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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 7-12, 15-17, 20-21, 23 & 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kando et al. (US PGPub 20140152145) in view of Bhattacharjee et al. (US PGPub 20150318838), both references of record.
As per claim 1:
Kando et al. discloses in Figs. 2-3A-B & 71:
A filter device comprising:
a first acoustic wave resonator comprising:
a substrate (support layer 2);
a first piezoelectric layer (4) attached to the substrate either directly or via one or more intermediate layers (as seen in Fig. 3A);
a first dielectric layer on a surface of the first piezoelectric layer that is opposite a cavity (2a) of the first acoustic wave resonator (dielectric film 3, which may be on both upper and lower surfaces of the piezoelectric film 4, wherein the IDT is covered when on the same surface, as seen in related Fig. 2);
an interdigital transducer (IDT) (5) having interleaved fingers over a cavity (2a) of the first acoustic wave resonator; and
a second acoustic wave resonator (multiple resonators may be formed, and further may be combined as per Fig. 71, [0167]) comprising:
a substrate (2);
a first piezoelectric layer (4) attached to the substrate either directly or via one or more intermediate layers;
a first dielectric layer on the first piezoelectric layer (dielectric film 3, which may on both upper and lower surfaces of the piezoelectric film 4, wherein the IDT is covered when on the same surface, as seen in related Fig. 2).
Kando et al. further discloses in Figs. 3A-B:
Configurations wherein the IDT (5) is oriented either above or below the piezoelectric layer (4), wherein the dielectric layer (3) is provided on an opposite side of the piezoelectric layer to provide frequency adjustment and/or temperature compensation ([0148-0149]).
Kando et al. does not disclose:
a first acoustic wave resonator comprising:
a first dielectric layer on a surface of the first piezoelectric layer that is opposite a cavity of the first acoustic wave resonator;
a second piezoelectric layer on a surface of the first dielectric layer;
a second dielectric layer on a surface of the second piezoelectric layer opposite the first dielectric layer and over the cavity of the first acoustic wave resonator, wherein the second dielectric layer is coupled to the surface of the second piezoelectric layer without any electrodes therebetween;
a second acoustic wave resonator comprising:
a second piezoelectric layer on a surface of the first dielectric layer; an IDT having interleaved fingers over a cavity of the second acoustic wave resonator.
Bhattacharjee et al. discloses in Fig. 6:
An acoustic wave resonator comprising an interdigitated transducer electrode (IDT) electrode (interlocking conductive sections 32) wherein the IDT is positioned within a first dielectric material (interposer layer 36, [0041]) and between a first and second piezoelectric layer (22 & 24), with the piezoelectric layers in contact with the first dielectric material.
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide both configurations of the piezoelectric layers of Kando to the first and second acoustic wave resonators wherein the piezoelectric layer is both above and below the IDT of each of the first and second acoustic wave resonators of Kando to enhance the performance characteristics of waves as taught by Bhattacharjee ([0035]), and to further provide an interposer layer between the first and second piezoelectric layers to provide the benefit of enhancing operating characteristics of the device as taught by Bhattacharjee ([0041]).
As a consequence of the combination, a second dielectric layer would be provided on a surface of the second piezoelectric layer opposite the first dielectric layer and over the cavity of the first acoustic wave resonator, wherein the second dielectric layer is coupled to the surface of the second piezoelectric layer without any electrodes therebetween, as Kando discloses the use of dielectric layers above and below the piezoelectric films of each resonator.
As a consequence of the combination, the combination discloses a first acoustic wave resonator comprising: a first dielectric layer on a surface of the first piezoelectric layer that is opposite a cavity of the first acoustic wave resonator; a second piezoelectric layer on a surface of the first dielectric layer; a second dielectric layer on a surface of the second piezoelectric layer opposite the first dielectric layer and over the cavity of the first acoustic wave resonator, wherein the second dielectric layer is coupled to the surface of the second piezoelectric layer without any electrodes therebetween; a second acoustic wave resonator comprising: a second piezoelectric layer on a surface of the first dielectric layer; an IDT having interleaved fingers over a cavity of the second acoustic wave resonator.
As per claim 2:
Kando et al. discloses in Figs. 2-3 & 71:
The dielectric layers may be formed of silicon oxide ([0147]).
