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 § 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.
Claim 2 is 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.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the growth substrate" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Prior to the recitation of “the growth substrate,” no “growth substrate” is mentioned in either claims 1 or 2. For examination purposes, the “growth substrate” will be interpreted as being removed, as the “growth substrate” shown in Fig. 16B-C of the specification (1610) is shown to be removed from Fig. 23 on.
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) 1-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US PGPub 20160204761) in view of Kawamura (US PGPub 20060179642).
As per claim 1:
Lee et al. discloses in Fig. 15:
An acoustic resonator device comprising:
a support layer (substrate 110);
an air cavity (air gap 130);
a first electrode (121) overlying the air cavity and a portion of the support layer;
a first passivation layer (membrane layer 150) overlying the support layer and being physically coupled to the first electrode (as shown in Fig. 15);
a piezoelectric film (123) overlying the support layer, the first electrode, and the air cavity, the piezoelectric film having an electrode contact via (portion of connection electrode 180 within piezoelectric layer 123);
a second electrode (125) formed overlying the piezoelectric film;
a top metal (connection electrode 180 over piezoelectric layer 123, [0085]) formed overlying the piezoelectric film, the top metal being physically coupled to the first electrode through the electrode contact via (as seen in Fig. 15);
a first contact metal (connection conductor 115a, [0112]) formed overlying a portion of the second electrode and the piezoelectric film;
a second contact metal (connection conductor 115b, [0112]) formed overlying a portion of the top metal and the piezoelectric film; and
a second passivation layer (protection layer 127) formed overlying the piezoelectric film, the second electrode, and the top metal;
wherein the second passivation layer is characterized by a consistent thickness (being formed as a layer).
Lee et al. does not disclose:
a bond substrate; a bonding support layer overlying the bond substrate;
a support layer overlying the bonding support layer, the support layer having an air cavity.
In an alternative interpretation, Lee does not disclose the second passivation layer is characterized by a consistent thickness.
Kawamura discloses in Fig. 2:
A bulk acoustic wave resonator (title) comprising:
a bond substrate (first mother substrate 10);
a bonding support layer (adhesive layer 12) overlying the bond substrate;
a support layer (second mother substrate 16) overlying the bonding support layer, the support layer having an air cavity (cavity 32).
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to replace the substrate and air cavity of Lee et al. with the substrate and air cavity of Kawamura as an art-recognized alternative/equivalent substrate for a bulk acoustic wave resonator as is well understood in the art.
In the alternative interpretation, it would be further obvious for the second passivation layer to be characterized by a consistent thickness to provide the benefit of minimizing the material of the second passivation layer while providing a uniform benefit of providing protection from exposure as taught by Lee ([0049]).
As per claim 2:
Lee et al. discloses in Fig. 15:
The substrate includes silicon (S), silicon carbide (SiC), sapphire (Al2O3), silicon dioxide (SiO2), or other silicon materials ([0039]).
Lee et al. does not disclose:
The bond substrate includes silicon (S), silicon carbide (SiC), sapphire (Al2O3), silicon dioxide (SiO2), or other silicon materials.
Kawamura discloses in Fig. 2:
The bond substrate includes silicon (S), silicon carbide (SiC), sapphire (Al2O3), silicon dioxide (SiO2), or other silicon materials ([0030]).
As a consequence of the combination of claim 1, the combination discloses the bond substrate includes silicon (S), silicon carbide (SiC), sapphire (Al2O3), silicon dioxide (SiO2), or other silicon materials.
As per claim 3:
Lee et al. discloses in Fig. 15:
the piezoelectric film is a single crystal or polycrystalline piezoelectric film that includes aluminum nitride (AlN), gallium nitride (GaN), AlxGai-xN alloys, or other epitaxial materials; or
wherein the piezoelectric film is an upper portion of a polycrystalline piezoelectric film that includes aluminum nitride (AlN), gallium nitride (GaN), AlxGai-xN alloys, or other polycrystalline epitaxial materials ([0045], wherein the piezoelectric film is AlN, and thus either single or poly crystalline).
Alternatively, Lee et al. only discloses the use of aluminum nitride, but does not disclose the use of single crystal or polycrystalline aluminum nitride.
