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.
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) 1, 3-5, 7-11, & 23-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Omura (US PGPub 20200212889) in view of Ylilammi et al. (US PGPub 20200083860), Sturzebecher et al. (US PGPub 20190319602), and Mogilevsky (US PGPub 20220123724), all references of record.
As per claim 1:
Omura discloses in Figs. 1-2:
A filter, comprising:
a substrate (2);
a series resonator (S11), wherein the series resonator comprises a first Bragg reflection layer (acoustic impedance layer 4A) and a first piezoelectric transduction structure (interdigital transducer electrode 7A and piezoelectric layer 5) that are sequentially stacked on the substrate;
a parallel resonator (P11), wherein the parallel resonator comprises a second Bragg reflection layer (acoustic impedance layer 40) and a second piezoelectric transduction structure (interdigital transducer electrode 8 and piezoelectric layer 5) that are sequentially stacked on the substrate, and
wherein a structure of the first Bragg reflection layer is different from a structure of the second Bragg reflection layer (being isolated, in separate positions, and under different resonators, as seen in Figs. 1-2 & 6-7), and the first Bragg reflection layer and the second Bragg reflection laver have a same thickness in a stacking direction (as seen in Fig. 7, wherein intermediate layer 3 has a consistent height);
a series branch (path between input terminal 15 and output terminal 16), wherein the series branch comprises the series resonator, and the series branch is coupled between an input end of the filter (15) and an output end of the filter (connection to 16); and
a parallel branch, wherein the parallel branch comprises the parallel resonator, and the parallel branch is coupled between the series branch and a common ground (ground terminal 17);
wherein the filter comprises a same number of series resonators and parallel resonators (wherein the number of parallel resonators may be three, equaling the number of series resonators [0079], or wherein the filter may be considered to be S11 and P11, alone, with the other resonators being a second filter as an arbitrary designation regarding the boundaries of the filter)
wherein the filter further comprises a low acoustic impedance structure (intermediate layer 3, forming low acoustic impedance layers 42, and formed of SiO2 [0033]) for forming the first Bragg reflection layer and the second Bragg reflection layer;
wherein the first Bragg reflection layer comprises a first high acoustic impedance structure (high acoustic impedance layer 411, [0072]) buried in the low acoustic impedance structure;
wherein the second Bragg reflection layer comprises a second high acoustic impedance structure (high acoustic impedance layer 411, [0072]) buried in the low acoustic impedance structure; and
the first high acoustic impedance structure and the second high acoustic impedance structure have a same material ([0033]).
Omura does not disclose:
wherein the first piezoelectric transduction structure includes a first electrode, a second electrode, and a thin film structure between the first electrode and the second electrode, and in a stacking direction, the first high acoustic impedance structure and the second high acoustic impedance structure have different thicknesses.
Ylilammi et al. discloses in Fig. 1A:
A plate wave resonator ([0047]) comprising a piezoelectric transduction structure including a first electrode (120), a second electrode (IDT electrodes 150/170), and a thin film structure (piezoelectric 110) between the first electrode and the second electrode; wherein a reflection layer (130) and the piezoelectric transduction structure are sequentially stacked on a substrate (140).
Sturzebecher et al. discloses in Figs. 5A-C, 7, & 8:
A filter (36A), comprising:
a substrate (12);
a series resonator (ladder filter 36A incorporates multiple resonators formed as a ladder network, such as that in Figs. 5A-C, where the resonators have at least two series resonant frequencies, [0061], corresponding to the series and shunt resonators of Figs. 5A-C [0050]) wherein the series resonator comprises a first Bragg reflection layer (reflector 14) and a first piezoelectric transduction structure (16) that are sequentially stacked on the substrate (resonators are formed as per Fig. 7, wherein each resonator features a respective reflector 14, [0061]);
a parallel resonator (ladder filter 36A incorporates multiple resonators formed as a ladder network, such as that in Figs. 5A-C, where the resonators have at least two series resonant frequencies, [0061], corresponding to the series and shunt (parallel) resonators of Figs. 5A-C [0050]), wherein the parallel resonator comprises a second Bragg reflection layer (reflector 14) and a second piezoelectric transduction structure (16) that are sequentially stacked on the substrate, and wherein a structure of the first Bragg reflection layer is different from a structure of the second Bragg reflection layer (resonators are formed as per Fig. 7, wherein each resonator features a respective reflector 14, [0061], wherein respective reflectors are formed with thicknesses based on the series resonant frequency of the respective resonator, [0057]);
a series branch (series resonators Bser between input/output ports I/P and O/P), wherein the series branch comprises the series resonator, and the series branch is coupled between an input end of the filter and an output end of the filter; and
a parallel branch (shunt resonator Bsh), wherein the parallel branch comprises the parallel resonator, and the parallel branch is coupled between the series branch and a common ground (as seen in Fig. 5A);
wherein the respective series and parallel resonators have separate resonance frequencies ([0050]), and in a stacking direction, the first high acoustic impedance structure and the second high acoustic impedance structure have different thicknesses ([0057]).
