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 § 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) 1-2, 4-11, & 16-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hatakeyama et al. (US PGPub 20170346463), a reference of record.
As per claim 1:
Hatakeyama et al. discloses in Figs. 1-3:
An acoustic wave device, comprising:
a piezoelectric substrate including a support (10a) and a piezoelectric layer (10b), the support including a support substrate (10a), the piezoelectric layer being provided on the support and including a first main surface and a second main surface opposed to each other;
one or more functional electrodes (IDT 15 of acoustic wave resonator 12) provided on the first main surface or the second main surface of the piezoelectric layer, and including at least one pair of electrodes (comb-shaped electrodes 14 as seen in Fig. 2a);
a first support (ring-shaped electrode 44) provided on the piezoelectric substrate so as to surround the functional electrodes;
one or more second supports (ground pads Pg1, comprising metal layers 17 & 18, [0024] with bumps 36) provided on the piezoelectric substrate, and located on a portion surrounded by the first support; and
a cover (substrate 20) provided on the first support and the second supports;
wherein a direction in which the electrodes adjacent to each other face each other is an electrode facing direction (horizontal direction of Fig. 3, wherein the electrode fingers face each other and overlap), and a region in which the electrodes adjacent to each other overlap each other when viewed from the electrode facing direction is an intersecting region; and
the second supports at least partially overlap the intersecting region when viewed from the electrode facing direction (as seen in Fig. 3); and
a portion (ground pad comprising metal layers 17 & 18, [0024]) of at least one of the second supports that at least partially overlaps the intersecting region when viewed from the electrode facing direction (as seen in Fig. 3) is larger than a remaining portion (bump 36) of the at least one of the second supports that does not overlap the intersecting region when viewed from the electrode facing direction (Figs. 1 & 3 disclose the bump 36 to have lateral dimensions smaller than that of the ground pad).
As per claim 2:
Hatakeyama et al. discloses in Figs. 1-3:
a plurality of the functional electrodes (acoustic wave resonators 12, comprising series and parallel resonators S11-12 & P11-12);
wherein a plurality of resonators each including the plurality of functional electrodes is provided (as seen in Fig. 3); and
at least one of the second supports is between two of the plurality of resonators (right side support of Fig. 3 is shown between P12 and S11).
As per claim 4:
Hatakeyama et al. discloses in Figs. 1-3:
a plurality of the functional electrodes (acoustic wave resonators 12, comprising series and parallel resonators S11-12 & P11-12);
wherein a plurality of resonators each including the functional electrodes is provided (as seen in Fig. 3); and
at least one of the second supports is located on a portion other than an interval between two of the plurality of resonators, on the piezoelectric substrate (the support on the left is shown to not be between S12 and P12).
As per claim 5:
Hatakeyama et al. discloses in Figs. 1-3:
at least one of the second supports is electrically connected to the functional electrodes (P11 and P12 are shown to be electrically connected to the nearby Pg1 support).
As per claim 6:
Hatakeyama et al. discloses in Figs. 1-3:
a plurality of the functional electrodes (acoustic wave resonators 12, comprising series and parallel resonators S11-12 & P11-12); and
a plurality of the second supports (as seen in Fig. 3);
wherein a plurality of resonators each including the functional electrodes is provided (as seen in Fig. 3); and
at least one pair of the second supports sandwich one of the plurality of resonators (left and right side Pg1 supports sandwich both P11 and S11).
As per claim 7:
Hatakeyama et al. discloses in Figs. 1-3:
the plurality of resonators includes one or more series arm resonators (S11, S12) and one or more parallel arm resonators (P11-P12); and
at least one pair of the second supports (left and right side Pg1 supports sandwich both P11 and S11) sandwich one of the series arm resonators (S11).
As per claim 8:
Hatakeyama et al. discloses in Figs. 1-3:
the plurality of resonators includes one or more series arm resonators (S11, S12) and one or more parallel arm resonators (P11-P12); and
at least one pair of the second supports (left and right side Pg1 supports sandwich both P11 and S11) sandwich one of the parallel arm resonators (P11).
As per claim 9:
Hatakeyama et al. discloses in Figs. 1-3:
at least one pair of the second supports (Fig. 3 shows the second supports each as a Pg1 with bump sandwiching a plurality of resonators) sandwich the resonators (S12, P12, P11) closest to an input terminal (transmit pad 1 pt1) to which a signal is inputted ([0060]).
As per claim 10:
Hatakeyama et al. discloses in Figs. 1-3:
an axis passing through a center of the intersecting region of the resonators in the electrode facing direction and extending in a direction orthogonal to the electrode facing direction is a symmetric axis, the at least one pair of second supports sandwiching the one of the resonators are not line- symmetric (as seen in Fig. 3, wherein an axis in the described center of either P11 or S11 results in the sandwiching supports not being line symmetric).
