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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 08 September 2025 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 1 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. In claim 1, the applicant claims a first electrode having a flat upper surface and overlying the reflector structure, an edge of the first electrode located within the cavity. The examiner does not see support for this limitation. For examining purposes the examiner is interpreting the limitation to be met if the first electrode having a flat upper surface and overlying the reflector structure and an edge of the first electrode located within the cavity (i.e. the edge of the located overlaps the cavity).
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) 1-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nishihara (PG Pub 20130147577).
Considering claim 1, Nishihara (Figure 1B) teaches an RF filter, comprising: a plurality of resonator (S1 + S2 paragraph 0054-0055 + Table 1) arranged in a circuit, at least one resonator including: a substrate (12 + paragraph 0030) having an upper surface that defines a cavity (30 + paragraph 0030); a reflector (30 + paragraph 0036) structure in the substrate; a layer including piezoelectric material (16 + paragraph 0026) overlying the upper surface of the substrate; and a first electrode (14 + paragraph 0026) having a flat upper surface and overlying the reflector structure, an edge of the first electrode located within the cavity (right side of first electrode 14 + paragraph 0026) so that the layer including the piezoelectric material has a flat surface relative to the upper surface of the substrate and the upper surface of the first electrode to improve circuit performance (It has been held that where the structure recited in a reference is the same as the claimed structure, claimed properties and functions are presumed to be inherent (In re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433)).
Considering claim 2, Nishihara teaches wherein the improved circuit performance includes an improvement in quality factor (Q) ((It has been held that where the structure recited in a reference is the same as the claimed structure, claimed properties and functions are presumed to be inherent (In re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433)).
Considering claim 3, Nishihara teaches wherein the improved circuit performance includes an improvement in acoustic wave control (It has been held that where the structure recited in a reference is the same as the claimed structure, claimed properties and functions are presumed to be inherent (In re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433)).
Considering claim 4, Nishihara teaches wherein the improved circuit performance includes an improvement in acoustic wave control (It has been held that where the structure recited in a reference is the same as the claimed structure, claimed properties and functions are presumed to be inherent (In re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433)).
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) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishihara (PG Pub 20130147577) and in view of Burak (PG Pub 20170047907).
Considering claim 5, Nishihara (Figure 1B) teaches a second electrode (18 + paragraph 0026) overlying the layer including the piezoelectric material (16 + paragraph 0026), the first electrode (14 + paragraph 0026) and the reflector (30 + paragraph 0029).
However, Nishihara does not teach the second electrode having a thickness and an electrode cavity, the thickness of the second electrode away from the electrode cavity being thicker when compared to the thickness of the second electrode within the electrode cavity.
Burak (Figure 6) teaches the second electrode (103 + paragraph 0040) having a thickness and an electrode cavity (178 + paragraph 0040), the thickness of the second electrode away from the electrode cavity being thicker when compared to the thickness of the second electrode within the electrode cavity (see Figure 6 the thickness increases from electrode cavity 178 toward the ends of the electrode 103).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the second electrode having a thickness and an electrode cavity, the thickness of the second electrode away from the electrode cavity being thicker when compared to the thickness of the second electrode within the electrode cavity into Nishihara’s device for the benefit of improving the wide-band Q factor.
Claim(s) 6 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishihara (PG Pub 20130147577) and in view of Shealy (PG Pub 20160028367).
Considering claim 6, Nishihara teaches one of the resonators of the plurality of resonator as described above.
However, Nishihara does not teach wherein a via through the layer including piezoelectric material to electrically couple the first electrode and a metal contact through the via of the piezoelectric material.
Shealy (Figure 32) teaches a via (1474 + paragraph 0145) through the layer including piezoelectric material to electrically couple the first electrode and a metal contact through the via of the piezoelectric material (paragraph 0145).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention via through the layer including the piezoelectric material to electrically couple the first electrode and a metal contact through the via into Nishihara’s device for providing electrical contact to the electrodes.
Considering claim 20, Shealy (Figure 32) teaches wherein the resonator having the via (1474 + paragraph 0145) through the layer including piezoelectric material and the resonator having the flat surface relative to the layer including the piezoelectric material and the upper surface of the substrate and the upper surface of the first electrode are the same resonator.
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishihara (PG Pub 20130147577) and in view Ohara (PG Pub 20060001508).
Considering claim 21, Nishihara wherein the first electrode further has a flat lower surface as described above.
However, Nishihara does not teach wherein the lower surface of the first electrode lies in a different plane relative to the upper surface of the substrate.
Ohara (Figure 9B) teaches wherein the lower surface of the first electrode (14 + paragraph 0057) lies in a different plane (13 + paragraph 0059) relative to the upper surface of the substrate (11 + paragraph 0057).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the lower surface of the first electrode lies in a different plane relative to the upper surface of the substrate into Nishihara’s device for the benefit of providing extra protection between the electrode and substrate.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08 September 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding the applicant’s arguments that Nishihara does not teach a first electrode “located within the cavity” the examiner disagrees. The applicant points to electrode 20 as the examiner’s example of the electrode which is not positioned at any point in the cavity 30. The examiner used electrode 14 not the terminal electrode 20 in their rejection. Therefore, the argument is moot. Electrode 14 is located within the cavity (i.e. the edge of the electrode 14 is overlaps the cavity). Furthermore, in the applicant’s response it is mention that in the applicant’s own drawing (Figure 31B) that 2811 is the cavity, 2012 is the substrate and 3010 is the first electrode. The examiner does not see how the first electrode 3010 has an edge “located within the cavity”. Passivation layer 1810 blocks any portion of electrode 3010 from being an edge “located within the cavity”.
Furthermore, regarding the applicant’s arguments for claim 5 those arguments are moot since the applicant has found prior art Burak which teaches the applicant’s claimed limitations.
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
Prosecution Insights