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.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, 11, 13, 19, 21, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (US 2014/0070671; “Park”) in view of Uno et al. (US 2021/0234530; “Uno”).
Regarding claim 1, Park teaches a bulk acoustic wave resonator (figure 4), comprising: a first base substrate (401), a first electrode (402), a piezoelectric layer (405), and a second electrode (406); wherein the first electrode (402) is on the first base substrate (401), the second electrode (406) is on a side of the first electrode (402) away from the first base substrate (401), the piezoelectric layer (405) is between the first electrode (402) and the second electrode (406); and orthographic projections of any two of the first electrode (402), the piezoelectric layer (405) and the second electrode (406) on the first base substrate (401) at least partially overlap with each other (See overlap in figure 4).
Park fails to teach wherein an acoustic velocity of a material of the piezoelectric layer is no less than 18000 m/s.
However, it is well-known to those of ordinary skill in the art to configure a bulk acoustic resonator with a piezoelectric layer having an acoustic velocity no less than 18000 m/s. For example, Uno teaches a bulk acoustic resonator including a piezoelectric layer (interpreted as piezoelectric material substrate and intermediate layer) having a sound/acoustic velocity up to 30000 m/s in order to utilize the bulk acoustic resonator in high frequency applications. Para. [0061] of Park.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to operate the bulk acoustic wave resonator of Park at an acoustic velocity no less than 18000 m/s because such a modification would have been implementing a well-known acoustic velocity value for high frequency applications.
As for claims 3 and 4, Park teaches the bulk acoustic wave resonator according to claim 1, as detailed above, but fails to teach a graphene inducing layer between the first electrode and the piezoelectric layer, wherein an orthographic projection of the inducing layer on the first base substrate covers an orthographic projection of the piezoelectric layer on the first base substrate.
However, it is well-known to those of ordinary skill in the art to utilize a graphene inducing layer between a bottom electrode and a piezoelectric layer of an acoustic wave device.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add a graphene inducing layer between the bottom electrode and the piezoelectric layer in the acoustic wave device of Park because such a modification would have been an addition of a well-known acoustic wave device layer.
Regarding claim 6, Park teaches wherein a material of the first electrode comprises any one or more of Cu, Al, Mo, Co, Ag, Ti, Pt, Ru, W and Au (Para. [0029]).
As for claim 8, Park teaches wherein the first base substrate comprises a first groove (403); the first base substrate comprises a first surface and a second surface opposite to each other in a thickness direction of the first base substrate; the first groove comprises a third opening; and the third opening is in the first surface, the first electrode is on the first surface; and an orthographic projection of the third opening on the second surface is within an orthographic projection of the first electrode on the second surface (See configuration of figure 4).
As for claim 9, Park teaches an isolation layer (404) between the first surface of the first base substrate and the first electrode.
Regarding claim 11, Park teaches at least one mirror structure (404) between the first electrode and the first base substrate; wherein each of the at least one mirror structure comprises a first sub-structure layer (410) and a second sub-structure layer (409)sequentially arranged in a direction away from the first base substrate, and an acoustic impedance of a material of the first sub-structure layer is greater than that of a material of the second sub-structure layer (para. [0057]).
Regarding claims 13, 19, and 21, the methods as recited in the claims are inherently present in the structure discussed above in the rejection of claims 1, 8, and 11.
As for claim 23, Park teaches an electronic device (para. [0006]), comprising the bulk acoustic wave resonator according to claim 1.
Claims 2 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park in view of Uno and Lee et al. (US 2008/0303378; “Lee”).
Regarding claim 2, Park teaches the bulk acoustic wave resonator according to claim 1, as detailed above, but fails to teach wherein the material of the piezoelectric layer comprises any one of hBN, cBN, wBN.
However, it is well-known to those of ordinary skill in the art to utilize hBN, cBN, or wBN as a material for a piezoelectric layer of an acoustic wave resonator. For example, see the abstract of Lee.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize hBN, cBN, or wBN as the piezoelectric material of Park because such a modification would have been implementing a well-known piezoelectric material for an acoustic wave resonator.
As for claim 15, Park teaches the method for manufacturing a bulk acoustic wave resonator according to claim 13, as detailed above, but fails to teach wherein the forming the piezoelectric layer comprises: forming the piezoelectric layer by a radio frequency magnetron sputtering process; and wherein before forming the first electrode and the piezoelectric layer, the method further comprises: forming an inducing layer.