As per claim 11:
Hatakeyama et al. discloses in Figs. 1-3:
a wiring electrode is provided between at least one of the second supports and at least one of the resonators (wiring lines are shown between P11 and the left side Pg1, and P12 and the right side Pg1, as seen in Fig. 3).
As per claim 16:
Hatakeyama et al. discloses in Figs. 1-3:
the cover includes a cover body (substrate 20) including a semiconductor as a main component ([0026]).
As per claim 17:
Hatakeyama et al. discloses in Figs. 1-3:
the piezoelectric layer is a lithium tantalate layer or a lithium niobate layer ([0023]).
As per claim 18:
Hatakeyama et al. discloses in Figs. 1-3:
the functional electrodes each include first and second busbars facing each other, one or more first electrode fingers connected to the first busbar, and one or more second electrode fingers connected to the second busbar (as seen in Fig. 2).
As per claim 19:
Hatakeyama et al. discloses in Figs. 1-3:
the functional electrodes are each an IDT electrode (15) including a plurality of the first electrode fingers and a plurality of the second electrode fingers (as seen in Fig. 2).
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) 1-2 & 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwabuchi et al. (US PGPub 20210098683), a reference of record, in view of Takano et al. (US PGPub 20210099157)
As per claim 1:
Iwabuchi et al. discloses in Fig. 1A-B & 2:
An acoustic wave device, comprising:
a piezoelectric substrate including a support (10) and a piezoelectric layer (13), the support including a support substrate (10), the piezoelectric layer being provided on the support and including a first main surface and a second main surface opposed to each other;
one or more functional electrodes (acoustic weave elements 15 with IDT 50, shown in Fig. 2) provided on the first main surface or the second main surface of the piezoelectric layer, and including at least one pair of electrodes (interdigital electrodes 52);
a first support (frame body 12) provided on the piezoelectric substrate so as to surround the functional electrodes (as seen in Figs. 1A-B);
one or more second supports (columnar body 30) provided on the piezoelectric substrate, and located on a portion surrounded by the first support; and
a cover (lid 24) provided on the first support and the second supports;
wherein a direction in which the electrodes adjacent to each other face each other is an electrode facing direction (horizontal direction of Fig. 2), and a region in which the electrodes adjacent to each other overlap each other when viewed from the electrode facing direction is an intersecting region wherein (as seen in Fig. 2); and
the second supports at least partially overlap the intersecting region when viewed from the electrode facing direction (the cross-section of Fig. 1 discloses the cross-sections of the fingers 53 in line with the columnar body 30).
In an alternative interpretation, Iwabuchi et al. is silent regarding:
the second supports at least partially overlap the intersecting region when viewed from the electrode facing direction.
Iwabuchi et al. (in either interpretation) does not disclose:
a portion of at least one of the second supports that at least partially overlaps the intersecting region when viewed from the electrode facing direction is larger than a remaining portion of the at least one of the second supports that does not overlap the intersecting region when viewed from the electrode facing direction.
Takano et al. discloses in Figs. 7A-7H:
A method of forming conductive pillars wherein the conductive pillar comprises a first portion (lower layer 726a & middle layer 726b as seen in Fig. 7G) that at least partially overlaps with an intersecting region of an IDT electrode (720, as shown in Fig. 7G) when viewed from the electrode facing direction is larger than a remaining portion (upper layer 726c, which may be made of tin [01466], and is formed above a third resist layer 760 above the IDT electrode) of the at least one of the second supports that does not overlap the intersecting region when viewed from the electrode facing direction.
As per the alternative interpretation, at the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the IDTs of Iwabuchi to be oriented such that the second supports at least partially overlap the intersecting region when viewed from the electrode facing direction as one of a limited number of rotations of the acoustic wave elements that further are design parameters for placement of the one or more acoustic wave elements for determining the wiring placement, connectivity of, and resonator layout of a filter or multiplexer as is well understood in the art, and as Iwabuchi discloses the acoustic wave elements may form filters and multiplexers ([0044-0045]).
For both interpretations, at the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the method of forming the conductive pillars of Iwabuchi et al. as per the method of Takano et al. as an art-recognized alternative/equivalent method of forming conductive pillars for a resonator package as disclosed by Takano et al. ([0086])
As a consequence of the combination, a portion of at least one of the second supports that at least partially overlaps the intersecting region when viewed from the electrode facing direction is larger than a remaining portion of the at least one of the second supports that does not overlap the intersecting region when viewed from the electrode facing direction.
As per claim 2:
Iwabuchi et al. discloses in Fig. 1A-B & 2:
a plurality of the functional electrodes (each acoustic wave element 15 in Fig. 1A);
wherein a plurality of resonators each including the plurality of functional electrodes is provided (as seen in Fig. 2); and
at least one of the second supports is between two of the plurality of resonators (as shown in Fig. 1A).
