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 appl icant regards as his invention. Claim s 11 , 13, & 1 8-19 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. Claim 11 recites the limitation "the acoustic impedance of a region that is outside the frame structure" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 1 refers to “an acoustic impedance of an effective resonance region that is outside the frame structure,” but it is not clear if “the acoustic impedance” as per claim 11 is the same as that referred to above in claim 1. As such, it is not clear which acoustic impedance that is outside the frame structure (as the invention discloses multiple components with acoustic impedances outside of the frame structure) is referred to by the limitation of claim 11. Claim 13 recites the limitation " the cavity " in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 12 refers to “a Bragg reflection layer or a cavity” in the alternative, but does not positively cite “a cavity” to provide antecedent basis for “the cavity” of claim 13. For proper antecedent basis, claim 12 or claim 13 must positively cite the presence of “a cavity” to be referred to as “the cavity.” Claims 18 & 19 cite the limitation “ an uneven structure on the uneven structured surface thereof and an uneven structure on the uneven structured surface of the first material layer are arranged alternatively. ” It is not clear what is meant by the phrase “arranged alternatively.” The phrase is mention in the specification without further elaboration, but is not specifically shown in the figures in a way as to clarify the meaning of the phrase. It is not clear if the arrangement of each uneven structure are provided as alternatives as in a choice or alternate as in occurring or succeeding by turns, thus rendering the claims indefinite. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d): (d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.— Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph: Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers. Claims 4 , 11, & 15 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. In claim 1, a limitation is provided that the frame structure comprises “a second passivation layer, a first material layer, and a first passivation layer,” provided in the limitation as three separate components. The limitation of claim 4 provides the first material layer and the second passivation layer “fabricated as/from a same layer,” effectively removing the requirement of three separate components as required per claim 1, thus failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. As per claim 11, claim 1 cites the limitation “ an acoustic impedance of an effective resonance region corresponding to the frame structure is greater than an acoustic impedance of an effective resonance region that is outside the frame structure ,” which is similar to the limitation of claim 11 wherein “ the acoustic impedance of the effective resonance region corresponding to the frame structure is no less than the acoustic impedance of a region that is outside the frame structure. ” While not exactly the same, the limitation of claim 1 is narrower than that of claim 11, such that the limitation of claim 11 is met by the limitation of claim 1. Therefore claim 11 fails to further limit the subject matter of claim 1. As per claim 15, claim 14 provides a similar situation to that of claim 1, wherein a first dielectric layer with a second dielectric layer are provided with a third material layer arranged between the first and second dielectric layers, such that the limitation of claim 15 wherein “the first material layer and the first dielectric layer are fabricated as/from a same layer” conflicts with the stated limitation of claim 14, and thus fails to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements. 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. Claim(s) 1 , 5-7, 10-12, & 16-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Yen et al . (US PGPub 20200373908) As per claim 1: Yen et al. discloses in Fig s . 9 & 5 : A bulk acoustic resonator, comprising: a substrate ( 810 ) ; a bottom electrode ( 502/ 802 ) , a piezoelectric layer ( 503/ 803 ) , and a top electrode ( 501/ 801 ) that are stacked above the substrate; an acoustic reflection structure ( Bragg mirror 821 ) , arranged between the substrate and the bottom electrode, wherein an overlapping region of the bottom electrode, the piezoelectric layer, the top electrode, and the acoustic reflection structure is configured as an effective resonance region of the bulk acoustic resonator ( active region plus borders, as seen in Fig s . 5 & 9 ) ; and a frame structure ( layers above electrode 801 in border region 912 in Fig. 9, corresponding to acoustic reflector 520 and protective overcoat 822 ) , arranged at an edge of the effective resonance region, wherein the frame structure comprises a second passivation layer ( protective overcoat 822 ) , a first material layer ( flat conductive member 524 ) , and a first passivation layer ( flat dielectric layer 521 ) that are stacked above the top electrode; one end of the frame structure is located within the effective resonance region, another end of the frame structure extends at least to the edge of the effective resonance region to align with the edge (as seen in Fig. 5 ) , and an acoustic impedance of an effective resonance region corresponding to the frame structure is greater than an acoustic impedance of an effective resonance region that is outside the frame structure (acoustic mirror 520 comprises Tungsten, ~101 MRayls vs the