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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Specification
The specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant's cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Drawings
Figures 4 and 6 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. 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 § 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 of this title, 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 1-8, 11, 12, 15 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peng (WO-2022095196, using US2023/0396228 as the translation, hereinafter Peng).
Regarding claim 1, Peng bulk acoustic resonator, comprising: a substrate (4); a first electrode (3), wherein an acoustic reflection structure (5) is arranged between the first electrode and the substrate; a second electrode (1), wherein a piezoelectric layer (2) is arranged between the second electrode and the first electrode, wherein in a direction perpendicular to the substrate, an overlapping region of the acoustic reflection structure, the first electrode, the piezoelectric layer and the second electrode is an active region (by definition), and the active region is annular (Figs. 4, 5). Peng is silent regarding a relationship between the active area and the distance to the center of the resonator satisfying the relationship 0.1<W/D<10. However, Peng discloses reducing the temperature rise of the BAW resonator by changing the resonance region closer to the edges of the resonator. Peng discloses forming a hole to form a ring-shaped active area. Fig. 7 shows increasing the diameter of the hole (12) decreases the temperature rise of the acoustic device. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to provide a ring structure, which improves the heat transfer and reduces the temperature rise in the acoustic wave device.
Regarding claims 2-4, t is the examiner’s position that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at before the effective filing date of the instant application to determine the specific dimensions of the inactive region and the active region since it has been held by the courts that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device, and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). It should be noted that Peng’s invention is directed to reducing the rise in temperature similar to the instant application.
Regarding claim 5, in the direction perpendicular to the substrate, at least one of the acoustic reflection structure, the piezoelectric layer, the first electrode, and the second electrode is annular, to form the active region that is annular.
Regarding claim 6, the acoustic reflection structure (5) is arranged on an upper surface of the substrate or embedded inside the substrate.
Regarding claim 7, Peng is silent regarding the height of the acoustic reflection structure. However, it is the examiner's position that determining the optimum height of the acoustic reflection structure is an obvious matter of design choice and it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine the thickness as necessitated by the specific requirements of the particular application.
Regarding claim 8, Peng shows in Fig. 10 a dielectric block in a central region of the acoustic reflection region as claimed.
Regarding claim 11, a gap is provided between the piezoelectric layer and the second electrode (11, see Fig. 2), and/or a gap is formed between the first electrode and the piezoelectric layer, and the gap is located in the inactive region.
Regarding claim 12, Figs. 10 and 11 show the piezoelectric layer comprising a recessed part.
Regarding claim 15, Peng discloses the resonator assembly as recited, but fails to disclose the packaging film. However, a packaging film sealing the active area is a required structure to maintain the environmental dust and humidity away from the active portion in order to maintain the vibration characteristics of the BAW element. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to provide a packaging structure.
Regarding claims 18 and 19, paragraph [0064] discloses the filter and the electronic device.
Regarding claim 20, the method for manufacturing the BAW resonator is disclosed by Peng as disclosed above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-10, 13, 14, 16-17 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. See PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jaydi San Martin whose telephone number is (571)272-2018. The examiner can normally be reached on M-Th 7:45-6:00pm.
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, Dedei Hammond can be reached on 571-270-7938. 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.
/J. San Martin/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2837
Prosecution Insights