Kando et al. does not disclose:
the IDT of the first acoustic wave device is in the first dielectric layer of the first acoustic wave device and is sandwiched between the first and second piezoelectric layers of the first acoustic wave device, the IDT of the second acoustic wave device is in the first dielectric layer of the second acoustic wave device and is sandwiched between the first and second piezoelectric layers of the second acoustic wave device, the first dielectric layer of each of the first and second acoustic wave resonators bonds the first piezoelectric layer to the second piezoelectric layer, each of the first and second dielectric layer of the respective first and/or second acoustic wave resonators are one or more of aluminum oxide or silicon oxide, and the first piezoelectric layer and the second piezoelectric layer of each of the first and second acoustic wave resonators have a same thickness or a different thickness.
Bhattacharjee et al. discloses in Fig. 6:
An acoustic wave resonator comprising an interdigitated transducer electrode (IDT) electrode (interlocking conductive sections 32) wherein the IDT is positioned within a first dielectric material (interposer layer 36, [0041]) and between a first and second piezoelectric layer (22 & 24), with the piezoelectric layers in contact with the first dielectric material, wherein the first dielectric material is aluminum oxide or silicon oxide ([0041]).
As a consequence of the combination of claim 1, the combination discloses the IDT of the first acoustic wave device is in the first dielectric layer of the first acoustic wave device and is sandwiched between the first and second piezoelectric layers of the first acoustic wave device, the IDT of the second acoustic wave device is in the first dielectric layer of the second acoustic wave device and is sandwiched between the first and second piezoelectric layers of the second acoustic wave device, the first dielectric layer of each of the first and second acoustic wave resonators bonds the first piezoelectric layer to the second piezoelectric layer, each of the first and second dielectric layer of the respective first and/or second acoustic wave resonators are one or more of aluminum oxide or silicon oxide, and the first piezoelectric layer and the second piezoelectric layer of each of the first and second acoustic wave resonators have a same thickness or a different thickness (being the only two options).
As per claim 3:
Kando et al. does not disclose:
The first piezoelectric layer and the second piezoelectric layer of at least one of the first and second acoustic resonators have different crystallographic orientations with respect to each other.
Bhattacharjee et al. discloses in Fig. 6:
An acoustic wave resonator comprising an interdigitated transducer electrode (IDT) electrode (interlocking conductive sections 32) wherein the IDT is positioned within a first dielectric material (interposer layer 36, [0041]) and between a first and second piezoelectric layer (22 & 24), with the piezoelectric layers in contact with the first dielectric material, wherein the first and second piezoelectric layers may have crystallographic orientations that are independently determined to control for one or more operating characteristics ([0031]).
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to orient the piezoelectric layer and the second piezoelectric layer of at least one of the first and second acoustic resonators to have different crystallographic orientations with respect to each other as a design parameter for controlling for one or more operating characteristics, as taught by Bhattacharjee et al. ([0031])
As per claim 5:
Kando et al. does not disclose:
a thickness of the first dielectric layer is greater than a thickness of at least one interleaved finger of the respective IDT of one or more of the first and second acoustic wave resonators, respectively.
Bhattacharjee et al. discloses in Fig. 6:
An acoustic wave resonator comprising an interdigitated transducer electrode (IDT) electrode (interlocking conductive sections 32) wherein the IDT is positioned within a first dielectric material (interposer layer 36, [0041]) and between a first and second piezoelectric layer (22 & 24), with the piezoelectric layers in contact with the first dielectric material, wherein the first dielectric layer has a thickness that may be the same or different than that of at least one interleaved finger of the IDT ([0041]).
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for a thickness of the first dielectric layer is greater than a thickness of at least one interleaved finger of the respective IDT of one or more of the first and second acoustic wave resonators, respectively, as one of a limited number of options (greater than, less than) as disclosed by Bhattacharjee ([0041]) based on the desired behavior and electrical properties of the first dielectric layer, as is well understood in the art.
As per claim 7:
Kando et al. discloses in Figs. 2-3 & 71:
connections between the first and second acoustic wave resonator that form a ladder filter circuit ([0168-0169]).
As per claim 8:
Kando et al. discloses in Figs. 2-3 & 71:
The piezoelectric layer of each of the first and second acoustic resonators wave comprise lithium niobate or lithium tantalate (abstract).
Kando et al. does not disclose:
the first and second piezoelectric layers of each of the first and second acoustic wave resonators, respectively, are both either lithium niobate or lithium tantalate.
Bhattacharjee et al. discloses in Fig. 6:
An acoustic wave resonator comprising an interdigitated transducer electrode (IDT) electrode (interlocking conductive sections 32) wherein the IDT is positioned within a first dielectric material (interposer layer 36, [0041]) and between a first and second piezoelectric layer (22 & 24), with the piezoelectric layers in contact with the first dielectric material, wherein the first and second piezoelectric layers, are both either lithium niobate or lithium tantalate ([0033]).