Mogilevsky discloses that providing a common vertical position for functional structures such as acoustic resonators provides the benefit of improving electrical connection ([0011]), wherein different acoustic mirrors (AM) are provided below two resonators (functional structures FS2 and FS3).
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to replace the piezoelectric transduction structures of Omura with piezoelectric transduction structure of Yilammi as art-recognized alternative/equivalent plate wave resonators as disclosed by Yilammi ([0047]).
It would have been further obvious for the series and parallel resonators of the filter of Omura to have separate resonance frequencies, as commonly the case in a band pass filter as is well understood in the art and taught by Sturzebecher ([0050]), and further for in a stacking direction, the first high acoustic impedance structure and the second high acoustic impedance structure of Omura to have different thicknesses, corresponding to the resonance frequency of the respective resonators, as taught by Sturzebecher ([0057]), and to provide the benefit of reflecting the desired acoustic mode as is well understood in the art.
It would have been further obvious for the first Bragg reflection layer and the second Bragg reflection layer of the combination to have a same thickness in a stacking direction to provide the benefit of improving electrical connection between resonators, as taught by Mogilevsky ([0011]).
As per claim 3:
The resultant combination discloses in Omura Figs. 1-2:
the low acoustic impedance structure is stacked on a surface of the substrate (as seen in Fig. 2);
the second piezoelectric transduction structure further comprises a third electrode (third interdigital transducer electrode 8); and
both the third electrode and the second electrode are disposed on a surface (top) that is of the thin film structure and that is away from the substrate.
The resultant combination discloses in Ylilammi Fig. 1A:
the filter further comprises the first electrode and the thin film structure for forming the first piezoelectric transduction structure and the second piezoelectric transduction structure, wherein the first electrode, the thin film structure, and the second electrode are sequentially stacked on a surface that is of the reflection structure and that is away from the substrate.
As per claim 4:
Omura discloses in Figs. 1-2:
in the stacking direction, the first high acoustic impedance structure comprises a first surface (top) away from the substrate, the low acoustic impedance structure comprises a first surface (top) away from the substrate, and there is a first distance (the thickness of layers 421, 412, and 422) between the first surface of the first high acoustic impedance structure and the first surface of the low acoustic impedance structure;
in the stacking direction, the second high acoustic impedance structure comprises a first surface (top) away from the substrate, and there is a second distance between the first surface of the second high acoustic impedance structure and the first surface of the low acoustic impedance structure;
Omura does not disclose:
the first distance is different from the second distance.
Sturzebecher et al. discloses in Figs. 5A-C, 7, & 8:
the respective series and parallel resonators have separate resonance frequencies ([0050]), and in a stacking direction, the first high acoustic impedance structure and the second high acoustic impedance structure have different thicknesses with layer thicknesses averaging out to a quarter of the wavelength of the resonance frequency of the respective resonator ([0057]).
As a consequence of the combination of claim 2, the thickness of the layers of the first and second Bragg reflection layers correspond to a quarter of the wavelength of the resonance frequency of the respective resonator, such that the first distance is different from the second distance (due to different layer thicknesses).
As per claim 5:
Omura discloses in Figs. 1-2:
the first Bragg reflection layer further comprises a third high acoustic impedance structure (respective high acoustic impedance layer 412, [0072]) buried in the low acoustic impedance structure, and, in the stacking direction, the third high acoustic impedance structure is disposed in parallel on a side (top) that is of the first high acoustic impedance structure and that is away from the substrate, and the low acoustic impedance structure is disposed between the third high acoustic impedance structure and the first high acoustic impedance structure;
the second Bragg reflection layer further comprises a fourth high acoustic impedance structure (respective high acoustic impedance layer 412, [0072]) buried in the low acoustic impedance structure, and in the stacking direction, the fourth high acoustic impedance structure is disposed in parallel on a side (top) that is of the second high acoustic impedance structure and that is away from the substrate, and the low acoustic impedance structure is disposed between the fourth high acoustic impedance structure and the second high acoustic impedance structure;
Omura does not disclose:
in the stacking direction, the third high acoustic impedance structure and the fourth high acoustic impedance structure have different thicknesses.