As per claim 17:
Iwabuchi et al. discloses in Fig. 1A-B & 2:
the piezoelectric layer is a lithium tantalate layer or a lithium niobate layer ([0032]).
As per claim 18:
Iwabuchi et al. discloses in Fig. 1A-B & 2:
the functional electrodes each include first and second busbars facing each other, one or more first electrode fingers connected to the first busbar, and one or more second electrode fingers connected to the second busbar (as seen in Fig. 2).
As per claim 19:
Iwabuchi et al. discloses in Fig. 1A-B & 2:
the functional electrodes are each an IDT electrode including a plurality of the first electrode fingers and a plurality of the second electrode fingers.
Claim(s) 12-15 & 20-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hatakeyama et al. (US PGPub 20170346463) in view of Plesski (US PGPub 20190386633), both references of record.
As per claim 12:
Hatakeyama et al. discloses in Figs. 1-3:
a second cavity portion (air gap 26) surrounded by the piezoelectric substrate, the first support and the cover is provided.
Hatakeyama et al. does not disclose:
at least one first cavity portion is provided in the support and at least partially overlaps the functional electrodes in plan view;
and when a dimension along a direction in which the piezoelectric substrate, the first support and the cover are laminated is a height, a height of the first cavity portion is greater than a height of the second cavity portion.
Plesski discloses in Figs. 1-4:
Acoustic resonators (XBAR 100 [0024]) wherein a plate wave (bulk shear mode, [0030]) is excited in a piezoelectric substrate using an interdigitated transducer electrode (IDT 130), wherein each resonator comprises at least one first cavity portion (cavity 140) provided in a support (cavity is a recess provided in substrate 120, [0026]) and at least partially overlaps functional electrodes (IDT 130) in plan view (as seen by cavity perimeter 145 in Fig. 1).
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to replace the acoustic wave elements of Iwabuchi et al. for the acoustic resonators of Plesski to provide the benefit of providing suitability for filters above 3 GHz, as taught by Plesski ([0024]).
As a consequence of the combination, at least one first cavity portion is provided in the support and at least partially overlaps the functional electrodes in plan view.
It would be further obvious for when a dimension along a direction in which the piezoelectric substrate, the first support and the cover are laminated is a height, a height of the first cavity portion is greater than a height of the second cavity portion as the height of the second cavity may be measured from the upper surface of the IDT to the bottom of the shield electrode, and further reduced due to additional height of protective film 13 as per Hatakeyama or front side dielectrics as per Plesski ([0037]), providing the further benefit of reducing the overall height of the filter package as is well understood in the art, and further as one of a limited number of options (greater than, equal than, less than).
As per claim 13:
Hatakeyama et al. discloses in Figs. 1-3:
a second cavity portion (air gap 26) surrounded by the piezoelectric substrate, the first support and the cover is provided.
Hatakeyama et al. does not disclose:
at least one first cavity portion is provided in the support and at least partially overlaps the functional electrodes in plan view;
and when a dimension along a direction in which the piezoelectric substrate, the first support and the cover are laminated is a height, a height of the second cavity portion is greater than a height of the first cavity portion.
Plesski discloses in Figs. 1-4:
Acoustic resonators (XBAR 100 [0024]) wherein a plate wave (bulk shear mode, [0030]) is excited in a piezoelectric substrate using an interdigitated transducer electrode (IDT 130), wherein each resonator comprises at least one first cavity portion (cavity 140) provided in a support (cavity is a recess provided in substrate 120, [0026]) and at least partially overlaps functional electrodes (IDT 130) in plan view (as seen by cavity perimeter 145 in Fig. 1).
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to replace the acoustic wave elements of Iwabuchi et al. for the acoustic resonators of Plesski to provide the benefit of providing suitability for filters above 3 GHz, as taught by Plesski ([0024]).
As a consequence of the combination, at least one first cavity portion is provided in the support and at least partially overlaps the functional electrodes in plan view.
It would be further obvious for when a dimension along a direction in which the piezoelectric substrate, the first support and the cover are laminated is a height, a height of the second cavity portion is greater than a height of the first cavity portion to provide for the space used by the piezoelectric material, the IDTs, and the shield electrode and further as one of a limited number of options (greater than, equal than, less than).
As per claim 14:
Hatakeyama et al. does not disclose:
the support includes an intermediate layer between the support substrate and the piezoelectric layer.
Plesski discloses in Figs. 1-4:
Acoustic resonators (XBAR 100 [0024]) wherein a plate wave (bulk shear mode, [0030]) is excited in a piezoelectric substrate using an interdigitated transducer electrode (IDT 130), wherein each resonator comprises at least one first cavity portion (cavity 140) provided in a support (cavity is a recess provided in substrate 120, [0026]) and at least partially overlaps functional electrodes (IDT 130) in plan view (as seen by cavity perimeter 145 in Fig. 1), and the support includes an intermediate layer between the support substrate and the piezoelectric layer ([0027]).