As a consequence of the combination of claim 1, the combination discloses the first and second piezoelectric layers of each of the first and second acoustic wave resonators, respectively, are both either lithium niobate or lithium tantalate.
As per claim 9:
Kando et al. does not disclose:
the first piezoelectric layer and the second piezoelectric layer of each of the first and second acoustic wave resonators, respectively, have a same thickness.
Bhattacharjee et al. discloses in Fig. 6:
An acoustic wave resonator comprising an interdigitated transducer electrode (IDT) electrode (interlocking conductive sections 32) wherein the IDT is positioned within a first dielectric material (interposer layer 36, [0041]) and between a first and second piezoelectric layer (22 & 24), with the piezoelectric layers in contact with the first dielectric material, wherein the first and second piezoelectric layers have a same thickness ([0038]).
As a consequence of the combination of claim 1, the combination discloses the first piezoelectric layer and the second piezoelectric layer of each of the first and second acoustic wave resonators, respectively, have a same thickness.
As per claim 10:
Kando et al. discloses in Figs. 2-3A-B & 71:
A acoustic wave resonator comprising:
a substrate (support layer 2);
a first piezoelectric layer (4) attached to the substrate either directly or via one or more intermediate layers (as seen in Fig. 3A);
a first dielectric layer on a surface of the first piezoelectric layer that is opposite a cavity (2a) of the first acoustic wave resonator (dielectric film 3, which may be on both upper and lower surfaces of the piezoelectric film 4, wherein the IDT is covered when on the same surface, as seen in related Fig. 2);
an interdigital transducer (IDT) (5) having interleaved fingers over the cavity (2a) of the acoustic wave resonator.
Kando et al. further discloses in Figs. 3A-B:
Configurations wherein the IDT (5) is oriented either above or below the piezoelectric layer (4), wherein the dielectric layer (3) is provided on an opposite side of the piezoelectric layer to provide frequency adjustment and/or temperature compensation ([0148-0149]).
Kando et al. does not disclose:
A acoustic wave resonator comprising:
a first dielectric layer on a surface of the first piezoelectric layer that is opposite a cavity of the first acoustic wave resonator;
a second piezoelectric layer on a surface of the first dielectric layer; and
a second dielectric layer on a surface of the second piezoelectric layer opposite the first dielectric layer and over the cavity of the acoustic wave resonator, wherein the second dielectric layer is coupled to the surface of the second piezoelectric layer without any electrodes therebetween.
Bhattacharjee et al. discloses in Fig. 6:
An acoustic wave resonator comprising an interdigitated transducer electrode (IDT) electrode (interlocking conductive sections 32) wherein the IDT is positioned within a first dielectric material (interposer layer 36, [0041]) and between a first and second piezoelectric layer (22 & 24), with the piezoelectric layers in contact with the first dielectric material.
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide to provide both configurations of the piezoelectric layers of Kando to the first and second acoustic wave resonators wherein the piezoelectric layer is both above and below the IDT of each of the first and second acoustic wave resonators of Kando to enhance the performance characteristics of waves as taught by Bhattacharjee ([0035]), and to further provide an interposer layer between the first and second piezoelectric layers to provide the benefit of enhancing operating characteristics of the device as taught by Bhattacharjee ([0041]).
As a consequence of the combination, a second dielectric layer would be provided on a surface of the second piezoelectric layer opposite the first dielectric layer and over the cavity of the acoustic wave resonator, wherein the second dielectric layer is coupled to the surface of the second piezoelectric layer without any electrodes therebetween, as Kando discloses the use of dielectric layers above and below the piezoelectric films of each resonator.
As a consequence of the combination, the combination discloses A acoustic wave resonator comprising: a first dielectric layer on the first piezoelectric layer; a second piezoelectric layer on a surface of the first dielectric layer; and a second dielectric layer on a surface of the second piezoelectric layer opposite the first dielectric layer and over the cavity of the acoustic wave resonator, wherein the second dielectric layer is coupled to the surface of the second piezoelectric layer without any electrodes therebetween.
As per claim 11:
Kando et al. discloses in Figs. 2-3 & 71:
The piezoelectric layer of each of the first and second acoustic resonators comprise lithium niobate or lithium tantalate (abstract).
Kando et al. does not disclose:
the first piezoelectric layer and the second piezoelectric layer have a same thickness or a different thickness, and the first and second piezoelectric layers are both either lithium niobate or lithium tantalate, and the IDT is in the first dielectric layer and sandwiched between the first and second piezoelectric layers.
