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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 4, 7, 13, 15, 16 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goto et al. (US 20180152169) in view of Kadota et al. (US 20200119711) and/or Inoue et al. (US 2018019241).
As to claim 1, Goto’s figures 1 and 4 show an acoustic wave device comprising: a piezoelectric layer (110) comprising at least one of lithium niobate and lithium tantalate (¶0038); a series arm resonator (133 in figure 4 and one of 131 and 132 in figure 1) including at least a pair of a first electrode and a second electrode (¶0038 teaches that “each IDT electrode includes a pair of interdigitated comb-shaped electrodes, with each comb-shaped electrode including a plurality of electrode fingers”) on a first portion of the piezoelectric layer; and a parallel arm resonator (134 in figure 1 and the other one of 131 and 132 in figure 1) including at least a pair of a first electrode and a second electrode on a second portion of the piezoelectric layer, wherein a film thickness of the first portion of the piezoelectric layer is different than a film thickness of the second portion of the piezoelectric layer (¶0044 teaches that the series and parallel IDT electrodes 133 and 134 are disposed in first and second regions having of the piezoelectric substrate, wherein the regions having different thicknesses); the piezoelectric layer has a film thickness d and a distance between centers of the first electrode and the second electrode adjacent to each other of at least one of the series arm resonator and the parallel arm resonator is p. The figures fail to show that a ratio d/p is less than or equal to about 0.24 in the at least one of the series arm resonator and the parallel arm resonator. However, Kadota et al.’s figure 2 shows an acoustic resonator that the thickness of the piezoelectric plate 104 is in a range of 0.04λ to 1.5λ, with the quantity λ being wavelength of the surface acoustic wave which is twice the pitch p of the resonator, see figure 3. Inoue et al.’s figure 1 also shows a similar device that the thickness of the lithium tantalate piezoelectric layer 14 is between 0.1l and 0.4l, ¶0034. Therefore, selecting the ratio d/p to be less than or equal about 0.24 is seen as an obvious design preference to ensure optimum performance, see MPEP 2144.05.
As to claim 3, Goto et al. teaches that L1>L2. Inoue et al.’s teaches that the metallization ratio M and/or the thickness of interdigital transducer 16 are selectable to achieve the electromechanical coupling coefficient of the guided acoustic wave device, ¶0029 or ¶0035. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to set a mass of the first electrode in the series arm resonator to be different from a mass of the first electrode in the parallel arm resonator, and a mass of the second electrode in the series arm resonator to be different from a mass of the second electrode in the parallel arm resonator for the purpose of achieving optimum performance.
As to claim 4, Goto et al.’s figure 9 further shows a protective film (141) over a thinner of the first portion and the second portion of the piezoelectric layer to cover the first electrode and the second electrode of either the series arm resonator or the parallel arm resonator, respectively.
Claim 7 recite similar limitations in claims above. Therefore, they are rejected for the same reasons.
As to claim 13, Goto’s figure 4 shows a plurality of the series arm resonators and a plurality of the parallel arm resonators, wherein at least one of the plurality of series arm resonators and the plurality of parallel arm resonators includes both a resonator that provides a pass band of a ladder filter and a resonator that does not provide the pass band of the ladder filter.
As to claim 15, the modified Goto et al.’s figures show an excitation region is a region in which the first electrode and the second electrode that are adjacent and that overlap when viewed in a direction in which the first electrode and the second electrode are opposed. The figures fail to show a metallization ratio of electrodes to the excitation region is MR and MR ≤1.75 (d/p) + 0.075 in each of the series arm resonator and parallel arm resonator. However, selecting the MR as claimed is seen as an obvious design preference to ensure optimum performance, see MPEP 2144.05.
As to claim 16, Goto et al.’s figures show that each of the series arm resonator and the parallel arm resonator includes an interdigital transducer electrode, and the first electrode and the second electrode comprise electrode fingers of the interdigital transducer electrode ((¶0044).
As to claim 21, figure 4 shows more than two similar parallel resonators and more than two similar series resonators. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to further include a third portion (for another series/parallel resonator) that has a film thickness that is equal to the film thickness of one of the first portion of the piezoelectric layer or the second portion of the piezoelectric layer for the purpose of saving space.
Claim(s) 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Goto et al. (US 20180152169) in view of Kadota et al. (US 20200119711) or Inoue et al. (US 2018019241) and Gao et al. (WO2019138810).
As to claim 5, Goto et al.’s figure 1 shows that the piezoelectric layer includes: a step portion, a first connection portion connecting the step portion to a thicker of the first portion and the second portion of the piezoelectric layer, and a second connection portion connecting the step portion to a thinner of the first portion and the second portion of the piezoelectric layer. The figure fails to show that at least one of the first connection portion and the second connection portion includes a curved surface. However, Gao et al.’s figure 22 shows a similar device that its first connection portion and the second connection portion include a curved surface. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art curve at least one of first connection portion and second connection portion achieving optimum noise reduction.
As to claim 6, the modified Goto et al.’s figures show that the piezoelectric layer includes: a step portion, a first connection portion connecting the step portion to a thicker of the first portion and the second portion of the piezoelectric layer, and a second connection portion connecting the step portion to a thinner of the first portion and the second portion of the piezoelectric layer, wherein the step portion is inclined with respect to a thickness direction of the piezoelectric layer.