Kawamura discloses the use of AlN film with crystal orientation and uniform thickness for favorable resonant characteristics ([0030]).
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form the AlN piezoelectric film as a single crystal or polycrystalline piezoelectric film to provide the benefit of favorable resonant characteristics as taught by Kawamura ([0030]).
As per claim 4:
Lee et al. does not disclose the first passivation layer or the second passivation layer is characterized by a thickness of about 50 nm to about 100 nm.
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the first passivation layer or the second passivation layer is characterized by a thickness of about 50 nm to about 100 nm as a design parameter for providing protection of an electrode as disclosed by Lee et al. ([0049]) while also minimizing the amount and mass of material provided on the resonator, as is well understood in the art.
As per claim 5:
Lee et al. discloses in Fig. 15:
the first electrode, second electrode, and top metal include molybdenum (Mo), ruthenium (Ru), tungsten (W), or other conductive materials ([0043]); and wherein the first and second passivation layers can include silicon nitride (SiN), silicon oxide (SiO), silicon dioxide (SiO2), or other silicon materials ([0083]).
Lee et al. does not disclose:
the first and second passivation layers can include silicon nitride (SiN), silicon oxide (SiO), silicon dioxide (SiO2), or other silicon materials.
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form the first and second passivation layers can include silicon nitride (SiN), silicon oxide (SiO), silicon dioxide (SiO2), or other silicon materials to provide the benefit of protecting electrodes from being exposed to the environment as taught by Lee et al. ([0049])
As per claim 6:
Lee et al. discloses in Fig. 15:
the first and second contact metals include gold (Au), aluminum (Al), copper (Cu), nickel (Ni), aluminum bronze (AlCu), or other metal materials ([0112]).
As per claim 7:
Lee et al. discloses in Fig. 15:
the support layer includes silicon dioxide (SiO2) or other silicon materials ([0039]).
Lee et al. does not disclose:
the support layer and the bonding support layer include silicon dioxide (SiO2) or other silicon materials.
Kawamura discloses in Fig. 2:
the support layer and the bonding support layer include silicon dioxide (SiO2) or other silicon materials. ([0030]).
As a consequence of the combination of claim 1, the combination discloses the support layer and the bonding support layer include silicon dioxide (SiO2) or other silicon materials.
Claim(s) 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the resultant combination of Lee et al. (US PGPub 20160204761) in view of Kawamura (US PGPub 20060179642) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Burak et al. (US PGPub 20140354115)
The resultant combination discloses the device of claim 1, as rejected above.
As per claim 8:
The resultant combination does not disclose:
at least one of the first electrode and the second electrode includes an energy confinement structure.
Burak et al. discloses in Fig. 1A-C:
The use of energy confinement structures (frame pattern 150) on at least one of a first electrode (bottom electrode 120) and a second electrode (top electrode 140) of a bulk acoustic wave resonator ([0030]).
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form the energy confinement structure of Burak et al. on at least one of the first electrode and the second electrode of the resultant combination to provide the benefit of increasing the Q-factor of the resonator as taught by Burak et al. ([0043])
As per claim 9:
The resultant combination does not disclose:
the energy confinement structure is configured as a mass loaded area surrounding a resonator area of the piezoelectric film.
Burak et al. discloses in Fig. 1A-C:
the energy confinement structure is configured as a mass loaded area surrounding a resonator area of the piezoelectric film ([0038]).
As a consequence of the combination of claim 8, the energy confinement structure is configured as a mass loaded area surrounding a resonator area of the piezoelectric film.
As per claim 10:
The resultant combination discloses
a resonator area includes a region where the first electrode, the piezoelectric film, and the second electrode overlap (as seen in Fig. 15).
The resultant combination does not disclose:
the resonator area includes a region where the first electrode, the piezoelectric film, and the second electrode overlap.
Burak et al. discloses in Fig. 1A-C:
the resonator area includes a region where the first electrode, the piezoelectric film, and the second electrode overlap (Fig. 1 & [0003, 0037]).
As a consequence of the combination of claim 8, the resonator area includes a region where the first electrode, the piezoelectric film, and the second electrode overlap.
Conclusion
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