However, it is well-known to those of ordinary skill in the art to form an acoustic resonator utilizing a RF magnetron sputtering process. For example, see para. [0025] of Lee.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize a RF magnetron sputtering process to form the acoustic resonator of Park because such a modification would have been implementing a well-known acoustic resonator formation process.
Furthermore, it is well-known to those of ordinary skill in the art to utilize a graphene inducing layer between a bottom electrode and a piezoelectric layer of an acoustic wave device.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add a graphene inducing layer between the bottom electrode and the piezoelectric layer in the acoustic wave device of Park because such a modification would have been an addition of a well-known acoustic wave device layer.
Claims 5, 10, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park in view of Uno and Geefay (US 2007/0001544).
Regarding claim 5, Park teaches the bulk acoustic wave resonator according to claim 1, as detailed above, but fails to teach a first connecting electrode in a same layer as the second electrode, wherein the first connecting electrode is electrically connected to the first electrode through a first connecting via penetrating through the piezoelectric layer.
However, it is well-known to those of ordinary skill in the art to connect electrodes of an acoustic resonator through a via. For example, see figure 19 of Geefay.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to connect the electrodes of Park through a via because such a modification would have been implementing a well-known acoustic resonator structure.
Regarding claim 10, Park teaches the bulk acoustic wave resonator according to claim 9, as detailed above, but fails to teach at least one first through hole penetrating through the first electrode and the isolation layer, wherein the first via is connected to and communicates with the first groove.
However, it is well-known to those of ordinary skill in the art to connect electrodes of an acoustic resonator through a via. For example, see figure 19 of Geefay.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to connect the electrodes of Park through a via because such a modification would have been implementing a well-known acoustic resonator structure.
Regarding claim 20, the method as recited in the claim is inherently present in the structure discussed above in the rejection of claim 10.
Claims 7 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park in view of Uno and Tsai et al. (US 2003/0000058).
Regarding claim 7, Park teaches the bulk acoustic wave resonator according to claim 1, as detailed above, but fails to teach wherein the first base substrate comprises a first cavity penetrating through the first base substrate in a thickness direction of the first base substrate; the first base substrate comprises a first surface and a second surface opposite to each other in the thickness direction of the first base substrate; the first cavity comprises a first opening and a second opening opposite to each other; and the first opening is in the first surface, and the second opening is in the second surface; and the first electrode covers the first opening.
However, it is well-known to those of ordinary skill in the art to form an acoustic resonator above a substrate with a cavity. For example, see figure 1 of Tsai.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the acoustic resonator of Park above a substrate with a cavity because such a modification would have been implementing a well-known acoustic resonator structure.
Regarding claim 18, the method as recited in the claim is inherently present in the structure discussed above in the rejection of claim 7.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park in view of Uno and Yun et al. (US 2013/0235001; “Yun”).
Regarding claim 12, Park teaches the bulk acoustic wave resonator according to claim 1, as detailed above, but fails to teach wherein an encapsulation layer on a side of the second electrode away from the first base substrate, wherein the encapsulation layer covers the first electrode, the piezoelectric layer and the second electrode.
However, it is well-known to those of ordinary skill in the art to encapsulate an acoustic resonator. For example, see figure 1 of Yun.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to encapsulate the acoustic resonator of Park because such a modification would have been implementing a well-known acoustic resonator structure.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park in view of Uno, Lee, and Geefay.
Regarding claim 17, Park teaches the method for manufacturing a bulk acoustic wave resonator according to claim 15, as detailed above, but fails to teach forming a first connecting electrode while forming the second electrode; wherein the method further comprises: forming a first connecting via penetrating through the piezoelectric layer in a thickness direction of the piezoelectric layer, and the first connecting electrode is connected to the first electrode through the first connecting via.
However, it is well-known to those of ordinary skill in the art to connect electrodes of an acoustic resonator through a via. For example, see figure 19 of Geefay.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to connect the electrodes of Park through a via because such a modification would have been implementing a well-known acoustic resonator structure.
Conclusion
The prior art references made of record and not relied upon:
Kong et al. (US 2024/0030888) teaches an acoustic wave device utilizing hexagonal boron nitride at an acoustic velocity of 19600 m/s.
Plesski et al. (US 2022/0060167) teaches an acoustic wave device utilizing cubic boron nitride.
Kadota et al. (US 2016/0352304) teaches an acoustic wave device operating at an acoustic velocity over 20000 m/s.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LEVI GANNON whose telephone number is (571)272-7971. The examiner can normally be reached 7:00AM-4:30PM.
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, Menatoallah Youssef can be reached at 571-270-3684. 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.
/LEVI GANNON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2836 June 5, 2026
Prosecution Insights