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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
In the instant application, several Information Disclosure Sheets (IDS) have been submitted to date citing a usual high number of documents.
It is desirable to avoid the submission of long lists of documents if it can be avoided. Clearly irrelevant and marginally pertinent cumulative information should be eliminated. If a long list is submitted, those documents which have been specifically brought to applicant's attention and/or are known to be of most significance should be highlighted. See Penn Yan Boats, Inc. v. Sea Lark Boats, Inc., 359 F. Supp. 948, 175 USPQ 260 (S.D. Fla. 1972), affd, 479 F.2d 1338, 178 USPQ 577 (5th Cir. 1973), cert, denied, 414 U.S. 874 (1974). But of. Molins PLC v. Textron Inc., 48 F.3d 1172, 33 USPQ2d 1823 (Fed. Cir. 1995). See MPEP 2004.
Applicant's duty of disclosure of material and information is not satisfied by presenting a patent examiner with "a mountain of largely irrelevant [material] from which he is presumed to have been able, with his expertise and with adequate time, to have found the critical [material]. It ignores the real world conditions under which examiners examines. Applicant has a duty not just to disclose pertinent prior art references but to make a disclosure in such a way as not to "bury" it within other disclosures of less relevant prior art; See Golden Valley Microwave Foods Inc. v. Weaver Popcorn Co. Inc., 24 USPQ2d 1801 (N.D. Ind. 1992); Molins PLC v. Textron Inc., 26 USPQe2d 1889, at 1899 (D.Del 1992); Penn Yan Boats, Inc. v. Sea Lark Boats, Inc. et al., 175 USPQ 260, at 272 (S.D. Fl. 1972).
The examiner is not afforded the time to thoroughly review each reference, given the number of references cited. By his initialing each of the cited references on the accompanying 1449 form(s), the examiner is relying that the Applicant has actually submitted these documents or that the USPTO internal systems has accurately generated string(s) that represent the US references submitted. The Examiner is not afforded enough time to even check that the references cited on the accompanying 1449 form(s) are being reviewed (see search list(s) for the US documents actually reviewed and IFW of the instant application for the foreign references, non-patent literature and the international search reports and written opinions that have been filed). With this vast number of references, the Examiner is able to perform at best, only a cursory review of the cited references. The Examiner believes that the Applicant spent more time generating the 1449 forms in the instant application, then the Examiner is allotted to review the references cited on these 1449 forms.
The Examiner has reviewed cursorily each reference cited. Due to the high number of documents presented and the limited time provided for examination, the Examiner was unable to determined how material or not, each of the references is specifically related to the invention(s) claimed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1, 10, 19, the statements “when the first and second dielectric layers” are indefinite. It is disclose different materials being used at certain times. However, the claims are very vague and unclear as to when each material is being used in the system or if a certain material is being used at all. There are different materials being disclose such as ZnS, HfN, ZnO, HfO, however, it is not clear in what sequence or order the materials are used and when the materials are used. The claims also may disclose that a certain material may not be used at all.
Claims 2 – 9, 11 – 18, 20 are rejected due to their dependency on claims 1, 10, 19.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 5, 7 – 14, 16 – 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Plesski et al (US 2019/0386635) in view of Turner et al (US 2021/0344325).
Plesski et al discloses, regarding,
Claim 1, An acoustic resonator, comprising: a substrate ; a piezoelectric layer 110 having first and second surfaces that oppose each other with the second surface coupled to the substrate either directly or via one or more intermediate layers (see Figs. 1, 2), the piezoelectric layer including a diaphragm (implicitly disclosed since the device vibrates; see Figs 1) over a cavity extending in at least one of the substrate and the one or more intermediate layers (Fig. 1); an interdigital transducer (IDT) 238 at the piezoelectric layer and having interleaved fingers on the diaphragm; and first and second dielectric layers on opposing surfaces of the diaphragm (Fig. 2); wherein each of the first and second dielectric layers have a first thickness and the piezoelectric layer has a second thickness greater than the first thickness [0039].