Sturzebecher et al. discloses in Figs. 5A-C, 7, & 8:
the respective series and parallel resonators have separate resonance frequencies ([0050]), and in a stacking direction, the first high acoustic impedance structure and the second high acoustic impedance structure have different thicknesses with layer thicknesses averaging out to a quarter of the wavelength of the resonance frequency of the respective resonator ([0057]).
As a consequence of the combination of claim 2, in the stacking direction, the third high acoustic impedance structure and the fourth high acoustic impedance structure have different thicknesses.
As per claim 7:
Omura discloses in Figs. 1-2:
in the stacking direction, the third high acoustic impedance structure comprises a first surface (top) away from the substrate, the low acoustic impedance structure comprises a first surface (top) away from the substrate, and there is a third distance between the first surface of the third high acoustic impedance structure and the first surface of the low acoustic impedance structure;
in the stacking direction, the fourth high acoustic impedance structure comprises a first surface (top) away from the substrate, and there is a fourth distance between the first surface of the fourth high acoustic impedance structure and the first surface of the low acoustic impedance structure;
Omura does not disclose:
the third distance is different from the fourth distance.
Sturzebecher et al. discloses in Figs. 5A-C, 7, & 8:
the respective series and parallel resonators have separate resonance frequencies ([0050]), and in a stacking direction, the first high acoustic impedance structure and the second high acoustic impedance structure have different thicknesses with layer thicknesses averaging out to a quarter of the wavelength of the resonance frequency of the respective resonator ([0057]).
As a consequence of the combination of claim 2, the thickness of the layers of the first and second Bragg reflection layers correspond to a quarter of the wavelength of the resonance frequency of the respective resonator, such that the third distance is different from the fourth distance (due to different layer thicknesses).
As per claim 8:
Omura discloses in Figs. 1-2:
In the stacking direction, the third high acoustic impedance structure comprises a second surface (bottom) close to the substrate, the first high acoustic impedance structure comprises a first surface (top) away from the substrate, and there is a fifth distance between the second surface of the third high acoustic impedance structure and the first surface of the first high acoustic impedance structure;
in the stacking direction, the fourth high acoustic impedance structure comprises a second surface (bottom) close to the substrate, the second high acoustic impedance structure comprises a first surface (top) away from the substrate, and there is a sixth distance between the second surface of the fourth high acoustic impedance structure and the first surface of the second high acoustic impedance structure.
Omura does not disclose:
the fifth distance is different from the sixth distance.
Sturzebecher et al. discloses in Figs. 5A-C, 7, & 8:
the respective series and parallel resonators have separate resonance frequencies ([0050]), and in a stacking direction, the first high acoustic impedance structure and the second high acoustic impedance structure have different thicknesses with layer thicknesses averaging out to a quarter of the wavelength of the resonance frequency of the respective resonator ([0057]).
As a consequence of the combination of claim 2, the thickness of the layers of the first and second Bragg reflection layers correspond to a quarter of the wavelength of the resonance frequency of the respective resonator, such that the fifth distance is different from the sixth distance (due to different layer thicknesses).
As per claim 9:
Omura discloses in Figs. 1-2:
the first high acoustic impedance structure comprises a second surface (bottom) close to the substrate, the low acoustic impedance structure comprises a second surface (bottom) close to the substrate, and there is a seventh distance between the second surface of the first high acoustic impedance structure and the second surface of the low acoustic impedance structure;
the second high acoustic impedance structure comprises a second surface (bottom) close to the substrate, and there is an eighth distance between the second surface of the second high acoustic impedance structure and the second surface of the low acoustic impedance structure.
Omura does not disclose:
the seventh distance is different from the eighth distance.
Sturzebecher et al. discloses in Figs. 5A-C, 7, & 8:
the respective series and parallel resonators have separate resonance frequencies ([0050]), and in a stacking direction, the first high acoustic impedance structure and the second high acoustic impedance structure have different thicknesses with layer thicknesses averaging out to a quarter of the wavelength of the resonance frequency of the respective resonator ([0057]).
As a consequence of the combination of claim 2, the thickness of the layers of the first and second Bragg reflection layers correspond to a quarter of the wavelength of the resonance frequency of the respective resonator, such that the seventh distance is different from the eighth distance (due to different layer thicknesses).
As per claim 10:
Omura discloses in Figs. 1-2:
a material of the low acoustic impedance structure comprises one of silicon dioxide or silicon nitride ([0033]).
As per claim 11:
Omura discloses in Figs. 1-2:
materials of the first high acoustic impedance structure, the second high acoustic impedance structure, the third high acoustic impedance structure, and the fourth high acoustic impedance structure comprise tungsten, molybdenum, aluminum nitride, or tantalum pentoxide ([0072]).