Bhattacharjee et al. discloses in Fig. 6:
An acoustic wave resonator comprising an interdigitated transducer electrode (IDT) electrode (interlocking conductive sections 32) wherein the IDT is positioned within a first dielectric material (interposer layer 36, [0041]) and between a first and second piezoelectric layer (22 & 24), with the piezoelectric layers in contact with the first dielectric material, wherein the first and second piezoelectric layers, are both either lithium niobate or lithium tantalate ([0033]).
As a consequence of the combination of claim 10, the combination discloses the first piezoelectric layer and the second piezoelectric layer have a same thickness or a different thickness, and the first and second piezoelectric layers are both either lithium niobate or lithium tantalate, and the IDT is in the first dielectric layer and sandwiched between the first and second piezoelectric layers.
As per claim 12:
Kando et al. does not disclose:
the first piezoelectric layer and the second piezoelectric layer have different crystallographic orientations with respect to each other.
Bhattacharjee et al. discloses in Fig. 6:
An acoustic wave resonator comprising an interdigitated transducer electrode (IDT) electrode (interlocking conductive sections 32) wherein the IDT is positioned within a first dielectric material (interposer layer 36, [0041]) and between a first and second piezoelectric layer (22 & 24), with the piezoelectric layers in contact with the first dielectric material, wherein the first and second piezoelectric layers may have crystallographic orientations that are independently determined to control for one or more operating characteristics ([0031]).
As per claim 15:
Kando et al. discloses in Figs. 2-3 & 71:
An acoustic filter device comprising:
a plurality of acoustic resonators connected in a ladder filter circuit ([0168-0169]), each acoustic resonator comprising:
a first piezoelectric membrane (4);
a first dielectric layer (3) on a surface of the first piezoelectric membrane opposite a cavity (2a) of the first acoustic wave resonator (dielectric film 3, which may be on both upper and lower surfaces of the piezoelectric film 4, wherein the IDT is covered when on the same surface, as seen in related Fig. 2); and
an interdigital transducer (IDT) (5) having I on the first piezoelectric membrane.
Kando et al. does not disclose:
each acoustic resonator comprising:
a second piezoelectric membrane bonded to the first dielectric layer and opposite the first piezoelectric membrane; wherein at least one acoustic resonator of the plurality of acoustic resonators further comprises a second dielectric layer on a surface of the second piezoelectric membrane that is opposite the respective IDT without any electrodes between the second dielectric layer and the second piezoelectric membrane.
Bhattacharjee et al. discloses in Fig. 6:
An acoustic wave resonator comprising an interdigitated transducer electrode (IDT) electrode (interlocking conductive sections 32) wherein the IDT is positioned within a first dielectric material (interposer layer 36, [0041]) and between a first and second piezoelectric layer (22 & 24), with the piezoelectric layers in contact with the first dielectric material.
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide both configurations of the piezoelectric layers of Kando to the first and second acoustic wave resonators wherein the piezoelectric layer is both above and below the IDT of each of the first and second acoustic wave resonators of Kando to enhance the performance characteristics of waves as taught by Bhattacharjee ([0035]), and to further provide an interposer layer between the first and second piezoelectric layers to provide the benefit of enhancing operating characteristics of the device as taught by Bhattacharjee ([0041]).
As a consequence of the combination, the combination discloses an acoustic filter device comprising: a plurality of acoustic resonators connected in a ladder filter circuit, each acoustic resonator comprising: a first piezoelectric membrane; a first dielectric layer on a surface of the first piezoelectric membrane and opposite a cavity of the respective acoustic resonator; a second piezoelectric membrane bonded to the first dielectric layer and opposite the first piezoelectric membrane; and an interdigital transducer (IDT) on either the first or second piezoelectric membranes, wherein at least one acoustic resonator of the plurality of acoustic resonators further comprises a second dielectric layer on a surface of the second piezoelectric membrane that is opposite the respective IDT without any electrodes between the second dielectric layer and the second piezoelectric membrane.
As per claim 16:
Kando et al. does not disclose:
the first piezoelectric layer and the second piezoelectric membrane of at least one of that plurality of acoustic resonators have a same thickness.
Bhattacharjee et al. discloses in Fig. 6:
An acoustic wave resonator comprising an interdigitated transducer electrode (IDT) electrode (interlocking conductive sections 32) wherein the IDT is positioned within a first dielectric material (interposer layer 36, [0041]) and between a first and second piezoelectric layer (22 & 24), with the piezoelectric layers in contact with the first dielectric material, wherein the first and second piezoelectric layers have a same thickness ([0038]).
As a consequence of the combination of claim 15, the combination discloses the first piezoelectric membrane and the second piezoelectric membrane of at least one of that plurality of acoustic resonators have a same thickness.