Turner et al is being cited for explicitly disclosing that a resonator has a diaphragm 115 over a cavity extending in at least one of the substrate and the one or more intermediate layers (see Fig. 1).
It is noted that the Prior Art discloses the invention except for the material of the layers. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use such materials for the layers (the first and second dielectric layers each comprise one of ZnS, HfN, HfO2, ZnO and Ta205,), since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
It is also noted that since it is not clear when a certain material would be used in the resonator, any number of the different material used would yield a thickness value range percentage.
It is reminded that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to come with those optimum ranges (thickness ranges of the layers; wherein the first thickness is between 0.25% and 22% of the second thickness when the first and second dielectric layers are ZnS, wherein the first thickness is between 0.25% and 12% of the second thickness when the first and second dielectric layers are HfN, wherein the first thickness is between 0.25% and 21% of the second thickness when the first and second dielectric layers are HfO2, wherein the first thickness is between 0.25% and 24% of the second thickness when the first and second dielectric layers are ZnO, and wherein the first thickness is between 0.25% and 21% of the second thickness when the first and second dielectric layers are Ta205) that the applicant discloses, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
The Prior Art further discloses, regarding,
Claim 2, the IDT is on the first surface of the piezoelectric layer and the first dielectric layer is on and between the interleaved fingers of the IDT (Plesski et al, Fig. 2; Turner et al, Fig. 2).
Claim 4, the first and second dielectric layers comprises a symmetric coating thickness on the opposing surfaces of the diaphragm (Plesski et al, Figs. 1, 2).
Claim 9, the first thickness of the first and second dielectric layers and the second thickness of the piezoelectric layer are each measured in a direction substantially orthogonal to the opposing surfaces of the diaphragm (Plesski et al, Fig. 1).
Claim 10, An acoustic resonator, comprising: a piezoelectric layer having first and second surfaces that oppose each other; an interdigital transducer (IDT) at the first surface of the piezoelectric layer; a first dielectric layer on the first surface of the piezoelectric layer and on and between interleaved fingers of the IDT; and a second dielectric layer on the second surface of the piezoelectric layer that is opposite to the first dielectric layer, wherein each of the first and second dielectric layers comprise a same material comprising one of ZnS, HfN, HfO2, ZnO and Ta205, the first and second dielectric layers each having a same first thickness to form a symmetric coating configuration on the piezoelectric layer, wherein the piezoelectric layer has a second thickness greater than the first thickness, wherein the first thickness is between 0.25% and 22% of the second thickness when the first and second dielectric layers are ZnS, wherein the first thickness is between 0.25% and 12% of the second thickness when the first and second dielectric layers are HfN, wherein the first thickness is between 0.25% and 21% of the second thickness when the first and second dielectric layers are HfO2, wherein the first thickness is between 0.25% and 24% of the second thickness when the first and second dielectric layers are ZnO, and wherein the first thickness is between 0.25% and 21% of the second thickness when the first and second dielectric layers are Ta205 (see rejection for claims 1, 2 above).
Claim 11, a substrate and one or more intermediate layers that couple the piezoelectric layer to the substrate (Turner et al, Fig. 1).
Claim 12, the piezoelectric layer includes a diaphragm 115 over a cavity that extends in at least one of the substrate and the one or more intermediate layers (Turner et al, Fig. 1).
Claim 13, the first surface of the piezoelectric layer faces away from the cavity (Plesski et al, Figs. 1).
Claims 5, 14, the one or more intermediate layers comprise silicon dioxide since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Claims 7, 16, the piezoelectric layer comprises lithium niobate having Euler angles [0°, 30°, 0°] since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claims 8, 17, the piezoelectric layer and the IDT are configured such that a radio frequency signal applied to the IDT excites a primary shear acoustic mode in a diaphragm of the piezoelectric layer that is a bulk shear mode (Plesski et al, paragraphs 0004, 0035, 0045) where acoustic energy propagates along a direction substantially orthogonal to the first and second surfaces of the piezoelectric layer and transverse to a direction of electric field created by the IDT (Plesski et al, Figs. 1, 4).