As per claim 23:
Omura discloses in Figs. 1-2:
the filter comprises a single series resonator and a single parallel resonator (S11 and P11 may be interpreted to be a filter connected to a second filter comprising S12 and P12, as Fig. 1 of Omura may be arbitrarily divided into first and second filters, with the filter comprising S11 and P11 being the first filter and meeting the limitations of claim 1 as per the rejection above.
As per claim 24:
Omura discloses in Figs. 1-2:
the first high acoustic impedance structure and the second high acoustic impedance structure are separated from each other in a direction different from the stacking direction (each resonator has a corresponding Bragg reflection layer , i.e. acoustic impedance layer 4A & 4B being labeled in Fig. 1 and disclosed in cut-away in Fig. 2, with Fig. 1 disclosing the presence of each respective Bragg reflection layer and thus the first and the second high acoustic impedance structure being separate from each other in directions different from the view of a stacking direction, as seen in Fig. 1).
Omura does not disclose:
the first high acoustic impedance structure and the second high acoustic impedance structure having different thicknesses in the stacking direction are separated from each other in a direction different from the stacking direction.
Sturzebecher et al. discloses in Figs. 5A-C, 7, & 8:
A filter (36A), comprising:
a substrate (12);
a series resonator (ladder filter 36A incorporates multiple resonators formed as a ladder network, such as that in Figs. 5A-C, where the resonators have at least two series resonant frequencies, [0061], corresponding to the series and shunt resonators of Figs. 5A-C [0050]) wherein the series resonator comprises a first Bragg reflection layer (reflector 14) and a first piezoelectric transduction structure (16) that are sequentially stacked on the substrate (resonators are formed as per Fig. 7, wherein each resonator features a respective reflector 14, [0061]);
a parallel resonator (ladder filter 36A incorporates multiple resonators formed as a ladder network, such as that in Figs. 5A-C, where the resonators have at least two series resonant frequencies, [0061], corresponding to the series and shunt (parallel) resonators of Figs. 5A-C [0050]), wherein the parallel resonator comprises a second Bragg reflection layer (reflector 14) and a second piezoelectric transduction structure (16) that are sequentially stacked on the substrate, and wherein a structure of the first Bragg reflection layer is different from a structure of the second Bragg reflection layer (resonators are formed as per Fig. 7, wherein each resonator features a respective reflector 14, [0061], wherein respective reflectors are formed with thicknesses based on the series resonant frequency of the respective resonator, [0057]);
a series branch (series resonators Bser between input/output ports I/P and O/P), wherein the series branch comprises the series resonator, and the series branch is coupled between an input end of the filter and an output end of the filter; and
a parallel branch (shunt resonator Bsh), wherein the parallel branch comprises the parallel resonator, and the parallel branch is coupled between the series branch and a common ground (as seen in Fig. 5A);
wherein the respective series and parallel resonators have separate resonance frequencies ([0050]), and in a stacking direction, the first high acoustic impedance structure and the second high acoustic impedance structure have different thicknesses ([0057]).
As a consequence of the combination of claim 1, the first high acoustic impedance structure and the second high acoustic impedance structure having different thicknesses in the stacking direction are separated from each other in a direction different from the stacking direction.
Claim(s) 12-13 & 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Omura (US PGPub 20200212889) in view of Guyette (US PGPub 20200295733), Ylilammi et al. (US PGPub 20200083860), Sturzebecher et al. (US PGPub 20190319602), and Mogilevsky (US PGPub 20220123724), all references of record.
