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 § 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 1 – 3, 6, 7, 8, 10 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.
In claims 1, 8, the statement “and having an edge positioned outside the resonance region in a plan view” is indefinite. It is not clear to which component the statement refers and what is meant by “plan view”.
In claim 2, the statements “cross section is observed” and “other in each of the one or more first layer” are vague and idiomatic.
Moreover, it is not clear what is aligned with an edge or which surface the statement refers. The statement “at which the end face” is indefinite. It is not clear which component is the statement referring.
In claim 3, the statement “an edge of resonance region” is indefinite. It is not clear where the resonance region is suppose to be or what component form such resonance region.
In claim 7, the statement “region is provided in a plurality” is vague since it is not clear if the region is a since region or a plurality of regions.
Claims 6, 10 are rejected due to their dependency on claims 1 and 8.
In order to advance prosecution in the merits, the Prior Art will be applied
as best understood by the examiner.
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 – 3, 6, 7, 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshida (JP 2008-113401) in view of Kishimoto (JP 2021-118477).
Yoshida discloses, regarding,
Claim 1, A piezoelectric thin film resonator comprising: a substrate 110; a lower electrode 112 provided over the substrate 110; a piezoelectric layer 111 provided on the lower electrode 112; an upper electrode 113 provided on the piezoelectric layer 111, the lower electrode 112 and the upper electrode 113 sandwiching at least a part of the piezoelectric layer 111 therebetween to form a resonance region (see Fig. 191); and an acoustic mirror provided between the substrate 110 and the lower electrode 112, the acoustic mirror including one or more first layers 141 and a plurality of second layers 142, 143 that are alternately stacked (see Fig. 191), each of the one or more first layers 141 having an end face inclined such that a first surface, at a side of the lower electrode, of the first layer 141 is larger than a second surface, at a side of the substrate 110, of the first layer (see Fig. 191) and having an edge positioned outside the resonance region in a plan view (implicitly shown in Fig. 191 since an edge of layer 141 is “outside” the electrodes as shown in the plan view; see Fig. 191), the second layers being made of a material different from a material of the one or more first layers (since it is disclosed that the acoustic reflection layers are Bragg layers [see specification regarding description pertaining to Fig. 192]; and as well-known, a Bragg acoustic reflection layer (or Acoustic Bragg Reflector/ABR) is a multilayer structure consisting of alternating layers of material with low and high acoustic impedance and since it is made of materials with low and high acoustic impedance, the material of the layers are different (low impedance (e.g., 𝑆𝑖𝑂2) and the other having high impedance (e.g., 𝑊 or 𝑀𝑜)).
Kishimoto is being cited for explicitly showing that it is well-known to have an edge of an acoustic layer having first layer 31b having an edge positioned outside a resonance region (resonance region in between lower electrode 12 and upper electrode 16 (see Fig. 14) in a plan view. It is further disclosed an piezoelectric layer 14 and the acoustic mirror is made up of a first layer 31b and a plurality of second layers 31a (see Fig. 14).
Yoshida further discloses, regarding,
Claim 2, when a cross section is observed, a position at which the end face and the second surface are in contact with each other in each of the one or more first layers 141, 142, 143 is substantially aligned with an edge of the resonance region or is located outside the resonance region (since a region of the layers 141, 142 or 143 is outside the electrodes 112 and 113; see Fig. 191).
Claim 3, a distance between the edge of each of the one or more first layers and an edge of the resonance region is equal to or greater than a thickness of the corresponding first layer (since the distance outside the region of the electrodes 112, 113 is greater than a thickness of layer 143 or 142 or 141).
Claim 6, an acoustic impedance of each of the one or more first layers is larger than an acoustic impedance of each of the second layers (since Bragg reflectors are made of a multilayer structure consisting of alternating layers of material with low and high acoustic impedance).
Claim 7, the resonance region is provided in a plurality (plurality of electrodes; see Fig. 191), and wherein the piezoelectric layer is a monocrystalline substrate (since it is well-known to use a single crystal material or quartz or lead zirconate titanate [PZT] for a piezoelectric device; and it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416), is provided continuously across the plurality of the resonance regions (see Fig. 191), and has a substantially flat surface at a side of the acoustic mirror (see Yoshida, Fig. 191; Kishimoto, Figs 9. 14 specification description).