As per claim 17:
Kando et al. discloses in Figs. 2-3 & 71:
Dielectric layers (3) may be provided above and below the respective piezoelectric membranes, without any electrodes between a dielectric layer and a piezoelectric membrane (as seen in Figs. 3A-B), and that the thickness of the dielectric films can be used to provide frequency adjustment ([0148]).
Kando et al. does not disclose:
the second dielectric layer forms a portion of a shunt resonator subset of the plurality of acoustic resonators but not a series resonator subset of the plurality of acoustic resonators in the ladder filter circuit.
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a second dielectric layer on at least one acoustic resonator of the plurality of acoustic resonators on a surface of the second piezoelectric membrane that is opposite the respective IDT without any electrodes between the second dielectric layer and the second piezoelectric membrane, to provide the benefit of frequency adjustment as taught by Kando ([0148]).
It would be further obvious for the second dielectric layer to be applied to at least one shunt resonators of the ladder filter of Kando to provide the benefit of adjusting the frequency of the resonator as a design parameter for determining the passband of the ladder filter as is well understood in the art.
As a consequence of the combination, the second dielectric layer forms a portion of a shunt resonator subset of the plurality of acoustic resonators but not a series resonator subset of the plurality of acoustic resonators in the ladder filter circuit.
As per claim 20:
Kando et al. does not disclose:
for each of the plurality of acoustic resonators, a thickness of the first dielectric layer is thicker than a thickness of at least one interleaved finger of the respective IDT.
Bhattacharjee et al. discloses in Fig. 6:
An acoustic wave resonator comprising an interdigitated transducer electrode (IDT) electrode (interlocking conductive sections 32) wherein the IDT is positioned within a first dielectric material (interposer layer 36, [0041]) and between a first and second piezoelectric layer (22 & 24), with the piezoelectric layers in contact with the first dielectric material, wherein the first dielectric layer has a thickness that may be the same or different than that of at least one interleaved finger of the IDT ([0041]).
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for in each of the plurality of acoustic resonators, a thickness of the first dielectric layer to be greater than a thickness of at least one interleaved finger of the respective IDT of one or more of the first and second acoustic wave resonators, respectively, as one of a limited number of options (greater than, less than) as disclosed by Bhattacharjee ([0041]) based on the desired behavior and electrical properties of the first dielectric layer, as is well understood in the art.
As per claims 21, 23, & 25:
Kando et al. discloses in Figs. 2-3 & 71:
a pitch p of the IDT is between 2 and 20 times a width of the interleaved fingers of the IDT (duty value of 0.5, which the width to pitch ratio, [0135]).
Claim(s) 21-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the resultant combination of Kando et al. (US PGPub 20140152145) in view of Bhattacharjee et al. (US PGPub 20150318838), both references of record, as applied to claims 1, 10, & 15 above, and further in view of Plesski et al. (US PGPub 20190386635)
The resultant combination discloses the acoustic filter device and acoustic wave resonator of claims 1, 10, & 15 as rejected above.
As per claims 21, 23, & 25:
The resultant combination does not disclose (in an alternative interpretation):
a pitch p of the IDT is between 2 and 20 times a width of the interleaved fingers of the IDT.
Plesski et al. discloses in Figs. 1-2:
A shear mode ([0045], wherein a shear mode is a plate wave) acoustic wave resonator wherein a pitch p of the IDT is between 2 and 20 times a width of the interleaved fingers of the IDT ([0041]).
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the IDT arrangement of Plesski et al. in place of the IDT arrangement of Kando et al. to excite a shear mode to provide the benefit of providing a resonator particularly suited for frequencies above 3 GHz, as taught by Plesski et al. ([0031]).
As per claims 22, 24, & 26:
The resultant combination does not disclose (in an alternative interpretation):
a pitch p of the IDT is between 2 and 20 times a thickness of one of the first piezoelectric layer or the second piezoelectric layer.
Plesski et al. discloses in Figs. 1-2:
A shear mode ([0045], wherein a shear mode is a plate wave) acoustic wave resonator wherein a pitch p of the IDT is between 2 and 20 times a thickness of one of a piezoelectric layer ([0041]).
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the IDT arrangement and piezoelectric thickness of Plesski et al. in place of the IDT arrangement and piezoelectric thickness of Kando et al. to excite a shear mode to provide the benefit of providing a resonator particularly suited for frequencies above 3 GHz, as taught by Plesski et al. ([0031]).
