DETAILED ACTION
Notice to Applicant
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claim Objections
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: The following changes should be made for grammatical purposes:
On line 2 of claim 11, change “6GHz” to --6 GHz--.
On line 1 of claim 19, change “piezoelectrical” to --piezoelectric--.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 10, 12, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sadhu et al. US 2019/0305752.
As per claims 10, 12, and 13, Sadhu et al. discloses in Fig. 6 an acoustic resonator device (e.g. BAW resonator 22) comprising:
as per claim 10, a first electrode (e.g. electrode 30) characterized by a first thickness (e.g. thickness t of electrode 30), the first electrode comprising a first metal (Paragraph 26; Electrode 30 is a metal layer.); a second electrode (e.g. electrode 28) characterized by a second thickness (e.g. thickness t of electrode 28), the second electrode comprising a second metal (Paragraph 26; Electrode 28 is a metal layer.); and a first piezoelectric layer (e.g. piezoelectric layer 24) disposed between the first electrode and the second electrode, the first piezoelectric being characterized by a third thickness (e.g. thickness t of layer 24); wherein: a total thickness comprising the first thickness; the second thickness and the third thickness is associated with two or more stress half-waves (Paragraphs 4 and 27; A stress profile 32 corresponding to a full wavelength of a sinusoid is fit within a thickness of the piezoelectric layers 24 and 26. Thus, a stress profile corresponding with half a wavelength is fit within each of the piezoelectric layers, and therefore a total thickness of the electrodes 30 and 28 and piezoelectric layers 24 and 26 is associated with two stress “half-waves”.); and the acoustic resonator device operates in a second thickness extension mode or higher (The Applicant in Paragraph 34 of the instant specification defines “thickness extension mode” based on number of distinct acoustic stress maxima. The resonator 22 in Fig. 6 includes two stress maxima in the stress profile 38, thus the resonator necessarily operates “in a second thickness extension mode”).);
as per claim 12, wherein the second electrode further comprises a third metal (e.g. coupler layer 36 which is a metal as stated in Paragraph 34); and
as per claim 13, a third electrode (e.g. coupler layer 36) and a second piezoelectric layer (e.g. piezoelectric layer 26), the second piezoelectric layer being disposed between the third electrode and the first electrode (Fig. 6; The layer 26 is disposed between the layer 36 and the layer 30.).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 5, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sadhu et al. US 2019/0305752 in view of Capanella-Pineda et al. US 2019/0089327.
As per claims 1 and 5, Sadhu et al. discloses in Fig. 4 an acoustic resonator device comprising:
as per claim 1, a first electrode (e.g. electrode 30) characterized by a first thickness (e.g. thickness t of electrode 30), the first electrode comprising a first metal (Paragraph 26; Electrode 30 is a metal layer.); a second electrode (e.g. electrode 28) characterized by a second thickness (e.g. thickness t of electrode 28), the second electrode comprising a second metal (Paragraph 26; Electrode 28 is a metal layer.); and a first piezoelectric layer (e.g. piezoelectric layers 26 and 24) disposed between the first electrode and the second electrode, the first piezoelectric being characterized by a third thickness (e.g. thickness t of each of the layers 26 and 24); wherein: a total thickness comprising the first thickness and the second thickness and the third thickness is associated with two or more stress half-waves (Paragraphs 4 and 27; A stress profile 32 corresponding to a full wavelength of a sinusoid is fit within a thickness of the piezoelectric layers 24 and 26. Thus, a stress profile corresponding with half a wavelength is fit within each of the piezoelectric layers, and therefore a total thickness of the electrodes 30 and 28 and piezoelectric layers 24 and 26 is associated with two stress “half-waves”.); and
as per claim 5, wherein the acoustic resonator device operates in a second thickness extension mode (The Applicant in Paragraph 34 of the instant specification defines “thickness extension mode” based on number of distinct acoustic stress maxima. The resonator 22 in Fig. 6 includes two stress maxima in the stress profile 38, thus the resonator necessarily operates “in a second thickness extension mode”).).
However, Sadhu et al. does not disclose the acoustic resonator device is characterized by an operating frequency of at least 5 GHz.
Capanella-Pineda et al. exemplarily discloses in Paragraph 2 that BAW resonators are widely used in high frequency applications and operate in a frequency range of 2 GHz to 16 GHz. Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have operated the BAW resonator of Sadhu et al. at any known frequency between 2-16 GHz, such as for example 7 GHz, as being an obvious design consideration of yielding expected results based on the exemplary teachings of Capanella-Pineda et al. As an obvious consequence of the modification, the combination would have necessarily included the acoustic resonator device is characterized by an operating frequency of at least 5 GHz (e.g. 7 GHz).
As per claim 11, Sadhu et al. discloses the acoustic resonator device of claim 10, but does not disclose wherein the second thickness extension mode is characterized by an operating frequency of at least 6 GHz.
Capanella-Pineda et al. exemplarily discloses in Paragraph 2 that BAW resonators are widely used in high frequency applications and operate in a frequency range of 2 GHz to 16 GHz. Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have operated the BAW resonator of Sadhu et al. at any known frequency between 2-16 GHz, such as for example 7 GHz, as being an obvious design consideration of yielding expected results based on the exemplary teachings of Capanella-Pineda et al. As an obvious consequence of the modification, the combination would have necessarily included wherein the second thickness extension mode is characterized by an operating frequency of at least 6 GHz (e.g. 7 GHz).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-4 and 6-9 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 14-20 are allowed. As per claim 14, the closest prior art Sadhu et al. discloses in Fig. 6 an acoustic resonator device comprising all of the limitations recited therein EXCEPT wherein the acoustic resonator device operates in a third thickness extension mode or higher.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAKESH PATEL whose telephone number is (571)272-0961. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM EST 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, 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.
/RAKESH B PATEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2843