piezoelectric layer being AlN [0032] and having an acoustic impedance of ~36 MRayls ) . As per claim 5: Yen et al. discloses in Figs. 9 & 5: the frame structure further comprises a second material layer (flat conductive member 523) arranged between the first material layer and the first passivation layer. As per claim 6: Yen et al. discloses in Figs. 9 & 5: the second material layer is made of a material different from a material of the first passivation layer and different from a material of the second passivation layer ([0035 & 0043]) . As per claim 7: Yen et al. discloses in Figs. 9 & 5: the second material layer is made of a metal material ([0035]) . As per claim 10: Yen et al. discloses in Figs. 9 & 5: an acoustic impedance of the second passivation layer is greater than an acoustic impedance of the first passivation layer ( SiN , [0043] with acoustic impedance ~20 MRayls , vs Silicon oxide [0035], ~13 MRayls ) . As per claim 11: Yen et al. discloses in Figs. 9 & 5: the acoustic impedance of the effective resonance region corresponding to the frame structure is no less than the acoustic impedance of a region that is outside the frame structure (acoustic mirror 520 comprises Tungsten, ~101 MRayls vs the piezoelectric layer being AlN [0032] and having an acoustic impedance of ~36 MRayls ) . As per claim 12: Yen et al. discloses in Figs. 9 & 5: the acoustic reflection structure is a Bragg reflection layer or a cavity (Bragg mirror 821) . As per claim 16: Yen et al. discloses in Figs. 9 & 5: an upper surface of the first material layer is configured as an uneven structured surface (Fig. 9 discloses the outer edges of the first material layer taper off, thus being uneven) . As per claim 17: Yen et al. discloses in Figs. 9 & 5: an upper surface of the second material layer is configured as an uneven structured surface (Fig. 9 discloses the outer edges of the second material layer taper off, thus being uneven) . As per claims 18 & 19 (as best understood): Yen et al. discloses in Figs. 9 & 5: an upper surface of a part of the first passivation layer corresponding to the first material layer is configured as an uneven structured surface (as seen in Fig. 9, wherein the layers forming Bragg mirror 920 spread beyond the edges of the resonator with uneven surfaces) , an uneven structure (additional layers above the first passivation layer) on the uneven structured surface thereof and an uneven structure on the uneven structured surface of the first material layer are arranged alternatively (one above the other) . As per claim 20: Yen et al. discloses in Figs. 9 & 5: A method for manufacturing a bulk acoustic resonator, comprising: providing a substrate (810) ; sequentially forming a bottom electrode (502/802) , a piezoelectric layer (503/803) , and a top electrode (501/801) on the substrate and forming an acoustic reflection structure (Bragg mirror 821) between the substrate and the bottom electrode, wherein an overlapping region of the bottom electrode, the piezoelectric layer, the top electrode and the acoustic reflection structure is configured as an effective resonance region of the bulk acoustic resonator (active region plus borders, as seen in Figs. 5 & 9) ; forming a frame structure (layers above electrode 801 in border region 912 in Fig. 9, corresponding to acoustic reflector 520 and protective overcoat 822) at an edge of the effective resonance region, wherein the frame structure comprises a second passivation layer (protective overcoat 822) , a first material layer (flat conductive member 524) , and a first passivation layer (flat dielectric layer 521) that are sequentially formed above the top electrode, one end of the frame structure is located within the effective resonance region, another end of the frame structure extends at least to the edge of the effective resonance region to align with the edge (as seen in Fig. 5) , and an acoustic impedance of an effective resonance region corresponding to the frame structure is greater than an acoustic impedance of an effective resonance region that is outside the frame structure (acoustic mirror 520 comprises Tungsten, ~101 MRayls vs the piezoelectric layer being AlN [0032] and having an acoustic impedance of ~36 MRayls ) . As per claim 21: Yen et al. discloses in Figs. 9 & 5: A filter ([0072]) , comprising the bulk acoustic resonator according to claim 1 (as rejected above). As per claim 22: Yen et al. discloses in Figs. 9 & 5 & 16 : An electronic device (SOC 1600) , comprising the bulk acoustic resonator according to claim 1 (as rejected above). 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. Claim (s) 1 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yen et al . (US PGPub 20200373908) As per claim 13: Yen et al. discloses in Fig. 13 the use of a cavity (released volume 1321) above a substrate (1310) in place of a lower acoustic reflector ([0049]). Yen et al. does not disclose in Figs. 5 & 9 A cavity is arranged inside the substrate or above the substrate. At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to replace the lower acoustic reflector of Fig. 9 of Yen et al. with a cavity inside or above the substrate as an art-recognized alternative/equivalent acoustic reflector as is well understood in the art and as described by Yen et al. ([0049]) Claim (s) 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yen et al . (US PGPub 20200373908) in view of Pollard (US PGPub 20210143792) . As per claim 8: Yen et al. does not disclose: both the first passivation layer and the second passivation layer cover the effective resonance region. Pollard discloses in Figs. 1 & 6: The