As a consequence of the combination, a pitch p of the IDT is between 2 and 20 times a thickness of one of the first piezoelectric layer or the second piezoelectric layer.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/16/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In pages 9 to 13 of the applicant’s remarks, the applicant argues that:
To try to justify the rejection, the Office Action expressly admits on pages 6-7 that Kando fails to disclose the claimed two-piezoelectric-layer stack, and instead turns to Bhattacharjee for allegedly teaching a two-layer piezoelectric structure with an embedded IDT. The Office Action then acknowledges that Bhattacharjee does not actually disclose the claimed "second dielectric layer," but asserts in a single sentence that, "[a]s a consequence of the combination," the claimed second dielectric on the second piezoelectric surface would be present because Kando "discloses the use of dielectric layers above and below the piezoelectric films of each resonator."
The Applicant respectfully traverses as such conclusory statements without more are insufficient to justify a conclusion of obviousness. Instead, to support a conclusion of obviousness "less the 'haze of so-called expertise' acquire insulation from accountability," the Examiner "must" specifically identify where support is found within the prior art to meet the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 103. In re Lee, 277 F.3d 1338, 1344, 61 U.S.P.Q.2d 1430, 1432 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
"[T]he [Examiner] cannot simply reach conclusions based on [his] own understanding or experience - or on [his] assessment of what would be basic knowledge or common sense. Rather, the [Examiner] must point to some concrete evidence in the record in support of these findings." In re Zurko, 258 F.3d 1379, 1385-86 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (emphases added).
In this case, Kando's dielectric film 3 is not a "second dielectric layer on a surface of the second piezoelectric layer" in a two-plate stack, but rather its placement is tied to a single-piezoelectric film architecture. More specifically, Kando discloses a single piezoelectric thin film with an IDT on one surface and, optionally, a dielectric film 3 on one or both surfaces of that single piezoelectric film. Kando explicitly states that the dielectric film 3 "is not essential and it may be dispensed with." Moreover, Kando's placement of dielectric film 3 on the "upper and lower surfaces of the piezoelectric thin film" occurs within a single piezoelectric device configuration where the IDT is on at least one surface of that single piezoelectric film. There is no teaching or suggestion in Kando for adding an additional dielectric layer to an outer surface of a different, second piezoelectric plate in a dual-plate, embedded-IDT stack.
In contrast, independent claim 1 (and similarly claims 10 and 15) requires a second dielectric on the outer surface of the second piezoelectric layer of a two-piezoelectric layer stack, which is opposite the first dielectric layer on the IDT, and moreover that there are no electrodes between that second dielectric layer and the second piezoelectric surface. Kando has no such teaching in a two piezoelectric layer stack and does not place a dielectric "over the cavity" on the outer surface of a second piezoelectric layer.
To reconcile this missing limitation from Kando, the Office Action cites Bhattacharjee. However, Bhattacharjee's "embedded" IDT stack lacks the claimed "second dielectric layer" and, where it introduces outer layers, these layers are not the claimed dielectric-on-second-piezoelectric layer without intervening electrodes over the cavity. Instead, Bhattacharjee merely discloses a vibrating body comprising first and second piezoelectric thin-film layers with an inter-digital transducer embedded therebetween. While Bhattacharjee describes optional "functional layers," its disclosure enumerates many non-dielectric possibilities (e.g., semiconductors, ferroelectrics, magnetic materials), and also discloses optional third/fourth electrodes on the outer surfaces of the piezo layers. Otherwise, there is nothing in Bhattacharjee relating to the "without any electrodes therebetween" feature and Bhattacharjee's "functional layer" options are not a teaching of the claimed second dielectric layer on the specific outer surface of the second piezoelectric plate "over the cavity of the first acoustic wave resonator" in a ladder-filter context.
Importantly, the Office Action appears to acknowledge that Bhattacharjee does not disclose the claimed "second dielectric layer", and instead supplies that limitation only by reference back to Kando's single-film dielectric usage. But importing Kando's optional single-film dielectric layer onto a different outer surface within an embedded-IDT, two-piezoelectric layer stack, while also satisfying the precise over-cavity placement and "no electrodes therebetween" limitations, is not taught or suggested by either reference. That is, there is no disclosure or suggestion in Bhattacharjee that instructs the person of ordinary skill in the art to forego the optional outer electrodes it discloses and instead adopt a bare dielectric on the second piezoelectric plate's outer surface over a cavity in an acoustic resonator ladder filter, as recited in independent claims claimed 1, 10 and 15. Any such modification appears to be a clearly impermissible use of improper hindsight.