As per claim 12:
Omura discloses in Figs. 1-2:
An electronic device, the electronic device comprising a filter, the filter
comprising:
a substrate (2);
a series resonator (S11), wherein the series resonator comprises a first Bragg reflection layer (acoustic impedance layer 4A) and a first piezoelectric transduction structure (interdigital transducer electrode 7A and piezoelectric layer 5) that are sequentially stacked on the substrate;
a parallel resonator (P11), wherein the parallel resonator comprises a second Bragg reflection layer (acoustic impedance layer 40) and a second piezoelectric transduction structure (interdigital transducer electrode 8 and piezoelectric layer 5) that are sequentially stacked on the substrate, and
wherein a structure of the first Bragg reflection layer is different from a structure of the second Bragg reflection layer (being isolated and in separate positions, as seen in Figs. 1-2) and the first Bragg reflection layer and the second Bragg reflection laver have a same thickness in a stacking direction (as seen in Fig. 7, wherein intermediate layer 3 has a consistent height);
a series branch (path between input terminal 15 and output terminal 16), wherein the series branch comprises the series resonator, and the series branch is coupled between an input end of the filter (15) and an output end of the filter (connection to 16); and
a parallel branch, wherein the parallel branch comprises the parallel resonator, and the parallel branch is coupled between the series branch and a common ground (ground terminal 17);
wherein the filter comprises a same number of series resonators and parallel resonators (wherein the number of parallel resonators may be three, equaling the number of series resonators [0079], or wherein the filter may be considered to be S11 and P11, alone, with the other resonators being a second filter as an arbitrary designation regarding the boundaries of the filter);
wherein the filter further comprises a low acoustic impedance structure (intermediate layer 3, forming low acoustic impedance layers 42, and formed of SiO2 [0033]) for forming the first Bragg reflection layer and the second Bragg reflection layer;
the first Bragg reflection layer comprises a first high acoustic impedance structure (high acoustic impedance layer 411, [0072]) buried in the low acoustic impedance structure;
the second Bragg reflection layer comprises a second high acoustic impedance structure (high acoustic impedance layer 411, [0072]) buried in the low acoustic impedance structure; and
the first high acoustic impedance structure and the second high acoustic impedance structure have a same material ([0033]).
Omura does not disclose that the electronic device comprises a transceiver, and the transceiver comprises the filter; wherein the first piezoelectric transduction structure includes a first electrode, a second electrode, and a thin film structure between the first electrode and the second electrode; and in a stacking direction, the first high acoustic impedance structure and the second high acoustic impedance structure have different thicknesses.
Guyette discloses in Fig. 2 the use of acoustic resonator bandpass filters (transmit filter 210 and receive filter 220) having a ladder configuration in electronic devices comprising a transceiver ([0005-0006]).
Ylilammi et al. discloses in Fig. 1A:
A plate wave resonator ([0047]) comprising a piezoelectric transduction structure including a first electrode (120), a second electrode (IDT electrodes 150/170), and a thin film structure (piezoelectric 110) between the first electrode and the second electrode; wherein a reflection layer (130) and the piezoelectric transduction structure are sequentially stacked on a substrate (140).
Sturzebecher et al. discloses in Figs. 5A-C, 7, & 8:
A filter (36A), comprising:
a substrate (12);
a series resonator (ladder filter 36A incorporates multiple resonators formed as a ladder network, such as that in Figs. 5A-C, where the resonators have at least two series resonant frequencies, [0061], corresponding to the series and shunt resonators of Figs. 5A-C [0050]) wherein the series resonator comprises a first Bragg reflection layer (reflector 14) and a first piezoelectric transduction structure (16) that are sequentially stacked on the substrate (resonators are formed as per Fig. 7, wherein each resonator features a respective reflector 14, [0061]);
a parallel resonator (ladder filter 36A incorporates multiple resonators formed as a ladder network, such as that in Figs. 5A-C, where the resonators have at least two series resonant frequencies, [0061], corresponding to the series and shunt (parallel) resonators of Figs. 5A-C [0050]), wherein the parallel resonator comprises a second Bragg reflection layer (reflector 14) and a second piezoelectric transduction structure (16) that are sequentially stacked on the substrate, and wherein a structure of the first Bragg reflection layer is different from a structure of the second Bragg reflection layer (resonators are formed as per Fig. 7, wherein each resonator features a respective reflector 14, [0061], wherein respective reflectors are formed with thicknesses based on the series resonant frequency of the respective resonator, [0057]);
a series branch (series resonators Bser between input/output ports I/P and O/P), wherein the series branch comprises the series resonator, and the series branch is coupled between an input end of the filter and an output end of the filter; and
a parallel branch (shunt resonator Bsh), wherein the parallel branch comprises the parallel resonator, and the parallel branch is coupled between the series branch and a common ground (as seen in Fig. 5A);
wherein the respective series and parallel resonators have separate resonance frequencies ([0050]), and in a stacking direction, the first high acoustic impedance structure and the second high acoustic impedance structure have different thicknesses ([0057]).
Mogilevsky discloses that providing a common vertical position for functional structures such as acoustic resonators provides the benefit of improving electrical connection ([0011]), wherein different acoustic mirrors (AM) are provided below two resonators (functional structures FS2 and FS3).
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the filter of Omura to be used for either a transmit filter or a receive filter in an electronic device comprising a transceiver as shown in Fig. 2 of Guyette as a typical use for an acoustic resonator bandpass filter as is well understood in the art, and as taught by Guyette.
