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 .
Specification
The specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant's cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 11, 13, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Daimon (US2022/0302897, hereinafter Daimon).
Regarding claim 1, in Fig. 12, Daimon discloses a plate-mode resonator, comprising: a first piezoelectric layer (5) having a first crystal orientation specified by a first set of Euler angles α1, β1, and γ1; a dielectric layer (22) disposed on a top surface of the first piezoelectric layer (5); a second piezoelectric layer (6), disposed on a top surface of the dielectric layer, having a second crystal orientation specified by a second set of Euler angles α2, β2, and γ2, wherein α2 is approximately equal to α1, wherein a difference between β2 and β1 is approximately 180°, and wherein γ2 is approximately equal to γ1; and a metallization structure (7) disposed on a top surface of the second piezoelectric layer, the metallization structure comprising at least one interdigital transducer (paragraph [0026]). In paragraph [0029], Daimon discloses the angles (0°, 138°, 0°) for the first piezoelectric layer and (0°, -42°, 0°); therefore the requirement for the α, β, and γ angles is anticipated.
Regarding claim 2, inherently the first piezoelectric layer, the dielectric layer, and the second piezoelectric layer resonate in a symmetric plate mode.
Regarding claim 11, at least one of the first piezoelectric layer and the second piezoelectric layer comprises lithium tantalate (LiTaO3) (paragraph [0026]).
Regarding claim 13, Daimon implicitly discloses the method for fabricating a plate-mode resonator, the method comprising: providing, on a substrate, a first piezoelectric layer having a first crystal orientation specified by a first set of Euler angles α1, β1, and γ1; forming a dielectric layer on a top surface of the first piezoelectric layer; providing a second piezoelectric layer on a top surface of the dielectric layer, the second piezoelectric layer having a second crystal orientation specified by a second set of Euler angles α2, β2, and γ2, wherein α2 is approximately equal to α1, wherein a difference between β2 and β1 is approximately 180°, and wherein γ2 is approximately equal to γ1; and forming a metallization structure on a top surface of the second piezoelectric layer, the metallization structure comprising at least one interdigital transducer, as explained above.
Regarding claim 22, at least one of the first piezoelectric layer and the second piezoelectric layer comprises lithium tantalate (LiTaO3) (paragraph [0026]).
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 of this title, 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 1-11 and 13-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwamoto (US2022/0407497, hereinafter Iwamoto).
Regarding claims 1 and 13, in Fig. 18, Iwamoto discloses a plate-mode resonator, comprising: a first piezoelectric layer (3B) having a first crystal orientation specified by a first set of Euler angles α1, β1, and γ1; a dielectric layer (silicon oxide, 3C) disposed on a top surface of the first piezoelectric layer (3B); a second piezoelectric layer (3A), disposed on a top surface of the dielectric layer, having a second crystal orientation specified by a second set of Euler angles α2, β2, and γ2, wherein α2 is approximately equal to α1, wherein a difference between β2 and β1 is approximately 180°, and wherein γ2 is approximately equal to γ1; and a metallization structure (6) disposed on a top surface of the second piezoelectric layer, the metallization structure comprising at least one interdigital transducer (paragraph [0042]). Regarding the specific angles and relationship between the Euler angles of the first layer and the Euler angles of the second layer, in Figs. 8C and 9A-9C and paragraphs [130] and [0134], Iwamoto discloses selecting a combination of Euler angles such that the electromechanical coupling coefficient is equal to or more than 4% to efficiently excite the desired waves. Fig. 8C shows solid lines where the electromechanical coupling coefficient has the desired values. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to determine the specific Euler angles such that the electromechanical coupling coefficient is equal to or more than 4% in order to efficiently excite the desired waves.
Regarding claim 2, inherently the first piezoelectric layer, the dielectric layer, and the second piezoelectric layer resonate in a symmetric plate mode.
Regarding claims 3-9 and 14-20, Iwamoto discloses selecting specific angles to drive the resonator efficiently, as explained above. Therefore, it is the examiner’s position that it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to determine specific Euler angles in order to obtain at least one of the desired vibration characteristics, electromechanical coupling coefficient and improve the Q factor.
Regarding claims 10 and 21, the dielectric layer (3C) comprises silicon nitride or silicon oxide. See paragraph [0089].
Regarding claims 11 and 22, at least one of the first piezoelectric layer and the second piezoelectric layer comprises lithium tantalate (LiTaO3) and lithium niobate (abstract).
Claims 12 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwamoto or Daimon in view of Makkonen et al. (US10790801, hereinafter Makkonen).
Regarding claims 12 and 23, Daimon and Iwamoto disclose the invention as explained above, but fails to explicitly disclose the piezoelectric layer, the dielectric layer and the second piezoelectric layer suspend over a cavity. Makkonen discloses the equivalency of a solidly mounted resonator and a self-supported resonator. In Fig. 1A, the reflecting structure (130) serves to isolate the vibration of the piezoelectric from the substrate. In Fig. 1B, the reflecting structure is replaced by an air gap. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to provide the piezoelectric structure as a suspended structure over a cavity since Makkonen teaches the equivalency.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Aigner discloses an acoustic resonator suspended over an air gap. Schiek discloses a piezoelectric resonator comprising two piezoelectric layers separated by intermediate layers. Morosin discloses a resonator comprising two piezoelectric layers separated by an intermediate layer or three piezoelectric layers.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jaydi San Martin whose telephone number is (571)272-2018. The examiner can normally be reached on M-Th 7:45-6:00pm.
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 Hammond can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/J. San Martin/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2837
Prosecution Insights