Claim(s) 3 and 9-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Goto et al. (US 20180152169) in view Kadota et al. (US 20200119711) or Inoue et al. (US 2018019241) and Inoue et al. (JP 2013157839 A).
As to claim 9, Goto et al.’s figures fail to show that a film thickness of the first electrode in the series arm resonator is different from a film thickness of the first electrode in the parallel arm resonator, and a film thickness of the second electrode in the series arm resonator is different from a film thickness of the second electrode in the parallel arm resonator. However, Inoue et al. (JP 2013157839 A)’s figure 4 shows a similar device that the thickness of electrodes in first region 111 or 112 is different from the thickness of electrodes in second region 112 or 111. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to select different thicknesses for electrodes in Goto et al.’s first and send regions for the purpose of achieving optimum nose reduction or reducing loss.
As to claim 10, the modified Goto et al.’s figures show that a film thickness of the first electrode in the series arm resonator is thinner than a film thickness of the first electrode in the parallel arm resonator; and a film thickness of the second electrode in the series arm resonator is thinner than a film thickness of the second electrode in the parallel arm resonator (since any of the first and second regions can be selected for the series arm resonator or the parallel arm resonator, see Goto et al.’s ¶0044).
As to claim 11, Ishida et al.’s figure 5 further shows that a first material of the first electrode and the second electrode in the first region is different from a second material of the first electrode and the second electrode in second region. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to select different materials for the electrodes arranged on Goto et al.’s series (first region) and parallel (second region) resonators for the purpose of for the purpose of reducing loss.
As to claims 3 and 12, selecting a mass of the first electrode in the series arm resonator to be less than a mass of the first electrode in the parallel arm resonator, and a mass of the second electrode in the series arm resonator to be less than a mass of the second electrode in the parallel arm resonator is seen as an obvious design preference to ensure optimum performance.
Claim(s) 14, 17-18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Goto et al. (US 20180152169) in view of Kadota et al. (US 20200119711) or Inoue et al. (US 2018019241) and Lin et al. (US 20190273480).
As to claim 14, Goto et al.’s figures show a support member (122 and/or 121 in figure 5) including a support substrate that supports the piezoelectric layer. The figures fail to show a cavity in the support member that overlaps in a plan view with at least a portion of the first electrode or the second electrode of at least one of the series arm resonator and the parallel arm resonator. However, Lin et al.’s figures 4A and 4B show an acoustic resonator having cavity in its support member. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to form a cavity or cavities as shown in Lin et al.’s figures in Goto et al.’s support substrate for the purpose of avoiding hindering vibration of an excitation region in the piezoelectric layer.
As to claim 17, the modified Goto et al.’s figures show a support member including a first cavity and a second cavity (see Lin et al.’s figure 4B); a piezoelectric layer comprising at least one of lithium niobate and lithium tantalate and that is on the support member; a first acoustic wave device disposed within a first region of the piezoelectric layer over the first cavity; and a second acoustic wave device disposed within a second region of the piezoelectric layer over the second cavity, wherein a first thickness of the piezoelectric layer in the first region is different than a second thickness of the piezoelectric layer in the second region (see the rejection of claim 1).
As to claim 18, the modified Goto et al.’s figures show that the first acoustic wave device is a series arm resonator and the second acoustic wave device is a parallel arm resonator of a ladder filter.
As to claim 20, the modified Goto et al.’s figures show that a metallization ratio of electrodes to the excitation region is MR, MR 1.75 (d/p) + 0.075 in each of the first and the second acoustic wave devices (see the rejection of claim 15).
Claim(s) 22-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Goto et al. (US 20180152169) in view of Kadota et al. (US 20200119711) or Inoue et al. (US 2018019241) and Kimura et al. (JP 5304436).
As to claim 22, Goto’s figure fails to show that the piezoelectric layer comprises a third portion that has a film thickness that is different from the film thickness of both the first portion of the piezoelectric layer and the second portion of the piezoelectric layer. However, Kimura et al.’s figure 3 shows a similar device that comprises three resonators on piezoelectric layer having different thicknesses. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to further include a third portion that has a film thickness that is different from the film thickness of both the first portion of the piezoelectric layer and the second portion of the piezoelectric layer for the purpose of achieving desired filtering band.
As to claim 23, the modified Goto’s figure shows that the piezoelectric layer comprises at least three portions, including the first portion and the second portion, with the at least three portions each having a film thickness that is different from each other.
As to claim 24, the modified Goto’s figure shows that the piezoelectric layer includes: a step portion, a first connection portion connected to the step portion and a thicker of the first portion and the second portion of the piezoelectric layer, and a second connection portion connected to the step portion and a thinner of the first portion and the second portion of the piezoelectric layer, wherein the step portion and the first and second electrodes of each of the series arm resonator and the parallel arm resonator are provided on a same surface of the piezoelectric layer (see Kimura’s figure).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANH-QUAN TRA whose telephone number is (571)272-1755. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri from 8:00 A.M.-5:00 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, Lincoln Donovan can be reached on 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.
/QUAN TRA/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2842
Prosecution Insights