Claim 18, the first thickness of the first and second dielectric layers and the second thickness of the piezoelectric layer are each measured in a direction substantially orthogonal to the first and second surfaces of the piezoelectric layer (Plesski et al, Fig. 2).
Claim 19, A method of fabricating an acoustic resonator device having a dielectric layer configured to optimize electromechanical coupling, the method comprising: attaching a piezoelectric layer to a substrate via one or more intermediate layers to form a diaphragm over a cavity in the one or more intermediate layers; forming an interdigital transducer (IDT) at the piezoelectric layer; depositing first and second dielectric layers on opposing surfaces of the diaphragm, such that at least one of the first and second dielectric layers is on and between interleaved fingers of the IDT, with the first and second dielectric layers formed of a same material comprising one of ZnS, HfN, HfO2, ZnO and Ta205; and trimming the first and second dielectric layers to form a symmetric coating on the diaphragm, such that the first and second dielectric layers have a first thickness that is less than a second thickness of the piezoelectric layer, wherein the trimming of first and second dielectric layers provides for the first thickness to be between 0.25% and 22% of the second thickness when the first and second dielectric layers are ZnS, wherein the trimming of first and second dielectric layers provides for the first thickness to be between 0.25% and 12% of the second thickness when the first and second dielectric layers are HfN, wherein the trimming of first and second dielectric layers provides for the first thickness to be between 0.25% and 21% of the second thickness when the first and second dielectric layers are HfO2, wherein the trimming of first and second dielectric layers provides for the first thickness to be between 0.25% and 24% of the second thickness when the first and second dielectric layers are ZnO, and wherein the trimming of first and second dielectric layers provides for the first thickness to be between 0.25% and 21% of the second thickness when the first and second dielectric layers are Ta205.
The method is disclosed mutatis mutandis (see rejection for claim 1 above).
Claim 20, piezoelectric layer and the IDT are configured such that a radio frequency signal applied to the IDT excites a primary shear acoustic mode in the diaphragm that is a bulk shear mode (Plesski et al, 0004, 0035, 0045) where acoustic energy propagates along a direction substantially orthogonal to the opposing surfaces of the diaphragm and transverse to a direction of electric field created by the IDT (Pleasski et al, Figs. 1, 4).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to design the resonator/method as disclosed by Plesski et al and to modify the invention per the limitations disclosed by Turner et al for the purpose of improving the bandwidth of a resonator.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Plesski et al and Turner et al as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yantchev et al (US 2021/0273632).
The combined resonator/method discloses all of the elements above. However, the combined resonator/method does not disclose the elements below.
On the other hand, Yantchev et al discloses, regarding,
Claim 3, the IDT is on the second surface of the piezoelectric layer and the second dielectric layer is on and between the interleaved fingers of the IDT (see Fig. 3).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to design the combined resonator/method as disclosed above and to modify the invention per the limitations disclosed by Yantchev et al for the purpose of protecting layers of a resonator from chemical corrosion.
Claim(s) 6, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Plesski et al and Turner et al as applied to claims 1, 10 above, and further in view of Thalmayr (US 2016/0079513).
The combined resonator/method discloses all of the elements above. However, the combined resonator/method does not disclose the elements below.
On the other hand, Thalmayr discloses, regarding,
Claims 6, 15, the acoustic resonator is configured for operating in a first-order antisymmetric (A1) mode (Figs. 2A, 2B, paragraphs 0007, 0008) and the first and second dielectric layers are configured for a predetermined coupling of the acoustic resonator operating in the A1 mode.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to design the combined resonator/method as disclosed above and to modify the invention per the limitations disclosed by Thalmayr for the purpose of improving the performance of resonators.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Julio C. Gonzalez whose telephone number is (571)272-2024. The examiner can normally be reached M-F.
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, Abdullah Riyami can be reached at 5712703119. 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.
/Julio C. Gonzalez/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2831
July 31, 2026
Prosecution Insights