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to replace the acoustic wave elements of Hatakeyama et al. for the acoustic resonators of Plesski to provide the benefit of providing suitability for filters above 3 GHz, as taught by Plesski ([0024]).
As a consequence of the combination, the support includes an intermediate layer between the support substrate and the piezoelectric layer.
As per claim 15:
Hatakeyama et al. does not disclose:
the support includes an intermediate layer provided between the support substrate and the piezoelectric layer, and the first cavity portion is at least partially provided in the intermediate layer.
Plesski discloses in Figs. 1-4:
the support includes an intermediate layer between a support substrate (120) and a piezoelectric layer (110) ([0027]), and the first cavity portion is at least partially provided in the intermediate layer (intermediate layer may be applied to the bonding surface of the substrate, thus including the cavity, [0061]).
As a consequence of the combination, the support includes an intermediate layer provided between the support substrate and the piezoelectric layer, and the first cavity portion is at least partially provided in the intermediate layer.
As per claim 20:
Hatakeyama et al. does not disclose:
the acoustic wave device is structured to generate a plate wave.
Plesski discloses in Figs. 1-4:
Acoustic resonators (XBAR 100 [0024]) wherein a plate wave (bulk shear mode, [0030]) is excited in a piezoelectric substrate using an interdigitated transducer electrode (IDT 130).
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to replace the acoustic wave elements of Iwabuchi et al. for the acoustic resonators of Plesski to provide the benefit of providing suitability for filters above 3 GHz, as taught by Plesski ([0024]).
As a consequence of the combination, the acoustic wave device is structured to generate a plate wave.
As per claim 21:
Hatakeyama et al. does not disclose:
the acoustic wave device is structured to generate a bulk wave in a thickness shear mode.
Plesski discloses in Figs. 1-4:
Acoustic resonators (XBAR 100 [0024]) wherein a thickness shear mode (bulk shear mode, [0030,0042] Fig. 4) is excited in a piezoelectric substrate using an interdigitated transducer electrode (IDT 130).
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to replace the acoustic wave elements of Iwabuchi et al. for the acoustic resonators of Plesski to provide the benefit of providing suitability for filters above 3 GHz, as taught by Plesski ([0024]).
As a consequence of the combination, the acoustic wave device is structured to generate a bulk wave in a thickness shear mode.
As per claim 22:
Hatakeyama et al. does not disclose:
d/p is equal to or less than about 0.5, where d is a thickness of the piezoelectric layer, and p is an electrode finger center- to-center distance between the first and second electrode fingers adjacent to each other.
Plesski discloses in Figs. 1-4:
Acoustic resonators (XBAR 100 [0024]) wherein a thickness shear mode (bulk shear mode, [0030,0042] Fig. 4) is excited in a piezoelectric substrate using an interdigitated transducer electrode (IDT 130), and d/p is equal to or less than about 0.5, where d is a thickness of the piezoelectric layer, and p is an electrode finger center-to-center distance between the first and second electrode fingers adjacent to each other ([0035]).
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to replace the acoustic wave elements of Iwabuchi et al. for the acoustic resonators of Plesski to provide the benefit of providing suitability for filters above 3 GHz, as taught by Plesski ([0024]).
As a consequence of the combination, the acoustic wave device is structured to have d/p is equal to or less than about 0.5, where d is a thickness of the piezoelectric layer, and p is an electrode finger center- to-center distance between the first and second electrode fingers adjacent to each other.
As per claim 23:
Hatakeyama et al. does not disclose:
d/p is equal to or less than about 0.24.
Plesski discloses in Figs. 1-4:
Acoustic resonators (XBAR 100 [0024]) wherein a thickness shear mode (bulk shear mode, [0030,0042] Fig. 4) is excited in a piezoelectric substrate using an interdigitated transducer electrode (IDT 130), and d/p is equal to or less than about 0.24, where d is a thickness of the piezoelectric layer, and p is an electrode finger center-to-center distance between the first and second electrode fingers adjacent to each other ([0035]).
As a consequence of the combination of claim 22, the acoustic wave device is structured to have d/p is equal to or less than about 0.24, where d is a thickness of the piezoelectric layer, and p is an electrode finger center- to-center distance between the first and second electrode fingers adjacent to each other.
As per claim 24:
Hatakeyama et al. does not disclose:
MR ≤ about 1.75(d/p) + 0.075 is satisfied, where a region in which the first and second electrode fingers adjacent to each other overlap each other when viewed from the electrode facing direction is an excitation region; and
MR is a metallization ratio of the one or more first electrode fingers and the one or more second electrode fingers relative to the excitation region.
