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) 1-5, 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McHugh US 9,369,111 in view of Ikada US 6,516,503.
1. McHugh discloses an acoustic wave filter (Fig. 3, etc.) comprising:
a plurality of acoustic wave resonators (X1-X9) configured to filter a radio frequency signal, each of the plurality of acoustic wave resonators having a different frequency response (Col. 3 lines 34-38) and including a piezoelectric substrate (Fig. 1 item 150) and a metal top electrode structure (110, 120), but does not disclose one or more of the acoustic wave resonators having a mass loading portion that is a single seamless piece with the metal top electrode.
Ikada exemplarily discloses an acoustic wave filter (Figs. 5D, 6E, etc.) comprising: a first resonator (30, 110), a second resonator (40, 120), wherein each resonator includes a piezoelectric substrate (1, 101) and a top electrode structure (i.e., the IDTs; 111, 121), one or more of the acoustic wave resonators having a mass loading portion that is a single seamless piece with the metal top electrode (as shown in Figs. 5D, 6E, the “greater” thickness of the IDT portion 111 would be read as including mass loading portion; note that this is similar to Applicant’s Fig. 5A); and the thickness/height of the IDT affects frequencies (Col. 2 lines 7-11).
At the time of the filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have made the resonators in McHugh with different thicknesses for the metal top electrode, thus effectively including mass loading portion that is a single seamless piece with the metal top electrode as taught in Ikada. The modification would have been obvious because the different frequencies required in McHugh (Col. 3 lines 34-38) can be achieved by the different thickness/mass loading portion as taught by Ikada (Col. 2 lines 7-11).
2. The acoustic wave filter of claim 1 wherein the plurality of acoustic wave resonators includes a first resonator (McHugh: one of X1-X9) 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 (McHugh: another one of X1-X9) 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 (Ikada: Col. 2 lines 7-11; different frequencies would have different thicknesses/heights, thus one of the height, i.e. of the first resonator, would be higher than another one of the height, i.e., of the second resonator).
3. The acoustic wave filter of claim 2 wherein the plurality of acoustic wave resonators includes a third resonator (McHugh: a 3rd one of X1-X9) with the metal top electrode structure defining a third height smaller than each of the first height and the second height (Ikada: Col. 2 lines 7-11; different frequencies would have different thickness/height).
4. The acoustic wave filter of claim 3 wherein the third resonator excludes a mass loading portion (Ikada: Figs. 5D, 6E; Col. 2 lines 7-11; the “lowest” thickness/height resonator would be read as having no mass loading portion).
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 (Ikada: Figs. 5D, 6E; single seamless piece; hence same material).
7. The acoustic wave filter of claim 1 wherein the metal top electrode structure defines an interdigital transducer electrode (IDT; McHugh: Fig. 1; Ikada: Figs. 5D, 6E).
Claim(s) 8-12, 14-19, 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McHugh US 9,369,111 in view of Ikada US 6,516,503 and Kuroki US 7,289,008.
8-12, 14. For brevity, McHugh and Ikada together disclose an acoustic wave filter as claimed similarly discussed above in claims 1-6, 8, and use in communication equipment (McHugh: Col. 1 lines 17-20), but does not explicitly disclose a radio frequency module comprising: a package substrate; and additional circuitry, the 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) 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, 21. For brevity, McHugh and Ikada together disclose an acoustic wave filter as claimed similarly discussed above in claims 1-6, 8, and use in communication equipment (McHugh: Col. 1 lines 17-20), 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).
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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of McHugh US 9,369,111 in view of Ikada US 6,516,503 as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Goto US 10,778,181.
6. The combination discloses the invention as discussed above, but does not disclose the metal top electrode structure includes ruthenium.
Goto exemplarily discloses an acoustic wave device (Fig. 1) comprising: piezoelectric layer (12), metal top electrode (14) made of ruthenium (Col. 14 line 67 – Col. 15 line 3).
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 includes ruthenium. The modification would have been obvious because ruthenium is an art recognized material useable for the metal top electrode structure as taught by Goto (Col. 14 line 67 – Col. 15 line 3).
Claim(s) 13, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of McHugh US 9,369,111 in view of Ikada US 6,516,503 and Kuroki US 7,289,008 as applied to claims 8, 15 above, and further in view of Goto US 10,778,181.
13, 20. The combination discloses the invention as discussed above, but does not disclose the metal top electrode structure includes ruthenium.
Goto exemplarily discloses an acoustic wave device (Fig. 1) comprising: piezoelectric layer (12), metal top electrode (14) made of ruthenium (Col. 14 line 67 – Col. 15 line 3).
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 includes ruthenium. The modification would have been obvious because ruthenium is an art recognized material useable for the metal top electrode structure as taught by Goto (Col. 14 line 67 – Col. 15 line 3).
Conclusion
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