use of a first passivation layer ( TiN ) and a second passivation layer (DL) to cover an effective resonance region of bulk acoustic wave resonator (as seen in Fig. 1), wherein the first passivation layer is used as an etch stop to allow for patterning of additional material above the top electrode (TE) ([0042]) and the second passivation layer is used for device passivation and frequency fine-tuning ([0046]). At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the first and second passivation layers of Pollard et al. as the first and second passivation layers of Yen et al. to provide the benefit of providing an etch-stop layer to protect the top electrode from etching (such as in the formation of opening 911) and to provide the benefit of device passivation and frequency-fine tuning as taught by Pollard ([0042 & 0046]). As per claim 9: Yen et al. does not disclose: the first passivation layer covers the effective resonance region, and the second passivation layer is arranged at the edge of the effective resonance region; or the second passivation layer covers the effective resonance region, and the first passivation layer is arranged at the edge of the effective resonance region. Pollard discloses in Figs. 1 & 6: The use of a second passivation layer (DL) to cover an effective resonance region of bulk acoustic wave resonator (as seen in Fig. 1), wherein the second passivation layer is used for device passivation and frequency fine-tuning ([0046]). At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the second passivation layer of Pollard et al. as the second passivation layer of Yen et al. to provide the benefit of providing device passivation and frequency-fine tuning as taught by Pollard ([0046]). Claim (s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yen et al . (US PGPub 20200373908) in view of Burak (US PGPub 20140354115) As per claim 14: Yen et al. discloses in Figs. 5 & 9: The acoustic reflector 520 comprises a first dielectric layer (flat dielectric member 521) and a second dielectric layer (flat dielectric member 522) , wherein the first dielectric layer is arranged between the nearest electrode (501) and the second dielectric layer; a third material layer (flat conductive member 523) is arranged between the first dielectric layer and the second dielectric layer, and the third material layer is arranged at the edge of the effective resonance region, one end of the third material layer is located within the effective resonance region, another end of the third material layer extends at least to the edge of the effective resonance region to align with the edge (as seen in Fig. 5) , and an acoustic impedance of an effective resonance region corresponding to the third material layer is greater than an acoustic impedance of an effective resonance region that is outside the third material layer (acoustic mirror 520 comprises Tungsten, ~101 MRayls vs the piezoelectric layer being AlN [0032] and having an acoustic impedance of ~36 MRayls ) . Yen et al. does not disclose: a first dielectric layer and a second dielectric layer, wherein the first dielectric layer is arranged between the bottom electrode and the second dielectric layer; a third material layer is arranged between the first dielectric layer and the second dielectric layer, and the third material layer is arranged at the edge of the effective resonance region, one end of the third material layer is located within the effective resonance region, another end of the third material layer extends at least to the edge of the effective resonance region to align with the edge, and an acoustic impedance of an effective resonance region corresponding to the third material layer is greater than an acoustic impedance of an effective resonance region that is outside the third material layer. Burak discloses in Fig. 3: The use of multi-interface frame patterns (150) that may comprise materials that are conductive and insulative ([0049]) at the edge of an effective resonance region of a bulk acoustic wave resonator (FBAR 300), wherein the frame patterns may be formed on the bottom electrode of a resonator in addition to the top electrode ([0098]). At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the acoustic reflector on the top electrode of Yen et al. to the bottom electrode as well as the top electrode as an art-recognized alternative/equivalent configuration for bulk resonator frame structures as taught by Burak ([0098]). As a consequence of the combination, the combination discloses a first dielectric layer and a second dielectric layer, wherein the first dielectric layer is arranged between the bottom electrode and the second dielectric layer; a third material layer is arranged between the first dielectric layer and the second dielectric layer, and the third material layer is arranged at the edge of the effective resonance region, one end of the third material layer is located within the effective resonance region, another end of the third material layer extends at least to the edge of the effective resonance region to align with the edge, and an acoustic impedance of an effective resonance region corresponding to the third material layer is greater than an acoustic impedance of an effective resonance region that is outside the third material layer. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT SAMUEL S OUTTEN whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-7123 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Andrea Lindgren Baltzell can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (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