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 § 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) 1-4, 7-8 and 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kubo (PG Pub 20070115079).
Considering claim 1, Kubo (Figure 3) teaches a bulk acoustic resonator package comprising: a substrate (22 + paragraph 0102); a cap (12 + paragraph 0102); first and second bulk acoustic resonator each comprising a first electrode (26 + 16 + paragraph 0102), a piezoelectric layer (27 + 17 + paragraph 0102), and a second electrode (28 + 18 + paragraph 0102) stacked in a direction in which the substrate (22 + paragraph 0102) and the cap (12 + paragraph 0102) face each other, and disposed between the substrate and the cap, wherein the first (25) and second bulk acoustic resonators (15 + paragraph 0105) form a bandwidth based on first and second resonant frequencies different from each other and first and second anti-resonant frequencies different from each other (paragraph 0105), wherein the first bulk acoustic (25 + paragraph 0105) resonator is disposed closer to the substrate (22 + paragraph 0102) than to the cap and wherein the second bulk acoustic resonator (15 + paragraph 0105) is disposed closer to the cap (12 + paragraphs 0102-0105) than to the substrate.
However, Kubo does not explicitly disclose a difference between the first and second resonant frequencies exceeds 200 MHz. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to have a difference between the first and second resonant frequencies exceeds 200 MHz, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art.
Considering claim 2, Kubo discloses the claimed invention except for the difference between the first and second resonant frequencies is 500 MHz or more, and each of the first and second resonant frequencies is higher than 3 GHz. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to have the difference between the first and second resonant frequencies is 500 MHz or more, and each of the first and second resonant frequencies is higher than 3 GHz, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art.
Considering claim 3, Kubo discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the bandwidth covers at least a frequency range of 3.3 GHz or higher and 3.8 GHz or less. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to have the bandwidth covers at least a frequency range of 3.3 GHz or higher and 3.8 GHz or less, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art.
Considering claim 4, Kubo (Figure 3) teaches wherein the second bulk acoustic resonator is electrically connected between the first bulk acoustic resonator and a ground (28x + paragraph 0076).
Considering claim 7, Kubo (Figure 3) teaches wherein a node via (24x + paragraph 0074) electrically connects the first and second bulk acoustic resonators and extends in the direction in which the substrate and the cap face each other (paragraph 0104).
Considering claim 8, Kubo (Figure 3) teaches a first cavity located between the substrate and the first bulk acoustic resonator (25 + paragraph 0102 + see area under resonator) and a second cavity located between the crap and the second bulk acoustic resonator (15 + paragraph 0102 + see are under resonator).
Considering claim 18, Kubo discloses the claimed invention except for wherein a difference between a sum of thicknesses of electrodes of the first and second bulk acoustic resonators is two or more. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have a difference between a sum of thicknesses of electrodes of the first and second bulk acoustic resonator is two or more, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the lever of ordinary skill in the art.
Considering claim 19, Kubo discloses the claimed invention except for wherein a difference between a resonant frequency of the first and second bulk acoustic resonators is 200 MHz or more. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to have a difference between a resonant frequency of the first and second bulk acoustic resonators is 200 MHz or more, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art.
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) 17 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kubo (PG Pub 20070115079).
Considering claim 17, Kubo (Figure 3) teaches a bulk acoustic resonator package comprising: a first bulk acoustic resonator (25 + paragraph 0102) disposed on an upper surface of a substrate (22 + paragraph 0102); a node via electrically (24x + paragraph 0104) connected the first bulk acoustic resonator and a ground (28x + paragraph 0104); a second bulk acoustic resonator (15 + paragraph 0102) facing the first bulk acoustic resonator and disposed on a lower surface of a cap (12 + paragraph 0102) coupled to the substrate wherein the second bulk acoustic resonator is electrically connected between the node via (24x + paragraph 0104) and the ground (18x + paragraph 0104).
Considering claim 20, Kubo (Figure 3) teaches wherein the node via extends (24x + paragraph 0104) in a direction in which the substrate and the cap face each other.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10-16 is allowed. Considering claim 10, the prior art does not teach a bulk acoustic resonator package comprising: first and second bulk acoustic resonator each comprising a first electrode, a piezoelectric layer, and a second electrode stacked in a direction in which the substrate and the cap face each other, and disposed between the substrate and the cap, wherein one of the first and second bulk acoustic resonators further comprises a mass addition layer to be thicker than the other and wherein a thickness of the mass addition layer is at least double a sum of the thicknesses of the first and second electrodes of the one of the first and second bulk acoustic resonator in combination with the rest of the applicant’s claimed limitations.
Claims 5-6 and 9 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.
Considering claim 5, the prior art does not teach a third bulk acoustic resonator comprising a first electrode, a piezoelectric layer, and a second electrode stacked in the direction in which the substrate and the cap face each other wherein a third resonant frequency of the third bulk acoustic resonator is higher than the second resonant frequency of the second bulk acoustic resonator in combination with the rest of the applicant’s claimed limitations.
Considering claim 6, which depends upon claim 5, would also be allowable if it depended upon an intendent and allowable claim.
Considering claim 9, the prior are does not teach one of the first and second bulk acoustic resonators further comprises a mass addition layer to be thicker than the other and a thickness of the mass addition layer is at least double a sum of thicknesses of the first and second electrodes of the one of the first and second bulk acoustic resonator in combination with the rest of the applicant’s claimed limitations.
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