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) 1-6, 8-9, 26 and 105-106 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Burak (PG Pub 20130106248).
Considering claim 1, Burak (Figure 3B) teaches a bulk acoustic wave resonator comprising: a substrate (303 + paragraph 0070); an active piezoelectric volume having a main resonant frequency, the active piezoelectric volume including first (307 + paragraph 0071) and second (308 + paragraph 0071) piezoelectric layers having respective piezoelectric axis that substantially oppose one another (paragraph 0071) and a first patterned layer disposed within the active piezoelectric volume to facilitate suppression of spurious modes (306 + 310 + paragraph 0070).
Considering claim 2, Burak (Figure 3B) teaches in which the first patterned layer comprises a step mass feature (307 + 308 + paragraph 0071).
Considering claim 3, Burak (Figure 3B) teaches in which: the active piezoelectric volume has a lateral perimeter (318 + paragraph 0076) and the step mass feature of the first patterned layer is proximate to the lateral perimeter of the active piezoelectric volume (paragraph 0076).
Considering claim 4, Burak (Figure 3B) teaches a first mesa structure having a lateral perimeter comprises the first (307) and second (308 + paragraph 0071) piezoelectric layers having respective piezoelectric axis that substantially oppose one another (paragraph 0071) and the step mass feature of the first patterned layer is proximate to the lateral perimeter of the first mesa structure (306 + 310 + paragraph 0070).
Considering claim 5, Burak (Figure 3B) teaches top and bottom acoustic reflector electrodes (316 + 305 + paragraph 0075), in which the active piezoelectric volume is interposed between the top and bottom acoustic reflector electrodes; a first mesa structure including the first (307) and second (308 + paragraph 0071) piezoelectric layers having respective piezoelectric axis that substantially oppose one another; a second mesa structure including the bottom acoustic reflector electrode (305 + paragraph 0075) and a third mesa structure including the top acoustic reflector electrode (316 + paragraph 0075).
Considering claim 6, Burak (Figure 3B) teaches in which the first patterned layer comprises: a first step mass feature having a first acoustic impedance (307 + 308 + paragraph 0071); and a second step mass feature having a second acoustic impedance (305 + paragraph 0075), in which the first acoustic impedance is different than the second acoustic impedance (first step mesa is made of ALN while second step mesa is made of a metal which has an acoustic impedance different than the ALN material).
Considering claim 8, Burak (Figure 3B) teaches in which the first patterned layer comprises first and second dielectrics that are different from one another (309 + 310 + paragraph 0073).
Considering claim 9, Burak (Figure 3B) teaches in which the first patterned layer comprises a first metal (301 + paragraphs 0072-0074) and a first dielectric (314 + paragraphs 0072-0074).
Considering claim 26, Burak (Figure 3B) teaches a third piezoelectric layer (314 + paragraph 0074); and a second patterned layer (309 + paragraph 0072) interposed between the second and third piezoelectric layers.
Considering claim 105, Burak (Figure 3B) teaches an resonator filter, comprising a plurality of bulk acoustic wave (BAW) resonators on a substrate, a first BAW resonator of the plurality of BAW resonators comprising: an active piezoelectric volume including a first piezoelectric layer (307 + paragraph 0071) having a piezoelectrically excitable main resonant mode, and having a first thickness to facilitate a main resonant frequency (paragraph 0071) and a first patterned layer disposed within the active piezoelectric volume to facilitate suppression of spurious modes (306 + 310 + paragraph 0070).
Considering claim 106, Burak (Figure 3B) teaches the resonator filter in which: the first BAW resonator comprises a second piezoelectric layer (308 + paragraph 0071); the second piezoelectric layer is acoustically coupled for the piezoelectrically excitable main resonant mode with the first piezoelectric layer (307 + paragraph 0071); the first piezoelectric layer has a first piezoelectric axis orientation (paragraph 0071) and the second piezoelectric layer has a piezoelectric axis orientation that substantially opposes the first piezoelectric axis orientation of the first piezoelectric layer (paragraph 0071).
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) 10 and 107 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burak (PG Pub 20130106248) and in view of Burak (PG Pub 20120218059).
Considering claim 107, Burak ‘248 (Figure 3B) teaches a bulk acoustic wave (BAW) resonator to excite electrical oscillation in the BAW resonator, in which the BAW resonator comprises an active piezoelectric volume including at least first (307) and second piezoelectric (308 + paragraph 0071) and a first patterned layer disposed within the active piezoelectric volume to facilitate suppression of spurious modes (306 + 310 + paragraph 0070).
However, Burak ‘248 does not teach electrical oscillator circuity.
Burak ‘059 teaches electrical oscillator circuity (1200 + paragraph 0101).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include electrical oscillator circuity into Burak’s ‘248 device for the benefit of providing an electrical connection to operate the device.
Considering claim 10, Burak ‘059 teaches in which the first patterned layer comprises first and second metals that are different from one another (paragraph 0038).
Claim(s) 67 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burak (PG Pub 20130106248) and in view of Hurwitz (PG Pub 20180278233).
Considering claim 67, Burak teaches in which the main resonant frequency of the BAW resonator as described above.
However, Burak does not teach the frequency of the BAW resonator is in an Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers (IEEE) band in one of a Ku band, a K band, a Ka band a V band and a W band.
Hurwitz teaches wherein the frequency of the BAW resonator is in an Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers (IEEE) band in one of a Ku band (paragraph 0059), a K band, a Ka band a V band and a W band.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the frequency of the BAW resonator is in an Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers (IEEE) band in one of a Ku band, a K band, a Ka band a V band and a W band into Burak’s device for the benefit of operating the resonator at high frequencies.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 45, 79, 92 , 94, 130 and 132 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 45, the prior art does not teach a top acoustic reflector electrode in which the acoustic reflector electrode includes at least first and second pairs of top metal electrode layers in combination with the rest of the applicant’s claimed limitations.
Furthermore, claims 79 and 94, which depend upon claim 45, would also be allowable if they depended upon an independent and allowable claim.
Considering claim 92, the prior art does not teach a top acoustic reflector electrode including a first pair of top metal electrode layers including first and second top metal electrode layers and a bottom acoustic reflector electrode including a first pair of bottom metal electrode layers including first and second bottom metal electrode layers in combination with the rest of the applicant’s claimed limitations.
Considering claim 130, the prior art does not teach a top acoustic reflector electrode including at least a first pair of top metal electrode layers including first and second top metal electrode layers and a bottom acoustic reflector electrode including at least a first pair of bottom metal electrode layers including first and second bottom metal electrode layers in combination with the rest of the applicant’s claimed limitations.
Furthermore, claim 132, which depend upon claim 45, would also be allowable if they depended upon an independent and allowable claim.
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