Plesski discloses in Figs. 1-4:
Acoustic resonators (XBAR 100 [0024]) wherein a thickness shear mode (bulk shear mode, [0030,0042] Fig. 4) is excited in a piezoelectric substrate using an interdigitated transducer electrode (IDT 130), wherein MR ≤ about 1.75(d/p) + 0.075 is satisfied, where a region in which the first and second electrode fingers adjacent to each other overlap each other when viewed from the electrode facing direction is an excitation region; and MR is a metallization ratio of the one or more first electrode fingers and the one or more second electrode fingers relative to the excitation region (metallization ratio being the ratio of width to pitch, wherein the pitch is 2-20 times the width of the fingers, and pitch is 2-20 times the thickness of the piezoelectric, thus meeting the stated equation within the described ranges [0035]).
As a consequence of the combination of claim 22, the acoustic wave device is structured such that MR ≤ about 1.75(d/p) + 0.075 is satisfied, where a region in which the first and second electrode fingers 42 adjacent to each other overlap each other when viewed from the electrode facing direction is an excitation region; and MR is a metallization ratio of the one or more first electrode fingers and the one or more second electrode fingers relative to the excitation region.
As per claim 25:
Hatakeyama et al. discloses in Figs. 1-3:
the piezoelectric layer is a lithium tantalate layer or a lithium niobate layer ([0023]).
Hatakeyama et al. does not disclose:
Euler angles (φ,θ,ψ) of lithium niobate or lithium tantalate of the piezoelectric layer are within a range defined by Expression (1), Expression (2) or Expression (3), see the claim sheet of 09/28/2023 for the individual expressions.
Plesski discloses in Figs. 1-4:
Acoustic resonators (XBAR 100 [0024]) wherein a thickness shear mode (bulk shear mode, [0030,0042] Fig. 4) is excited in a piezoelectric substrate using an interdigitated transducer electrode (IDT 130), wherein
the piezoelectric layer is a lithium tantalate layer or a lithium niobate layer ([0032]); and
Euler angles (φ,θ,ψ) of lithium niobate or lithium tantalate of the piezoelectric layer are within a range defined by Expression (1), Expression (2) or Expression (3) ([0052]), see the claim sheet of 09/28/2023 for the individual expressions.
As a consequence of the combination of claim 22, the acoustic wave device is structured such that Euler angles (φ,θ,ψ) of lithium niobate or lithium tantalate of the piezoelectric layer are within a range defined by Expression (1), Expression (2) or Expression (3), see the claim sheet of 09/28/2023 for the individual expressions.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hatakeyama et al. (US PGPub 20170346463) in view of Matsuda (US PGPub 2010014887), both references of record.
As per claim 3:
Hatakeyama et al. does not disclose:
the plurality of resonators includes a plurality of resonators with a split structure; and
at least one of the second supports is between two of the plurality of resonators with the split structure.
Matsuda et al. discloses in Fig. 3:
The use of a second support (inner region 43, metal film 44, inner bump 45) formed between a split resonator (first split resonator S11 and second split resonator S12 of combined series resonator S1) for heat removal purposes ([0107]).
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form a plurality of resonators of Hatakeyama et al. with a split structure wherein at least one of the second supports is between at least two of the plurality of resonators with the split structure to provide the benefit of removing heat from the circuit as taught by Matsuda et al.
Claim(s) 12-15 & 20-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the resultant combination of Iwabuchi et al. (US PGPub 20210098683), a reference of record, in view of Takano et al. (US PGPub 20210099157) as applied to claims 1, 18, & 19 above, and further in view of Plesski (US PGPub 20190386633), a reference of record.
The resultant combination discloses the limitations of claims 1 & 18-19, as rejected above).
As per claim 12:
Iwabuchi et al. discloses in Fig. 1A-B & 2:
a second cavity portion (space 27) surrounded by the piezoelectric substrate, the first support and the cover is provided.
The resultant combination does not disclose:
at least one first cavity portion is provided in the support and at least partially overlaps the functional electrodes in plan view;
and when a dimension along a direction in which the piezoelectric substrate, the first support and the cover are laminated is a height, a height of the first cavity portion is greater than a height of the second cavity portion.
Plesski discloses in Figs. 1-4:
Acoustic resonators (XBAR 100 [0024]) wherein a plate wave (bulk shear mode, [0030]) is excited in a piezoelectric substrate using an interdigitated transducer electrode (IDT 130), wherein each resonator comprises at least one first cavity portion (cavity 140) provided in a support (cavity is a recess provided in substrate 120, [0026]) and at least partially overlaps functional electrodes (IDT 130) in plan view (as seen by cavity perimeter 145 in Fig. 1).
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to replace the acoustic wave elements of The resultant combination for the acoustic resonators of Plesski to provide the benefit of providing suitability for filters above 3 GHz, as taught by Plesski ([0024]).
As a consequence of the combination, at least one first cavity portion is provided in the support and at least partially overlaps the functional electrodes in plan view.