It would have been further obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to replace the piezoelectric transduction structures of Omura with piezoelectric transduction structure of Yilammi as art-recognized alternative/equivalent plate wave resonators as disclosed by Yilammi ([0047])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the series and parallel resonators of the filter of the resultant combination to have separate resonance frequencies, as commonly the case in a band pass filter as is well understood in the art and taught by Sturzebecher ([0050]), and further for in a stacking direction, the first high acoustic impedance structure and the second high acoustic impedance structure of the resultant combination to have different thicknesses, corresponding to the resonance frequency of the respective resonators, as taught by Sturzebecher ([0057]), and to provide the benefit of reflecting the desired acoustic mode as is well understood in the art.
It would have been further obvious for the first Bragg reflection layer and the second Bragg reflection layer of the combination to have a same thickness in a stacking direction to provide the benefit of improving electrical connection between resonators, as taught by Mogilevsky ([0011]).
As per claim 13:
Omura does not disclose:
the electronic device further comprises a circuit board, and the transceiver is disposed on the circuit board.
Guyette discloses in Fig. 2:
the electronic device further comprises a circuit board (duplexer package 230, [0031]), and the transceiver is disposed on the circuit board.
As a consequence of the combination of claim 12, the electronic device further comprises a circuit board, and the transceiver is disposed on the circuit board.
As per claim 17:
The resultant combination discloses in Figs. 1-2 of Omura:
the low acoustic impedance structure is stacked on a surface of the substrate (as seen in Fig. 2);
the second piezoelectric transduction structure further comprises a third electrode (third interdigital transducer electrode 8); and
both the third electrode and the second electrode are disposed on a surface (top) that is of the thin film structure and that is away from the substrate.
The resultant combination discloses in Ylilammi Fig. 1A:
the filter further comprises the first electrode and the thin film structure for forming the first piezoelectric transduction structure and the second piezoelectric transduction structure, wherein the first electrode, the thin film structure, and the second electrode are sequentially stacked on a surface that is of the reflection structure and that is away from the substrate.
As per claim 18:
The resultant combination discloses in Figs. 1-2 of Omura:
in the stacking direction, the first high acoustic impedance structure comprises a first surface (top) away from the substrate, the low acoustic impedance structure comprises a first surface (top) away from the substrate, and there is a first distance (the thickness of layers 421, 412, and 422) between the first surface of the first high acoustic impedance structure and the first surface of the low acoustic impedance structure;
in the stacking direction, the second high acoustic impedance structure comprises a first surface (top) away from the substrate, and there is a second distance between the first surface of the second high acoustic impedance structure and the first surface of the low acoustic impedance structure;
The resultant combination does not disclose:
the first distance is different from the second distance.
Sturzebecher et al. discloses in Figs. 5A-C, 7, & 8:
the respective series and parallel resonators have separate resonance frequencies ([0050]), and in a stacking direction, the first high acoustic impedance structure and the second high acoustic impedance structure have different thicknesses with layer thicknesses averaging out to a quarter of the wavelength of the resonance frequency of the respective resonator ([0057]).
As a consequence of the combination of claim 16, the thickness of the layers of the first and second Bragg reflection layers correspond to a quarter of the wavelength of the resonance frequency of the respective resonator, such that the first distance is different from the second distance (due to different layer thicknesses).
As per claim 19:
The resultant combination discloses in Figs. 1-2 of Omura:
the first Bragg reflection layer further comprises a third high acoustic impedance structure (respective high acoustic impedance layer 412, [0072]) buried in the low acoustic impedance structure, and, in the stacking direction, the third high acoustic impedance structure is disposed in parallel on a side (top) that is of the first high acoustic impedance structure and that is away from the substrate, and the low acoustic impedance structure is disposed between the third high acoustic impedance structure and the first high acoustic impedance structure;
the second Bragg reflection layer further comprises a fourth high acoustic impedance structure (respective high acoustic impedance layer 412, [0072]) buried in the low acoustic impedance structure, and in the stacking direction, the fourth high acoustic impedance structure is disposed in parallel on a side (top) that is of the second high acoustic impedance structure and that is away from the substrate, and the low acoustic impedance structure is disposed between the fourth high acoustic impedance structure and the second high acoustic impedance structure;
The resultant combination does not disclose:
in the stacking direction, the third high acoustic impedance structure and the fourth high acoustic impedance structure have different thicknesses.
Sturzebecher et al. discloses in Figs. 5A-C, 7, & 8:
the respective series and parallel resonators have separate resonance frequencies ([0050]), and in a stacking direction, the first high acoustic impedance structure and the second high acoustic impedance structure have different thicknesses with layer thicknesses averaging out to a quarter of the wavelength of the resonance frequency of the respective resonator ([0057]).