Nevertheless, the Office Action at page 8 further alleges, without pointing "to some concrete evidence", that because Kando uses dielectric films "above and below" a single piezoelectric film, the dual-plate structure of Bhattacharjee would inherently have the claimed second dielectric layer on the outer surface of the second piezoelectric plate, "without any electrodes therebetween," and "over the cavity". However, this conclusion ignores that Kando's optional dielectric film 3 sits on surfaces of the same, single piezoelectric film. As such, the proposed modification to change Kando to include a dual-piezo, embedded-IDT device as taught by Bhattacharjee cannot be accepted without an articulated teaching or reason to transplant Kando's optional dielectric layer onto a different surface of a different layer in a way that meets the specific electrode-free relationship required by the independent claims.
As generally noted above, Section 2144 of the MPEP requires that an obviousness rejection include an articulated reasoning that is explained and shown to apply to the facts at hand and that conclusory invocations of "common sense" are insufficient. The MPEP cautions that "such rationales should not be treated as per se rules, but rather must be explained and shown to apply to the facts at hand," and that "simply stating the principle ... without providing an explanation of its applicability ... is generally not sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness". The rationale to modify or combine must be supported by express or implied teachings, common knowledge with evidentiary support, sound scientific principles, or analogous legal precedent, and the Examiner must present a "convincing line of reasoning".
In this case, the Office Action's critical step - that the claimed second dielectric layer on the outer surface of the second piezoelectric plate, over the cavity, without electrodes, would exist "as a consequence of the combination" - is precisely the kind of unadorned conclusion that Section 2144 deems insufficient. There is no fact-finding tying Kando's optional single-film dielectric placement to the different surface in Bhattacharjee's IDT stack, no analysis of why or how the skilled person in the art would forgo Bhattacharjee's optional outer electrodes and instead adopt a bare dielectric layer on the second plate's exterior, and no explanation of how the "over the cavity" spatial relationship is satisfied in the combined, ladder-filter context. Absent such articulation, a bare "would have been obvious" assertion is legally inadequate as the current Office Action does not supply the required articulated rationale to get from Kando's single-film dielectric layer to the claimed second dielectric on the outer surface of the second piezoelectric layer without electrodes therebetween.
Furthermore, the Applicant respectfully submits that Kando and Bhattacharjee address materially different device architectures and operational modes and that one skilled in the art would have no reason to combine these configurations as suggested by the Office Action. More specifically, Kando is a plate-wave device with a single piezoelectric thin film spanning a recess, with the IDT on at least one surface of that single film. As described above, Kando's optional dielectric film 3 is on a surface of that same single piezoelectric film and is not essential. By contrast, Bhattacharjee's device as shown in Figure 1 thereof is a suspended MEMS vibrating body anchored to a substrate, with an inter-digital transducer embedded between two piezoelectric thin-film layers for SO/SHO mode operation. While Bhattacharjee contemplates optional outer electrodes or other functional layers on the outer surfaces, none of these optional components correspond to the claimed "without any electrodes therebetween" second dielectric layer on the second piezoelectric layer's outer surface over a cavity in a ladder filter.
Bridging these two architectures to obtain the precise, claim-critical second dielectric layer on the outer surface of the second piezoelectric layer "over the cavity" and "without any electrodes therebetween" would require non-trivial redesign that neither reference teaches or suggests. It is not a matter of merely "duplicating parts" or "reversing" components. Rather, such a modification and combination would entail (i) transforming Kando's single-film, surface-IDT structure into a dual-film embedded-IDT stack, and then (ii) relocating Kando's optional dielectric film to a different outer surface in a way that also (iii) omits Bhattacharjee's disclosed outer electrodes and
(iv) preserves the over-cavity spatial relationship defined in the amended independent claims. The cited art provides no roadmap or motivation for those coordinated structural choices, and, importantly, the Office Action has not articulated one.
In contrast, the Applicant's specification details how to realize precisely this structure, including the sandwiched XBAR with the interposed dielectric/IDT, and a top dielectric layer formed directly on the second piezoelectric layer surface, over the cavity, to tune third-harmonic shear-mode operation - all without electrodes between the second piezoelectric surface and the top dielectric layer. The absence of any comparable teaching or suggestion in Kando and/or Bhattacharjee underscores the non-obviousness of the configuration recited in amended independent claims 1, 10 and 15.
Because neither Kando nor Bhattacharjee, alone or in combination, teaches or suggests "a second dielectric layer on a surface of the second piezoelectric layer opposite the first dielectric layer and over the cavity of the first acoustic wave resonator, wherein the second dielectric layer is coupled to the surface of the second piezoelectric layer without any electrodes therebetween," and because the Office Action's reasoning consists of an unsubstantiated "as a consequence of the combination" assertion that fails MPEP § 2144's requirement for an articulated rationale, the Office Action has failed to establish aprimafacie case of obviousness for amended independent claim 1 (and similarly independent claims 10 and 15).
