.
In regards to claim 3, based on annotated Fig. 4, the M arcs comprise a first arc (A1) and a second arc (B1) that are sequentially connected end to end, the first arc is a convex arc, and the second arc is a concave arc.
PNG
media_image1.png
433
607
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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.
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.
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lochner et al. (US2022/0263488 A1).
As disclosed above, Lochner et al. teaches the claimed invention as recited in claim 1. Based on annotated Fig. 4 above, the resonator further comprises a third convex arc (Annotated Arc A2), a fourth concave arc (Annotated Arc B2) arcs, a fifth convex arc (Annotated Arc A3) and a sixth concave arc (Annotated Arc B3) that are sequentially connected end to end. Lochner et al. does not teach: in regards to claim 4, wherein the first arc and the third arc are symmetrically arranged with respect to a first direction, the second arc and the fourth arc are symmetrically arranged with respect to a second direction, and the first direction is perpendicular to the second direction; and in regards to claim 5, a seventh arc having a convex arc and an eighth arc having a concave arc.
However, Lochner et al. does not limit the number of convex/concave portions that can be present. Lochner et al. teaches in Paragraphs [0008] and [0049] that the number of curve portion are selected to ensure a constructive interference is reduced, thereby reducing unwanted lateral mode, in which the outline of the resonator can be designed to maintain an axis of symmetry.
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the invention of Lochner et al. and have added one more additional sequence of convex/concave arc portion (i.e. seventh and eighth arc) while still maintaining an axis of symmetry because such a modification would have been an obvious design choice to ensure unwanted lateral modes are reduced as suggested by Lochner et al. (see Paragraphs [0008] and [0049]). As an obvious consequence of the modification, the additional sequence of convex/concave would have resulted in the resonator having a quadrilateral shape (i.e. square outline) which would have resulted in the first arc and the third arc being symmetrically arranged with respect to a first direction, the second arc and the fourth arc being symmetrically arranged with respect to a second direction, and the first direction would be perpendicular to the second direction.
Claims 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lochner et al. (US2022/0263488 A1) in view of Satoh (US2017/0331457 A1).
As disclosed above, Lochner et al. teaches the claimed invention as recited in claim 1. However, Lochner et al. does not disclose the material of any of the layers of the bulk acoustic resonator (i.e. all layers being generic), and therefore does not teach: in regards to claim 6, wherein the piezoelectric layer is made of any one of aluminum nitride, lithium niobate, lithium tantalate, lead zirconate titanate and scandium-doped aluminum nitride; in regards to claim 7, wherein the bottom electrode is made of any one of molybdenum, aluminum, platinum, silver, tungsten and gold; and in regards to claim 8, wherein the top electrode is made of any one of molybdenum, aluminum, platinum, silver, tungsten and gold.
Satoh teaches in Fig. 2B a FBAR having a piezoelectric layer (22) sandwiched between a top (23) and bottom (21) electrode. Satoh teaches in Paragraphs [0031]-[0032], that the piezoelectric material is made from aluminum nitride and the top/bottom electrodes are made from tungsten.
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the invention of Lochner et al. and have replaced the generic piezoelectric layer with an aluminum nitride piezoelectric layer and have replaced the generic top/bottom electrode with electrode layers made from tungsten because such a modification would have been a well-known in the art substitution of art-recognized alternative/equivalent for either a piezoelectric material or electrode layer material that can be used in a FBAR as taught by Satoh (See Paragraphs [0031]-[0032]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11-18 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The most relevant prior art reference is Lochner et al. (US2022/0263488 A1) as disclosed above. However, Lochner et al. does not teach: in regards to claim 11, wherein the bottom electrode is etched into a closed figure having an outline shape formed by connecting M arcs end to end through photolithography and an ion etching technology. Therefore, the applicants’ claimed invention has been determined to be novel and non-obvious. By virtue of dependency from claim 11, claims 12-18 have also been determined to be novel and non-obvious.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JORGE L SALAZAR JR whose telephone number is (571)-272-9326. The examiner can normally be reached between 9am - 6pm Monday-Friday.
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, Andrea Lindgren Baltzell can be reached on 571-272-5918. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JORGE L SALAZAR JR/Examiner, Art Unit 2843