It would be further obvious for when a dimension along a direction in which the piezoelectric substrate, the first support and the cover are laminated is a height, a height of the first cavity portion is greater than a height of the second cavity portion as the height of the second cavity may be measured from the upper surface of the IDT, and may further include protective films and temperature compensation films as per Iwabuchi et al. ([0043]) or front side dielectrics as per Plesski ([0037]), to reduce the overall height of the filter package as is well understood in the art, and further as one of a limited number of options (greater than, equal than, less than).
As per claim 13:
Iwabuchi et al. discloses in Fig. 1A-B & 2:
a second cavity portion (space 27) surrounded by the piezoelectric substrate, the first support and the cover is provided.
The resultant combination does not disclose:
at least one first cavity portion is provided in the support and at least partially overlaps the functional electrodes in plan view;
and when a dimension along a direction in which the piezoelectric substrate, the first support and the cover are laminated is a height, a height of the second cavity portion is greater than a height of the first cavity portion.
Plesski discloses in Figs. 1-4:
Acoustic resonators (XBAR 100 [0024]) wherein a plate wave (bulk shear mode, [0030]) is excited in a piezoelectric substrate using an interdigitated transducer electrode (IDT 130), wherein each resonator comprises at least one first cavity portion (cavity 140) provided in a support (cavity is a recess provided in substrate 120, [0026]) and at least partially overlaps functional electrodes (IDT 130) in plan view (as seen by cavity perimeter 145 in Fig. 1).
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to replace the acoustic wave elements of The resultant combination for the acoustic resonators of Plesski to provide the benefit of providing suitability for filters above 3 GHz, as taught by Plesski ([0024]).
As a consequence of the combination, at least one first cavity portion is provided in the support and at least partially overlaps the functional electrodes in plan view.
It would be further obvious for when a dimension along a direction in which the piezoelectric substrate, the first support and the cover are laminated is a height, a height of the second cavity portion is greater than a height of the first cavity portion to provide for the space used by the piezoelectric material, the IDTs, and further as one of a limited number of options (greater than, equal than, less than).
As per claim 14:
The resultant combination does not disclose:
the support includes an intermediate layer between the support substrate and the piezoelectric layer.
Plesski discloses in Figs. 1-4:
Acoustic resonators (XBAR 100 [0024]) wherein a plate wave (bulk shear mode, [0030]) is excited in a piezoelectric substrate using an interdigitated transducer electrode (IDT 130), wherein each resonator comprises at least one first cavity portion (cavity 140) provided in a support (cavity is a recess provided in substrate 120, [0026]) and at least partially overlaps functional electrodes (IDT 130) in plan view (as seen by cavity perimeter 145 in Fig. 1), and the support includes an intermediate layer between the support substrate and the piezoelectric layer ([0027]).
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to replace the acoustic wave elements of The resultant combination for the acoustic resonators of Plesski to provide the benefit of providing suitability for filters above 3 GHz, as taught by Plesski ([0024]).
As a consequence of the combination, the support includes an intermediate layer between the support substrate and the piezoelectric layer.
As per claim 15:
The resultant combination does not disclose:
the support includes an intermediate layer provided between the support substrate and the piezoelectric layer, and the first cavity portion is at least partially provided in the intermediate layer.
Plesski discloses in Figs. 1-4:
the support includes an intermediate layer between a support substrate (120) and a piezoelectric layer (110) ([0027]), and the first cavity portion is at least partially provided in the intermediate layer (intermediate layer may be applied to the bonding surface of the substrate, thus including the cavity, [0061]).
As a consequence of the combination, the support includes an intermediate layer provided between the support substrate and the piezoelectric layer, and the first cavity portion is at least partially provided in the intermediate layer.
As per claim 20:
The resultant combination does not disclose:
the acoustic wave device is structured to generate a plate wave.
Plesski discloses in Figs. 1-4:
Acoustic resonators (XBAR 100 [0024]) wherein a plate wave (bulk shear mode, [0030]) is excited in a piezoelectric substrate using an interdigitated transducer electrode (IDT 130).
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to replace the acoustic wave elements of The resultant combination for the acoustic resonators of Plesski to provide the benefit of providing suitability for filters above 3 GHz, as taught by Plesski ([0024]).
As a consequence of the combination, the acoustic wave device is structured to generate a plate wave.
As per claim 21:
The resultant combination does not disclose:
the acoustic wave device is structured to generate a bulk wave in a thickness shear mode.
Plesski discloses in Figs. 1-4:
Acoustic resonators (XBAR 100 [0024]) wherein a thickness shear mode (bulk shear mode, [0030,0042] Fig. 4) is excited in a piezoelectric substrate using an interdigitated transducer electrode (IDT 130).
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to replace the acoustic wave elements of The resultant combination for the acoustic resonators of Plesski to provide the benefit of providing suitability for filters above 3 GHz, as taught by Plesski ([0024]).
As a consequence of the combination, the acoustic wave device is structured to generate a bulk wave in a thickness shear mode.
