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 § 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 4-8, 13, 14 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Maeda (USPAT 7,902,721 B2).
In regards to claim 1, Maeda teaches in annotated Fig. 7 below and Fig. 9 an acoustic wave device comprising:
A first electrode (bottom electrode can be seen in related fig. 1(b));
A piezoelectric layer (present but not labeled) disposed at least partially on the first electrode;
A second electrode (51) disposed at least partially on the piezoelectric layer, the second electrode comprising:
A second electrode body having a second outline (Annotated outline A); and
A plurality of second protrusions (Annotated protrusions B1-B6) extending from the second outline of the second electrode body, wherein two ends of two adjacent ones of the plurality of second protrusions are separated by a second gap (e.g. 51a-51f), and the second gap exposes at least a portion of the piezoelectric layer.
In regards to claim 4, based on annotated Fig. 7 below, wherein a ratio of a maximum dimension (i.e. area) of one of the plurality of second protrusions (Annotated Protrusions B2 or B5) on a horizontal plane and a maximum dimension of the second electrode body on the horizontal plane is between 0.05 and 1.0 (based on Fig 7 and based on Table 1, the area dimension of the protrusion will be between 0.05 to 1.0 of the area dimension of the second electrode body).
In regards to claim 5, based on annotated Fig. 7 below, a portion of the plurality of second protrusions are evenly distributed along at least a portion of the second outline of the second electrode body (i.e. spacing between annotated protrusion B4, B5 and B9 is evenly distributed).
In regards to claim 6, based on annotated Fig. 7 below, a portion of the plurality of second protrusions are unevenly distributed along at least a portion of the second outline of the second electrode body (i.e. spacing between annotated protrusion B2, B3 and B4 is uneven).
In regards to claims 7 and 8, based on annotated Fig. 7 below, one of the plurality of second protrusions (Annotated protrusions B2) has an trapezoid outline of a shape a short side, two lateral sides, and a long side; wherein the long side contacts the second outline (Annotated outline A) of the second electrode body.
In regards to claim 13, based on annotated Fig. 7 below, wherein the second outline (Annotated outline A) of the second electrode body has a polygon shape.
In regards to claim 14, based on annotated Fig. 7 below, the second electrode further comprises: a second connection (511) disposed at the second outline of the second electrode body and electrically connected to the second electrode body.
In regards to claim 18, based on Fig. 1(b) and Fig. 9, the first electrode comprises a first/bottom surface and a second/top surface, and the piezoelectric layer is disposed at the second/top surface of the first electrode; and the acoustic wave device further comprises a package substrate (91) disposed at the first surface of the first electrode.
PNG
media_image1.png
428
676
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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.
Claims 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maeda (USPAT 7,902,721 B2) in view of Rivas et al. (US2017/0122936 A1).
As discussed above, Maeda teaches the claimed invention as recited in claim 18. Maeda does not teach: in regards to claim 19, wherein the substrate comprises a reflector in the substrate, and the reflector, the first electrode, the piezoelectric layer, and the second electrode are at least partially overlapped in a vertical direction; and in regards to claim 20, wherein the reflector comprises an air cavity and/or a plurality of stacked layers.
Rivas et al. teaches in Fig. 3 an acoustic wave package comprising: a support/package substrate (12), an acoustic reflector (14) comprising a plurality of stacked layers, a first electrode (20), a piezoelectric layer (26), a second electrode (28), in which the reflector, the first electrode, the piezoelectric layer, and the second electrode are at least partially overlapped in a vertical direction. Based on paragraph [0017], the acoustic reflector (14) provides the benefit of reducing/preventing dissipation of acoustic energy in the package substrate.
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the invention of Maeda and have added an acoustic reflector between the acoustic resonator and package substrate of Maeda (i.e. the reflector, the first electrode, the piezoelectric layer, and the second electrode at least partially overlapped in a vertical direction) because such a modification would have provided the benefit of reducing/preventing dissipation of acoustic energy in the package substrate as taught by Rivas et al. (see Fig. 3 and paragraph [0017]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 3, 9-12 and 15-17 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Qian et al. (USPAT 11,233,496 B2) teaches in Fig. 4 an acoustic resonator comprising: a bottom electrode (405), a piezoelectric layer (403) and a top electrode (401), in which both the bottom and top electrodes comprise protrusions.
Chang et al. (US2017/0294893 A1) teaches in Figs. 1A and 1B an acoustic resonator comprising: a bottom electrode (1), a piezoelectric layer (2) and a top electrode (3), in which both the bottom and top electrodes comprise curved protrusions.
Song et al. (USPAT 9,385,303 B2) teaches in Figs. 1 and 2A an acoustic wave resonator comprising a top frame (140) comprising protrusions.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JORGE L SALAZAR JR whose telephone number is (571)-272-9326. The examiner can normally be reached between 9am - 6pm Monday-Friday.
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 on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JORGE L SALAZAR JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2843
Prosecution Insights