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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of species A1, B1, C1 claims 1- 3, 6, 8-16 in the reply filed on 2/19/26 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)). Claims 4, 5, 7, 17 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species A2-A3, B2, and C2, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 2/19/26.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested:
--” Method for Manufacturing A Laterally Vibrating Bulk Acoustic Wave Resonator“--
Abstract of the invention should have been revised to reflect method invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-3, 6, 8-9, 12-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Many terms and/or phrases is/are awkwardly worded, unclear and confusing the following is/are examples:
“the reflector is spaced from the IDT by a distance based on a sum of first and second terms, the first term is an odd multiple of a quarter of a wavelength of a signal having a target resonant frequency of the LVBAW resonator, and the second term is half of a spacing between the fingers”(see claim 1, line 7-9) is not known as to what exactly Applicants’ referring to “as a sum of first and second terms, the first term is an odd multiple of a quarter of a wavelength of a signal having a target resonant frequency of the LVBAW resonator, and the second term is half of a spacing between the fingers” when the wavelength and the spacing between the fingers is/are unknown. Please be more specific to the size shape and configuration of the forming component features.
“the side”(claim 2, line 2) lacks proper antecedent basis.
“wherein the portion of the metal layer is a first portion, the LVBAW resonator is a first LVBAW resonator, the IDT is a first IDT, the reflector is a first reflector, the side is a first side, the comb-shaped electrode is a first comb-shaped electrode, the distance is a first distance, the wavelength is a first wavelength, the target resonant frequency is a first target resonant frequency, the fingers are first fingers, and the method further comprises:” (claim 2, lines 1-5) is in the preamble which does not further limit the method, since no inventive method feature existed thereto. It is suggested to rewritten above into active method limitation.
“are performed” (claims 3-4, line 2) is not a positive method limitation. The use of (e.g., performing the patterning by a metal mask to form . . . ).
“is performed” (claims 5-7, line 2) is not a positive method limitation as same rationale as claim 3 above.
Claim 5 recites” on different batches of LVBAW resonator devices” is unclear and confusing since it is not clear as to whether “different batches of LVBAW resonator devices” is directed to one that previously cited in base claim 1, about lines 5-6.
“is formed” (claim 8, line 5) not a positively method limitation.
Claims 9-10 is/are in product formats and should be rewritten into method claim formats.
“the signal” (claim 13, line 2) lacks proper antecedent basis.
Claims 13-14 appears to directed to the operation of the claimed device which made scope of the claims above unclear since the operation signal and its propagation is/are unknown.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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) 1-2, 3, 6-16 as best understood is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsumoto et al (20070267942) in view of Bhattacharjee et al (US 10938367).
Matsumoto et al discloses the claimed method of fabricating a microelectromechanical system (MEMS) device 26 (see Fig. 3), comprising:
forming a piezoelectric layer 30 on a substrate 28 (see Figs. 3-6);
forming a metal layer 4 on a portion of the piezoelectric layer 3 (see Fig. 4 c-d); and
patterning a portion of the metal layer 4 into an interdigital transducer (IDT) 4A-4B (see process embodiment of Fig. 4 a-e, in light of discussion in ¶ [0061]).
The Matsumoto et al is in silent regarding, the forming of IDT along with a reflector on a side of the IDT, in which the IDT and the reflector are part of a laterally vibrating bulk acoustic wave (LVBAW) resonator, the IDT includes a comb-shaped electrode having fingers. Regarding to this, Applicant’s refers to Fig. 3 of the Bhattacharjee et al for the process as described above (e.g., forming of IDT 32 and a reflector 34 on a side of the IDT, in which the IDT and the reflector are part of a laterally vibrating bulk acoustic wave (LVBAW) resonator the IDT includes a comb-shaped electrode having fingers 38)
PNG
media_image1.png
422
800
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding, where” the reflector is spaced from the IDT by a distance based on a sum of first and second terms, the first term is an odd multiple of a quarter of a wavelength of a signal having a target resonant frequency of the LVBAW resonator, and the second term is half of a spacing between the fingers” is considered to be matter of design choice since the terms (first and second). Therefore, an ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to employ the terms ratio as mentioned above onto the modified the Matsumoto et al or Bhattacharjee et al in order to form the device for number of known benefits that includes wide range of operation frequency. (The motivation for the combination can be found by either reference since they are in same field of invention).
The Matsumoto et al discloses, regarding,
Claim 12, wherein the comb-shaped electrode has a finger to finger pitch based on half of the wavelength (see Fig. 6, and discussed in ¶ [0069]; pitch =l+s =4µm; sum =hm2+Hp2+hm3= haft of layer 41, respectively).
Claim 15, wherein the reflector includes metal strips that are electrically isolated from each other (see Fig. 20 of the Matsumoto et al, which show that the reflector 16/17 include metal strips as fingers are separately and/or electrically isolated from each other, or Fig. 26 depicts the same where the reflector includes metal strips p11/p22 or 18-20 (fingers) that are electrically isolated from each other, respectively).
The Prior art further discloses, regarding,
Claim 2, patterning a second portion of the metal layer into a second IDT and a second reflector on a second side of the second IDT, in which the second IDT and the second reflector are part of a second LVBAW resonator, the second IDT includes a second comb-shaped electrode having second fingers, the second reflector is spaced from the second IDT by a second distance based on a sum of third and fourth terms, the third term is an odd multiple of a quarter of a second wavelength of a signal having a second target resonant frequency of the second LVBAW resonator, and the fourth term is half of spacing between the second fingers. This is also met by the Bhattacharjee et al, see welly known old process of Fig. 1, 16b and/or related embodiment of Fig. 3, reference 34b for second reflector configured arrangement).
Claim 3 regarding, patterning the first portion of the metal layer and patterning the second portion of the metal layer are performed with a metal mask is old and welly known process which is therefore not inventive when departing from the modified of Matsumoto et al and common general knowledge without exercising any inventive skills.
Claim 6, regarding, wherein patterning the portion of the metal layer is performed by a lithographic process is matter of choice since patterning by lithographic process/direct write lithographic process are well known in area of patterning. An ordinary in the art at the effective filing date of the invention would know to incorporate such process onto the modified of Matsumoto et al without exercising any inventive skills.
Claim 8, regarding, wherein the reflector is a first reflector, the metal layer is a first metal layer, and the method further comprises: forming a second reflector on a portion of the substrate; and forming a second metal layer on a portion of the second reflector, wherein the piezoelectric layer is formed on the second metal layer is met by either reference (see Matsumoto et al, Fig. 20, 16/17 or Fig. 3 of the Bhattacharjee et al, 34A or 34B).
Claim 9, regarding, wherein the second reflector includes a Bragg mirror (see Bhattacharjee et al reference for teaching of a Bragg mirror 13).
Claim 16, regarding, wherein adjacent fingers are separated by a space; and wherein a width of each finger is wider than the space (see Figs. 4-5 of the Bhattacharjee et al which depicts that the adjacent fingers 38 are separated by a space; and wherein a width of each finger 38 is wider than the space between them). Thus, an ordinary in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to employ the Bhattacharjee et al ‘s teaching as noted above onto the invention of Matsumoto et al in order to form a device which meet manufacturing requirement without exercising any inventive skills.
Potential Allowable claims
Claims 10-11 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MINH N TRINH whose telephone number is (571)272-4569. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH ~5:00-3:30.
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, Thomas J Hong can be reached at 571-272-0993. 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.
/MINH N TRINH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3729
mt