As a consequence of the combination of claim 2, in the stacking direction, the third high acoustic impedance structure and the fourth high acoustic impedance structure have different thicknesses.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6 & 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the combination of limitations found in both claims 6 & 20 including the limitations of the claims upon which they are dependent upon were not found or rendered obvious over the prior art. While Sturzebecher allows deviation between the thickness of Bragg reflector layers to maintain an average value, and further the prior art of Panasik (US Patent 6441703) provides for stacked Bragg reflector layers with different thicknesses to reflect different frequencies, the claimed arrangement wherein the thicknesses of the first and second high acoustic impedance structures are different, and the third and fourth high acoustic layers match the thicknesses of the second and first high acoustic impedance structures, respectively, is not provided for.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/15/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In pages 12-13 of the applicant’s remarks, the applicant argues:
As shown in FIG. 1 of the Current Application, a filter 100 includes a single series resonator 20 and a single parallel resonator 30. In addition, as shown in FIG. 2 of the Current Application, a filter 100 includes n series resonators 20 and n parallel resonators 30. In both examples, the filter comprises a same number of series resonators and parallel resonators.
Applicant respectfully submits that the proposed combination of Omura, Ylilammi, Sturzebecher, and Mogilevsky has not been shown to teach or suggest at least the above-recited features of claim 1.
For the teaching of the series resonator and the parallel resonator prior to the current amendments, the Office Action on page 3 offers S 11 and P11 in Omura, respectively (citing FIGs. 1-2). However, Applicant respectfully submits that Omura has not been shown to teach or suggest at least the current claim language. For example, FIG. 1 of Omura is reproduced below.
[FIGURE REDACTED FOR BREVITY]
As shown in FIG. 1 of Omura, Applicant respectfully submits that the filter device 1 in Omura comprises three series arm resonators Sl (i.e., S11, S12, and S13) and two parallel arm resonators P1 (i.e., P11 and P12).
In contrast to the features of claim 1 as presently amended, Omura has not been shown to teach or suggest that the filter device comprises a same number of series resonators and parallel resonators.
Therefore, Applicant respectfully submits that Omura has not been shown to teach or suggest that "the filter comprises a same number of series resonators and parallel resonators" as recited in amended claim 1 (emphasis added).
Further, the proposed combination of Ylilammi, Sturzebecher, and Mogilevsky has not been shown to, and does not, remedy at least this deficiency of Omura.
For at least the above-mentioned reasons, Applicant respectfully asserts that amended claim 1 distinguishes over the proposed combination of Omura, Ylilammi, Sturzebecher, and Mogilevsky, and is in condition for allowance.
Independent claim 12 recites features similar, but not identical to, independent claim 1. Guyette has not been shown to, and does not, remedy at least this deficiency of Omura, Ylilammi, Sturzebecher, and Mogilevsky.
Therefore, Applicant respectfully requests reconsideration and allowance of all pending claims.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. While Omura discloses the use of three series resonators (S11-S13) and two parallel resonators (P11-P12) in Fig. 1, Omura discloses that the acoustic wave filter device (1) of Fig. 1 may include a number of parallel resonators may include three ([0079]), such that the filter comprises a same number of series resonators and parallel resonators, as per claims 1 & 12. It is further well-understood in the art that a single series resonator connected with a single shunt resonator comprises a filter stage, and may be considered a filter itself. As such, the disclosed acoustic wave filter device (1) of Fig. 1 may be considered to comprise a plurality of filters, wherein the number of resonators in each filter is an arbitrary designation, where the series resonator (S11) and the parallel resonator (P11) of Omura meet the limitations of claims 1 & 12 in the same manner as per the current rejection. Applicant’s arguments regarding claims 1 & 12 are thus not persuasive.
In page 13 of the applicant’s remarks, the applicant argues:
In particular, claim 23 depends from allowable claim 1, and recites that "the filter comprises a single series resonator and a single parallel resonator" (emphasis added). Applicant respectfully submits that the cited references have not been shown to teach or suggest at least these features of the claim. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully requests an indication of allowance with respect to claim 23.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. As previously noted, It is well-understood in the art that a single series resonator connected with a single shunt resonator comprises a filter stage, and may be considered a filter itself. As such, the disclosed acoustic wave filter device (1) of Fig. 1 may be considered to comprise a plurality of filters, wherein the number of resonators in each filter is an arbitrary designation, where the series resonator (S11) and the parallel resonator (P11) of Omura meet the limitations of claims 1 & 12 in the same manner as per the current rejection. As the claim limitation of “a single series resonator and a single parallel resonator” does not exclude a second filter comprising additional filters directly connected to the claimed filter, Fig. 1 of Omura discloses “the filter comprises a single series resonator and a single parallel resonator” Applicant’s arguments regarding claims 23 are thus not persuasive.