As per claim 22:
The resultant combination does not disclose:
d/p is equal to or less than about 0.5, where d is a thickness of the piezoelectric layer, and p is an electrode finger center- to-center distance between the first and second electrode fingers adjacent to each other.
Plesski discloses in Figs. 1-4:
Acoustic resonators (XBAR 100 [0024]) wherein a thickness shear mode (bulk shear mode, [0030,0042] Fig. 4) is excited in a piezoelectric substrate using an interdigitated transducer electrode (IDT 130), and d/p is equal to or less than about 0.5, where d is a thickness of the piezoelectric layer, and p is an electrode finger center-to-center distance between the first and second electrode fingers adjacent to each other ([0035]).
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to replace the acoustic wave elements of The resultant combination for the acoustic resonators of Plesski to provide the benefit of providing suitability for filters above 3 GHz, as taught by Plesski ([0024]).
As a consequence of the combination, the acoustic wave device is structured to have d/p is equal to or less than about 0.5, where d is a thickness of the piezoelectric layer, and p is an electrode finger center- to-center distance between the first and second electrode fingers adjacent to each other.
As per claim 23:
The resultant combination does not disclose:
d/p is equal to or less than about 0.24.
Plesski discloses in Figs. 1-4:
Acoustic resonators (XBAR 100 [0024]) wherein a thickness shear mode (bulk shear mode, [0030,0042] Fig. 4) is excited in a piezoelectric substrate using an interdigitated transducer electrode (IDT 130), and d/p is equal to or less than about 0.24, where d is a thickness of the piezoelectric layer, and p is an electrode finger center-to-center distance between the first and second electrode fingers adjacent to each other ([0035]).
As a consequence of the combination of claim 22, the acoustic wave device is structured to have d/p is equal to or less than about 0.24, where d is a thickness of the piezoelectric layer, and p is an electrode finger center- to-center distance between the first and second electrode fingers adjacent to each other.
As per claim 24:
The resultant combination does not disclose:
MR ≤ about 1.75(d/p) + 0.075 is satisfied, where a region in which the first and second electrode fingers adjacent to each other overlap each other when viewed from the electrode facing direction is an excitation region; and
MR is a metallization ratio of the one or more first electrode fingers and the one or more second electrode fingers relative to the excitation region.
Plesski discloses in Figs. 1-4:
Acoustic resonators (XBAR 100 [0024]) wherein a thickness shear mode (bulk shear mode, [0030,0042] Fig. 4) is excited in a piezoelectric substrate using an interdigitated transducer electrode (IDT 130), wherein MR ≤ about 1.75(d/p) + 0.075 is satisfied, where a region in which the first and second electrode fingers adjacent to each other overlap each other when viewed from the electrode facing direction is an excitation region; and MR is a metallization ratio of the one or more first electrode fingers and the one or more second electrode fingers relative to the excitation region (metallization ratio being the ratio of width to pitch, wherein the pitch is 2-20 times the width of the fingers, and pitch is 2-20 times the thickness of the piezoelectric, thus meeting the stated equation within the described ranges [0035]).
As a consequence of the combination of claim 22, the acoustic wave device is structured such that MR ≤ about 1.75(d/p) + 0.075 is satisfied, where a region in which the first and second electrode fingers 42 adjacent to each other overlap each other when viewed from the electrode facing direction is an excitation region; and MR is a metallization ratio of the one or more first electrode fingers and the one or more second electrode fingers relative to the excitation region.
As per claim 25:
Iwabuchi et al. discloses in Fig. 1A-B & 2:
the piezoelectric layer is a lithium tantalate layer or a lithium niobate layer ([0032]).
The resultant combination does not disclose:
Euler angles (φ,θ,ψ) of lithium niobate or lithium tantalate of the piezoelectric layer are within a range defined by Expression (1), Expression (2) or Expression (3), see the claim sheet of 09/28/2023 for the individual expressions.
Plesski discloses in Figs. 1-4:
Acoustic resonators (XBAR 100 [0024]) wherein a thickness shear mode (bulk shear mode, [0030,0042] Fig. 4) is excited in a piezoelectric substrate using an interdigitated transducer electrode (IDT 130), wherein
the piezoelectric layer is a lithium tantalate layer or a lithium niobate layer ([0032]); and
Euler angles (φ,θ,ψ) of lithium niobate or lithium tantalate of the piezoelectric layer are within a range defined by Expression (1), Expression (2) or Expression (3) ([0052]), see the claim sheet of 09/28/2023 for the individual expressions.
As a consequence of the combination of claim 22, the acoustic wave device is structured such that Euler angles (φ,θ,ψ) of lithium niobate or lithium tantalate of the piezoelectric layer are within a range defined by Expression (1), Expression (2) or Expression (3), see the claim sheet of 09/28/2023 for the individual expressions.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the resultant combination of Iwabuchi et al. (US PGPub 20210098683), a reference of record, in view of Takano et al. (US PGPub 20210099157) as applied to claims 1 & 2 above, and further in view of Matsuda (US PGPub 20100148887), a reference of record.