Claim 8, A method of manufacturing a piezoelectric thin film resonator, the method comprising: forming an acoustic mirror 141, 142, 143, in which one or more first layers 141 and a plurality of second layers 142, 143 are alternately stacked, on a first surface of a piezoelectric layer 111 on which a lower electrode 112 has been provided, an end face of each of the one or more first layers 141 being inclined such that a first surface, at a side of the lower electrode112 , of the first layer is larger than a second surface of the first layer opposite to the first surface (see Fig. 191), the second layers being made of a material different from a material of the one or more first layers (since it is disclosed that the acoustic reflection layers are Bragg layers [see specification regarding description pertaining to Fig. 192]; and as well-known, a Bragg acoustic reflection layer (or Acoustic Bragg Reflector/ABR) is a multilayer structure consisting of alternating layers of material with low and high acoustic impedance and since it is made of materials with low and high acoustic impedance, the material of the layers are different (low impedance (e.g., 𝑆𝑖𝑂2) and the other having high impedance (e.g., 𝑊 or 𝑀𝑜)); and forming an upper electrode 113 on a second surface of the piezoelectric layer 111 opposite to the first surface of the piezoelectric layer so that, in a plan view, an edge of each of the one or more first layers is located outside a resonance region where the lower electrode 112 and the upper electrode 113 are opposite to each other across at least a part of the piezoelectric layer (see Fig. 191).
Kishimoto is disclosed for showing that using a bond or adhesive is well-known.
(e.g., bonding the acoustic mirror to a substrate; see Fig. 3A and specification description pertaining to such figure) and Kishimoto is being cited for explicitly showing that it is well-known to have an edge of an acoustic layer having first layer 31b having an edge positioned outside a resonance region (resonance region in between lower electrode 12 and upper electrode 16 (see Fig. 14) in a plan view. It is further disclosed a piezoelectric layer 14 and the acoustic mirror is made up of a first layer 31b and a plurality of second layers 31a (see Fig. 14).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to design the resonator/method as disclosed by Yoshida and to modify the invention per the limitations disclosed by Kishimoto for the purpose of facilitating the electrical connections of electrodes, thus improving the functionality of a resonator.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshida and Kishimoto as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Ella et al (US 2002/0084873).
The combined resonator/method discloses regarding,
Claim 10, forming of the acoustic mirror includes: forming one second layer of the second layers (see Yoshida, Fig. 191; Kishimoto, Fig. 14) so that the one second layer overlaps at least a part of a region where the lower electrode is provided of the piezoelectric layer (see Yoshida, Fig. 191; Kishimoto, Fig. 14), forming one first layer of the one or more first layers on the one second layer in the resonance region (see Yoshida, Fig. 191; Kishimoto, Fig. 14), and to incline an end face of the one first layer (see Yoshida, Fig. 191), and forming another second layer of the second layers on the one second layer and the one first layer (see Yoshida, Fig. 191; Kishimoto, Fig. 14).
However, the combined/method resonator does not disclose the elements below.
On the other hand, Ella et al discloses, that is common knowledge to use an etching process in order to etch one first layer to leave the one first layer in the resonance region (see abstract, paragraphs 0008, 0018, 0019).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to design the combined resonator/method as disclosed by Yoshida and Kishimoto and to modify the invention per the limitations disclosed by Ella et al for the purpose of efficiently removing unwanted material in a resonator.
Examiner Notes
The Examiner has cited particular paragraphs and/or columns and line numbers and/or figures in the references applied to the claims for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested of the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner. SEE MPEP 2141.02 [R – 07.2015] VI. PRIOR MUST BE CONSIDERED IN ITS ENTIRETY, INCLUDING DISCLOSURES THAT TEACH AWAY FROM THE CLAIMS: A prior art reference must be considered in its entirety, i.e., as a whole, including portions that would lead away from the claimed invention. W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 220 USPQ 303 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert, denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984). See also MPEP ₴ 2123.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Julio C. Gonzalez whose telephone number is (571)272-2024. The examiner can normally be reached M-F.
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, Abdullah Riyami can be reached at 5712703119. 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.
/Julio C. Gonzalez/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2831
January 21, 2026