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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the plurality of piezoelectric layers and bulk piezoelectric layer as disclosed in claims 4, 5 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 – 17 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.
In claims 1, 11, the statement “target frequency as if the metal top…were symmetrically configured, but provide a higher…coefficient as compared to a symmetrical configuration” is indefinite and idiomatic. It is not clear “as if the metal” could be configured, at some point, in a certain configuration to provide a coupling coefficient in a symmetrical configuration and then as some point, be able to provide a higher coupling coefficient. It is not clear what would make the configuration be able to provide a higher coupling coefficient.
In claims 14, 16, the two claims are identical.
In claims 14, 15, 16, all three claims compare the top electrode to the same top electrode. It is not clear to what element the top electrode is being compared.
The rest of the dependent claims are rejected due to their dependency on claims 1 and 11.
In order to advance prosecution in the merits, the Prior Art will be applied
as best understood by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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) 18, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Milson et al (US 7,522,018).
Milson et al discloses, regarding,
Claim 18, An acoustic wave resonator, comprising: a metal bottom electrode 13 having a first thickness; a piezoelectric layer 14 positioned adjacent to the metal bottom electrode 13; and a metal top electrode 15 having a second thickness and being positioned adjacent to the piezoelectric layer 14 such that the piezoelectric layer resides between the metal bottom electrode and the metal top electrode (see Fig. 1), wherein the second thickness is different from the first thickness (Fig. 1; column 3, lines 35 – 41).
Claim 20, the metal bottom electrode is thicker than the metal top electrode (column 3, lines 35 – 41; see abstract).
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 – 3, 6 – 17, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Milsom et al (US 7,522,018) in view of Burak et al (US 2015/0349743).
Milsom et al discloses, regarding,
Claim 1, An asymmetric resonator stack, comprising: a metal bottom electrode 4; a metal top electrode 6; and a piezoelectric layer 5 positioned between the metal bottom electrode and the metal top electrode (see Fig. 1), wherein at least one property of the metal bottom electrode differs from at least one property of the metal top electrode (since the electrode have different thickness; see Fig. 1), and wherein the metal bottom electrode, the metal top electrode, and the piezoelectric layer provide a resonator target frequency (column 2, line 58 – column 3, line 9) as if the metal top electrode and metal bottom electrode were symmetrically configured, but provide a higher electromechanical coupling coefficient (kt2) (column 1, line 63 – column 2; column 4, lines 41 – 43) as compared to a symmetrical configuration of the metal bottom electrode and the metal top electrode (since the arrangement provides for an optimum coupling coefficient due to the asymmetrical arrangement; see abstract).
Burak et al is being cited for explicitly showing that having electrodes with different thickness is used for providing a higher electromechanical coupling coefficient (see Fig. 11; bottom electrode 1110, top electrode 1140, piezo 1130; paragraphs 0007, 0053, 0061, 0069).
The Prior Art further discloses, regarding,
Claim 2, a seed layer 3, wherein the metal bottom electrode 4 is positioned between the piezoelectric layer 5 and the seed layer 3 (Milson et al, Fig. 1).
Claim 3, a passivation layer 7, wherein the metal top electrode 6 is positioned between the piezoelectric layer 5 and the passivation layer 7 (Milson et al, Fig. 1).
Claim 6, the metal bottom electrode and the metal top electrode comprise molybdenum (Milson et al, column 1, lines 52, 53) and wherein a thickness property of the metal bottom electrode is different from a thickness property of the metal top electrode (Milson et al, Fig. 1).
Claim 7, the piezoelectric layer comprises at least one of Aluminum Nitride (AIN) (Burak et al, 0007) and Aluminum Scandium Nitride (ScAIN).
Claims 8, 19, a material property of the metal bottom electrode is different from a material property of the metal top electrode (Burak et al, 0048, 0073).
Moreover, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use different materials, 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.
Claim 9, at least one of the metal bottom electrode and the metal top electrode comprise multiple materials formed in a grid (Burak et al, 0048, 0073; see Figs. 3, B, 5, 7, 11).
Claim 10, both the metal bottom electrode and the metal top electrode comprise the grid (Burak et al, Figs. 15 – 17).
Claim 11, A device, comprising: a seed layer 3; a metal bottom electrode 4 positioned adjacent to the seed layer 3; a piezoelectric layer 5 positioned adjacent to the metal bottom electrode 4 (Milson et al, Fig. 1); and a metal top electrode 6 positioned adjacent to the piezoelectric layer 5 (Milson et al, Fig. 1), wherein at least one property of the metal bottom electrode differs from at least one property of the metal top electrode (Milson et al, abstract), and wherein the metal bottom electrode, the metal top electrode, and the piezoelectric layer provides a resonator target frequency as if the metal top electrode and metal bottom electrode were symmetrically configured, but provide a higher electromechanical coupling coefficient (kt2) as compared to a symmetrical configuration of the metal bottom electrode and the metal top electrode (column 1, line 63 – column 2; column 4, lines 41 – 43; since the arrangement provides for an optimum coupling coefficient due to the asymmetrical arrangement; see abstract).
Burak et al is being cited for explicitly showing that having electrodes with different thickness is used for providing a higher electromechanical coupling coefficient (see Fig. 11; bottom electrode 1110, top electrode 1140, piezo 1130; paragraphs 0007, 0053, 0061, 0069).
The Prior Art further discloses, regarding,
Claim 12, a passivation layer 7, wherein the metal top electrode 6 is positioned between the piezoelectric layer 5 and the passivation layer 7 (Milson et al, Fig. 1).
Claim 13, a thickness property of the metal bottom electrode is different from a thickness property of the metal top electrode (Milson et al, abstract; Fig. 1).
Claims 14, 16, the metal top electrode comprises a thickness that is less than a thickness of the metal top electrode (Milson et al, Fig. 1).
Claim 15, the metal top electrode comprises a thickness that is greater than a thickness of the metal top electrode (Burak et al, Figs. 11, 12).
Claim 17, the piezoelectric layer directly contacts the metal bottom electrode and the metal top electrode (Milson et al, Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to design the stack/device as disclose by Milson et al and to modify the invention per the limitations disclosed by Burak et al for the purpose of improving the quality factor of resonators.
Claim(s) 4, 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Milson et al and Burak et al as applied to claims 1 – 3 above, and further in view of Sadhu et al (US 2019/0305752).
The combined stack discloses all of the elements above. However, the combined stack does not disclose the elements below.On the other hand, Sadhu et al discloses, regarding,
Claim 4, the piezoelectric layer comprises a plurality of piezoelectric layers (see Fig. 3).
Claim 5, the piezoelectric layer comprises a bulk piezoelectric layer (see abstract and title).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to design the combined stack/device as disclose above and to modify the invention per the limitations disclosed by Sadhu et al for the purpose of enhancing the piezoelectric coupling of a resonator.
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 15, 2026
Prosecution Insights