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 .
Response to Amendments/Arguments
Applicant’s amendments/arguments on “bulk acoustic wave” with respect to the 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 Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.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 Larson III US 6,483,229. The other references in the rejections are maintained for their respective relevant disclosures as required by the claim limitations.
While the “formed from a same metal layer” argument does not commensurate to the current rejections, the Examiner disagrees. The mass loading portion and the metal top electrodes of all the resonators are formed using the same layer (as claimed) even if they are not necessary formed in the same method step (from the same initially deposited metal, which is not explicitly claimed; Remark: Page 8). Furthermore, a product claim with method step limitation is a product-by-process claim, the determination of patentability is based on the product itself (see MPEP 2113).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 7, 14, 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
For claims 7, 14, 21, the original disclosure only teaches “[t]he method can also include performing a photolithography patterning process to the metal top electrode layer (or structure) (e.g., as part of the trimming step(s)) to define one or more interdigital transducer electrodes.” (Spec filed 2/14/24, [0034]). It does not teach or suggest a bulk acoustic filter/resonator comprising the metal top electrode structure defines an interdigital transducer electrode (IDT), as required by the claim limitation.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 5, 6, 12, 13, 19, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claims 5, 12, 19, each recites “the metal top electrode structure and the mass loading portion are made of a same material”. However, their corresponding parent claims 1, 8, 15 already required “from a same metal layer”, thus the same material. The claims are not further limiting.
Claims 6, 13, 20 are rejected as dependent from claims 5, 12, 19 respectively.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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) 1-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Larson III US 6,483,229.
1. Larson III discloses a bulk acoustic wave filter (FBAR filter; abstract; Col. 1 lines 8-10, 45-51) comprising:
a plurality of bulk acoustic wave resonators configured to filter a radio frequency signal (abstract; Col. 1 lines 8-10, 45-51), each of the plurality of bulk acoustic wave resonator (Figs. 3A,B) having a different frequency response (Col. 1 lines 45-51) and including a piezoelectric structure (84, 94) and a metal top electrode structure (e.g., the bottom portions of 77a, 79a), one or more of the plurality of bulk acoustic wave resonators having a mass loading portion (e.g., the top portions of 77a, 79a) that is a single seamless piece with the metal top electrode structure (see Fig. 3A,B), the mass loading portion and the metal top electrode structure of each of the one or more of the plurality of bulk acoustic wave resonators formed from a same metal layer (76) as the mass loading portion and the metal top electrode structure of each of the rest of the one or more of the plurality of bulk acoustic wave resonators.
2. The acoustic wave filter of claim 1 wherein the plurality of acoustic wave resonators includes a first resonator (Fig. 3B item 80) having a first mass loading portion that is a single seamless piece with the metal top electrode structure of the first resonator, the first mass loading portion and the metal top electrode structure of the first resonator together defining a first height, the plurality of acoustic wave resonators also including a second resonator (90) having a second mass loading portion that is a single seamless piece with the metal top electrode of the second resonator, the second mass loading portion and the metal top electrode structure of the second resonator together defining a second height greater than the first height (Fig. 3B; height of 77a is greater than height of 79a).
3. The acoustic wave filter of claim 2 wherein the plurality of acoustic wave resonators includes a third resonator with the metal top electrode structure defining a third height smaller than each of the first height and the second height (Col. 1 lines 45-51: three or more resonators; Col. 7 lines 6-18: lower height or thickness increases resonant frequency; e.g., a third resonator with the highest resonant frequency would have a third height smaller than each of the first and second heights).
4. The acoustic wave filter of claim 3 wherein the third resonator excludes a mass loading portion (Fig. 3B; Col. 7 lines 6-18; the third resonator, being the lowest height, would read as not having the mass loading portion; similar to Applicant’s Fig. 5, 5A).
5. The acoustic wave filter of claim 1 wherein the metal top electrode structure and the mass loading portion are made of a same material (Fig. 3A item 76; Col. 6 lines 32-45).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 8-12, 15-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Larson III US 6,483,229 in view of Kuroki US 7,289,008 of record.
8-12. For brevity, Larson III discloses a bulk acoustic wave filter claimed as similarly discussed above, but does not explicitly disclose a radio frequency module comprising: a package substrate; and additional circuitry, the bulk acoustic wave filter and additional circuitry disposed on the package substrate.
Kuroki exemplarily discloses a radio frequency module (Figs. 1-3a, etc.) comprising: a package substrate (23); an acoustic wave filter (3a; Col. 24 lines 25-26) and additional circuitry (8, 25) on the package substrate.
At the time of the filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have made the filter in a package of Kuroki. The modification would have been obvious because the package is an art recognized structure for the filter to be used in communication as taught by Kuroki (Col. 1 lines 6-12).
15-19. For brevity, Larson III discloses a bulk acoustic wave filter claimed as similarly discussed above, but does not explicitly disclose a wireless communication device comprising: an antenna; and a front end module including one or more acoustic wave filters.
Kuroki exemplarily discloses a wireless communication device (Figs. 1-3a, etc.) comprising: an antenna; and a front end module (100) including one or more acoustic wave filters (3a; Col. 24 lines 25-26).
At the time of the filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have made the filter in a wireless communication device of Kuroki. The modification would have been obvious because the wireless communication device is an art recognized structure for the filter to be used in a communication equipment as taught by Kuroki (Col. 1 lines 6-12).
Claim(s) 6, 13, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Larson III US 6,483,229 in view of Kuroki US 7,289,008 of record, as applied to claims 5, 12, 19 above, and further in view of Lee US 6,842,089.
6, 13, 20. The Larson III, Kuroki combination discloses the invention as discussed above, but does not disclose the metal top electrode structure includes ruthenium.
Lee exemplarily discloses a bulk acoustic wave device (Fig. 3b) having a piezoelectric structure (120) and a metal top electrode structure (130) includes ruthenium (Ru; Col. 8 lines 35-41).
At the time of the filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have made the metal top electrode structure using ruthenium. The modification would have been obvious because ruthenium provides excellent conductivity and art recognized to be used as electrode material in bulk acoustic wave device as taught by Lee (Fig. 3b; Col. 8 lines 35-41).
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 ALAN WONG whose telephone number is (571)272-3238. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 10am - 7:00pm.
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 571-272-5918. 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.
/A.W/Examiner, Art Unit 2843
/ANDREA LINDGREN BALTZELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2843
Prosecution Insights