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). More specifically, the applicant argues that Kando’s dielectric film could not meet the limitation of the claimed second dielectric layer. The applicant characterizes Kando’s dielectric film 3 as a “single-film dielectric usage,” which is contrary to the disclosure of Kando, and further emphasizes that the dielectric film 3 “is not essential and may be dispensed with.” Kando et al. discloses in Fig. 2 a dielectric film 3 that is defined on an upper surface of a piezoelectric thin film 4, covering an IDT electrode 5. In Fig. 3A, Kando discloses a modification of the structure of Fig. 2 ([0144]) with a similar function, wherein the dielectric layer is defined on the lower surface side of a piezoelectric thin film 4. Fig. 3B Shows a further modification of the structure wherein the dielectric layer is defined on the upper surface side of a piezoelectric thin film 4 with the IDT electrode 5 defined on the lower surface side of a piezoelectric thin film. As such, Kando has disclosed placement of a dielectric layer on a lower or an upper side of a piezoelectric layer, and placement of a dielectric layer either covering and IDT electrode on an opposite side of the piezoelectric layer ([0143, 0145]). Kando further discloses that two dielectric layers may be placed on opposite sides of the piezoelectric layer ([0147]), such that one covers the IDT electrode, and one is placed adjacent to the piezoelectric layer without an electrode placed therebetween. Kando discloses that a dielectric layer covering the IDT electrode may have a thickness greater than the thickness of the IDT electrode ([0158]). Kando discloses that the dielectric layer may be provided for temperature compensation ([0013, 00149]) and for frequency adjustment ([0148]), and wherein frequency adjustment may be more easily performed by dielectric films being exposed at a top surface ([0148]). As such, Kando discloses in Fig. 3B a dielectric layer above a piezoelectric layer which is further located above an IDT, wherein there are no electrodes between the dielectric layer and the piezoelectric layer. Combining Fig. 3B of Kando with Bhattacharjee et al. results in an additional piezoelectric layer in contact with the IDT opposite the piezoelectric layer of Fig. 3B, wherein the IDT is embedded in a dielectric layer. Combining Fig. 2 or 3A with Bhattacharjee et al. wherein an additional piezoelectric layer is added over the IDT and piezoelectric layer of Fig. 2 or 3A of Kando further is subject to the teaching of Kando where dielectric layers may be provided on both sides of the piezoelectric layer (and therefore both sides of each piezoelectric layer of the combination) especially as Kando teaches that frequency adjustment is more easily performed through adjustment of a dielectric layer at an upper surface. As such, the combination of Kando et al. and Bhattacharjee et al. meets the limitations of claims 1, 10, & 15, the conclusion of obviousness was based on identified support in Kando et al. and not just conclusory statements as argued by the applicant, and that the use of “a consequence of the combination” was made in the light of the combination of the references, and not an “unadorned conclusion” as alleged by the applicant. Furthermore, the applicant questions raises the question about forgoing the “optional” outer electrodes of Bhattacharjee, however these electrodes are not featured in the embodiment of Fig. 6. Applicant’s allegation that there is no explanation of “over the cavity” in Bhattacharjee ignores the fact that the resonator of Bhattacharjee is provided over a cavity by the use of anchors 14, as seen in Fig. 2, and further appears to be a piecemeal analysis of the references as opposed to the addressing the combination.
Applicant’s allegations that Kando and Bhattacharjee address materially different device architectures and operational modes is further not persuasive. Bhattacharjee discloses the operation of shear and shear horizontal modes (S0 and SH0, [0035]), both of which are plate wave modes. Kando et al. discloses that lamb waves and SH0 modes are plate waves ([0005]), and thus both Kando and Bhattacharjee are devices generating plate waves in piezoelectric layers of discrete thicknesses with overlapping ranges ([0038] Bhattacharjee and [00130] Kando), wherein the piezoelectric layer is excited through the use of IDT electrodes. As such, there is significant overlap in the scope of device architecture and operational modes of each reference. Furthermore, applicant’s allegations that meeting the claim limitations through the combination requires a non-trivial redesign is unfounded. As pointed out above, there are multiple ways in which the combination meets the claim limitations, wherein non-trivial redesign is not required. Furthermore, the combination of Kando and Bhattacharjee is supported by motivation found within Bhattacharjee as provided in the rejection, and is fully substantiated within the rejection. Applicant’s arguments are therefore not persuasive, and the rejection of claims 1-3, 5, 7-12, 15-17, & 20 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
Prosecution Insights