In pages 13-15 of the applicant’s remarks, the applicant argues:
New claim 24 has been added and is believed to be allowable over the cited references. In particular, claim 24 depends from allowable claim 1, and recites that "the first high acoustic impedance structure and the second high acoustic impedance structure having different thicknesses in the stacking direction are separated from each other in a direction different from the stacking direction" (emphasis added). Applicant respectfully submits that the proposed combination of Omura, Ylilammi, Sturzebecher, and Mogilevsky has not been shown to teach or suggest at least the above-recited features of claim 24.
The Current Application provides an example in FIG. 3, which is replicated below.
[FIGURE REDACTED FOR BREVITY]
As shown in FIG. 3 of the Current Application, the high acoustic impedance structure G1 and the high acoustic impedance structure G2 have different thicknesses in the stacking direction Z and are separated from each other in the direction Y.
For the teaching of these features prior to the current amendments, the Office Action on page 6 offers Sturzebecher (citing para. [0057]). However, Applicant respectfully submits that Sturzebecher has not been shown to teach or suggest at least the current claim language. For example, FIG. 7 of Sturzebecher is reproduced below.
[FIGURE REDACTED FOR BREVITY]
In addition, the cited portion of Sturzebecher states:
[0057] The thicknesses of the reflector layers 28 for the BAW resonators 10A, lOB, and lOC vary as a function of thedifferent series resonance frequencies fsA, fSB, and of theBAW resonators 10A, 10B, and 10C and of the type of material used for the reflector layers 28. For each of the BAW resonators 10A, 10B, and 10C, the thicknesses of at least two adjacent reflector layers 28, if not all of the reflector layers 28, generally correspond to one-quarter the wavelength (214) of an acoustic wave for a frequency at which an acoustic mode of a certain type operates in the associated BAW transducer 16. The acoustic mode may be, but is not limited to, a longitudinal mode, a shear mode, a quasi-longitudinal mode, and a quasi-shear mode. The fol- lowing description relates to the acoustic mode correspond- ing to a longitudinal mode, but those skilled in the art will recognize that the other modes are applicable. In certain embodiments many, if not all of the reflector layers 28 are essentially of the same thickness. In other embodiments, the reflector layers 28 need not be identical in thickness, wherein at least two of die reflector layers 28 have different thicknesses, but the average thickness of the reflector layers 28 for a given transducer 16 will correspond to one-quarter die wavelength (214) of an acoustic wave for a frequency at which an acoustic mode of a certain type operates in the associated BAW transducer 16.
Applicant respectfully submits that Sturzebecher refers to two adjacent reflector layers 28. In contrast to the features of claim 24, Sturzebecher has not been shown to teach or suggest that the two adjacent reflector layers 28 are separated from each other. In fact, FIG. 7 of Sturzebecher shows that the reflector layers 28 are connected. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully requests an indication of allowance with respect to claim 24.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). The applicant appears to argues that Sturzebecher alone does not feature the limitation of claim 24. The rejection of claim 1 does not replace the acoustic impedance layers of Omura with the reflector of Sturzebecher, as implied by the applicant’s arguments. Sturzebecher discloses that the acoustic impedance layers of a reflector for series and parallel resonators may differ in thickness based on the resonant frequencies of their respective resonators. Omura et al. discloses the high acoustic impedance layers being “separated from each other in a direction different from the stacking direction," and the combination with the secondary references does not change this feature. The thicknesses of specific layers are changed, as per the teachings of Sturzebecher, but the separation of the high acoustic impedance layers is not. Applicant’s arguments regarding claim 24 are thus not persuasive.
The rejections of claims 1, 3-5, & 7-11 under Omura (US PGPub 20200212889) in view of Ylilammi et al. (US PGPub 20200083860), Sturzebecher et al. (US PGPub 20190319602), and Mogilevsky (US PGPub 20220123724), and claims 12-13, 17-19 under Omura (US PGPub 20200212889) in view of Guyette (US PGPub 20200295733), Ylilammi et al. (US PGPub 20200083860), Sturzebecher et al. (US PGPub 20190319602), and Mogilevsky (US PGPub 20220123724), are sustained.
Claims 23 & 24 are further rejected under Omura (US PGPub 20200212889) in view of Ylilammi et al. (US PGPub 20200083860), Sturzebecher et al. (US PGPub 20190319602), and Mogilevsky (US PGPub 20220123724).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAMUEL S OUTTEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7123. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:30AM-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, Andrea Lindgren Baltzell can be reached at (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.
/Samuel S Outten/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2843
Prosecution Insights