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.
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) 16-17 & 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yantchev (US PGPub 20210083652).
As per claim 16:
Yantchev discloses in Figs. 1-3 & 12:
A laterally excited bulk acoustic wave device comprising:
a support substrate (120);
a piezoelectric layer (310) over the support substrate;
an interdigital transducer electrode (338) over the piezoelectric layer, the interdigital transducer electrode having a duty factor of 0.4 or less (pitch is 2-20 times the width of the fingers, [0037]);
signal lines over the piezoelectric layer (as shown in Fig. 12);
an air cavity (1235, [0068]) at least partially between the piezoelectric layer and the support substrate ([0030]); and
a thermally conductive layer (350, [0046]) over the piezoelectric layer, the thermally conductive layer being in thermal communication with the piezoelectric layer (as seen in Fig. 3) and having a thermal conductivity greater than the piezoelectric layer (AlN [0046] has a higher thermal conductivity than LiNb [0040]), the thermal conductivity of the thermally conductive layer being at least 100 W/(K*m) (being AlN), and the thermally conductive layer including at least one of semiconductor or non-electrically conductive material (AlN is an insulator), the thermally conductive layer disposed such that the interdigital transducer electrode is positioned closer to the thermally conductive layer than to the support substrate (being in direct contact, as shown in Fig. 3), and
the laterally excited bulk acoustic wave device configured to laterally excite a bulk acoustic wave (transversely-excited film bulk acoustic resonator ([0026]).
Yantchev is silent regarding:
a thermally conductive layer over the piezoelectric layer and at least a portion of the signal lines.
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the connection between resonators of Fig. 12 to be formed as signal lines on the piezoelectric substrate to provide the benefit of connectivity of the resonators in the filter form as shown in Fig. 12, as is well understood in the art.
It would be further obvious for the thermally conductive layer to be formed over the piezoelectric layer and at least a portion of the signal lines to provide the benefit of encapsulation/passivation, as taught by Yantchev et al ([0099]).
As per claim 17:
Yantchev discloses:
The thickness of the thermally conductive layer is a design parameter determined by the desired wavelength and performance of the resonator ([0042]).
Yantchev does not disclose:
the thermally conductive layer has a thickness in a range from 30 nanometers to 300 nanometers.
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the thermally conductive layer to have a thickness in a range from 30 nanometers to 300 nanometers, as a design parameter based on the desired wavelength and performance of the resonator as taught by Yantchev ([0042]).
As per claim 19:
Yantchev discloses in Figs. 1-3 & 12:
the thermally conductive layer is disposed over the interdigital transducer electrode (as seen in Fig. 3).
As per claim 20:
Yantchev discloses in Figs. 1-3 & 12:
the interdigital transducer electrode has a duty factor of 0.3 or less (pitch is 2-20 times the width of the fingers, [0037]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-2, 4, 7-15, & 21-24 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the amendment of independent claims 1 & 15 overcomes the prior art of record, wherein the combination of limitations requiring the thermally conductive layer to extend along a surface of the support substrate facing the air cavity and for a portion of the support substrate to be positioned between a portion of the thermally conductive layer and the piezoelectric layer in combination with the other limitations in each of the independent claims. A further search of the art did not disclose or render obvious the combinations of the limitations of the independent claims, thus rendering the independent claims 1 & 15 and their respective dependents of 2, 4, 7-14, & 21-24 allowable.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAMUEL S OUTTEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7123. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:30AM-6:00PM.
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 at (571) 272-1988. 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.
/Samuel S Outten/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2843