As per claim 3:
The resultant combination does not disclose:
the plurality of resonators includes a plurality of resonators with a split structure; and
at least one of the second supports is between two of the plurality of resonators with the split structure.
Matsuda et al. discloses in Fig. 3:
The use of a second support (inner region 43, metal film 44, inner bump 45) formed between a split resonator (first split resonator S11 and second split resonator S12 of combined series resonator S1) for heat removal purposes ([0107]).
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form a plurality of resonators of The resultant combination with a split structure wherein at least one of the second supports is between at least two of the plurality of resonators with the split structure to provide the benefit of removing heat from the circuit as taught by Matsuda et al.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see applicant’s remarks, filed 12/05/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-2 & 17-19 under Iwabuchi et al., claim 3 with respect to Iwabuchi et al. and Matsuda, and claims 12-15 & 20-25 under Iwabuchi and Plesski have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Iwabuchi with Takano et al.
Applicant's arguments filed 12/05/2025 with respect to rejections under the reference of Hatakeyama et al. have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 11 of the applicant’s remarks, the applicant argues:
Iwabuchi and Hatakeyama fail to teach, suggest, or even contemplate the feature of "a portion of at least one of the second supports that at least partially overlaps the intersecting region when viewed from the electrode facing direction is larger than a remaining portion of the at least one of the second supports that does not overlap the intersecting region when viewed from the electrode facing direction" as recited in Applicant's amended Claim 1, that there would have been any reason or motivation whatsoever to have modified the device(s) of Iwabuchi and Hatakeyama to include this feature, or that any advantages or benefits would or could have been obtained thereby.
For at least the reasons described above, Iwabuchi and Hatakeyama, applied alone or in combination, clearly fail to anticipate, teach, suggest, or render obvious the unique combination and arrangement of features recited in Applicant's amended Claim 1, including the feature of "a portion of at least one of the second supports that at least partially overlaps the intersecting region when viewed from the electrode facing direction is larger than a remaining portion of the at least one of the second supports that does not overlap the intersecting region when viewed from the electrode facing direction."
Accordingly, Applicant respectfully requests reconsideration and withdrawal of each of the rejection of Claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over Iwabuchi and the rejection of Claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hatakeyama.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. Hatakeyama discloses as per claim 1, and as per the rejection above, that the one or more second supports comprise bumps 36 and ground pads Pg1, which comprise metal layers 17 & 18 ([0024]). As seen in Fig. 1, the acoustic wave resonator 12 comprising IDT 15 (labeled in related Fig. 2), is formed of metal layer 17 ([0029]), such that the combination of metal layers 17 & 18, which form a ground pad Pg1, overlap the intersecting region of the resonator P11 and S11 in the horizontal direction, which is shown to be the direction when viewed from the electrode facing direction as seen in Fig. 3. The remaining portion of the one or more second supports comprises bump 36, which is shown in Fig. 1 not to overlap the intersecting region when viewed from the electrode facing direction (being placed above metal layer 18, which is above metal layer 17, the layer of which the electrode is formed), is disclosed to be narrower than the adjacent section of metal layer 18 in the horizontal direction of Fig. 1, thus the overlapping portion is larger than the remaining portion, in the lateral direction. In Fig. 3, bumps 36 are shown to be completely enclosed by Pg1, which also extends to connect to via wirings 3, thus the overlapping portion is shown to be larger than the remaining portion in a plan view. Applicant has argued that the drawings are not to scale by citing MPEP §2125(11), however the examiner has not used arguments based on measurement of the drawings. The examiner’s arguments are based on the relative positioning of elements (within, without, above, below, etc.) that are provided with sufficient detail in the drawings. Specifically, in Fig. 1, Hatakeyama discloses a cross-section showing an overlap of a portion of a second support of an intersecting region of a resonator when viewed from the electrode facing direction, Fig. 3 shows the overlap from a plan view, and Figs. 1 & 3 show the remaining portion (bump 36) contained within the outer boundaries of the overlapping portion (metal layers 17 & 18). As such, applicant’s arguments pertaining to Hatakeyama are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments anticipating a further potential 103 rejection as being obvious over Iwabuchi are further not persuasive. The examiner has provided an art-recognized alternative/equivalent of forming similar structures to the second support structures in the reference of Takano et al., thereby supporting the conclusion of obviousness. Applicant’s arguments pertaining to the obviousness rejection of Iwabuchi in view of Takano et al. are therefore not persuasive.
The rejections of claims 1-2, 4-11, & 16-19 under Hatakeyama, 12-15 & 2-25 under Hatakeyama in view of Plesski, and 3 under Hatakeyama in view of Matsuda, are sustained.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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