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 § 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.
Claim(s) 1-6, 8-16 and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Solal et al. (US 8610518) in view of Caron et al. (US 20210167752).
As to claim 1, Solal et al.’s figures 1 and 2 show a surface acoustic wave device comprising: (a first bulk acoustic wave resonator comprising) a first interdigital transducer electrode (14) in electrical communication with a first piezoelectric layer (12); and (a second bulk acoustic wave resonator comprising) a second interdigital transducer electrode (20) in electrical communication with a second piezoelectric layer (18), the first and second interdigital transducer electrodes positioned between at least a portion of the first piezoelectric layer and at least a portion of the second piezoelectric layer such that the second interdigital transducer electrode is configured to transduce a wave generated by the first interdigital transducer electrode. The figure fails to show that each of the first and second bulk acoustic wave resonators further comprises a support substrate, a functional layer and a trap rich layer arranged as claimed. However, Caron et al.’s figure 2A shows a bulk acoustic wave resonator comprises comprising a functional layer (20) between the support substrate (17) and piezoelectric layer (12), and a trap rich layer (22) between the support substrate and the functional layer. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to further add a substrate, functional layer, and trap rich layer arranged as claimed for each of Solal et al.’s first and second bulk acoustic wave resonators for the purpose of reducing noise.
As to claim 2, Solal et al.’s figures show a first pair of reflectors and a second pair of reflectors (see figure 2), wherein the first interdigital transducer electrode is positioned longitudinally between the first pair of reflectors, and the second interdigital transducer electrode is positioned longitudinally between the second pair of reflectors.
As to claim 3, Solal et al.’s figures show a dielectric layer (24) between the first and second piezoelectric layers.
As to claim 4, Solal et al.’s figures show that the dielectric layer is a silicon dioxide layer (col. 3, lines 57-65).
As to claim 5, Solal et al.’s figures fail to show that a thickness of the dielectric layer is in a range of 0.1L to 0.5L. However, selecting the thickness as claimed is seen as an obvious design preference to ensure optimum performance, see MPEP 2144.05.
As to claim 6, Solal et al.’s figures show that a pitch of the first interdigital transducer electrode and a pitch of the second interdigital transducer electrode are the same.
As to claim 8, Solal et al.’s figure 3 shows a first input/output terminal electrically coupled to the first interdigital transducer electrode, and a second input/output terminal electrically coupled to the second interdigital transducer electrode, the first and second input/output terminals exposed on a surface of the acoustic wave device.
As to claim 9, electrical via is well known in the art. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to set the first input/output terminal electrically to couple to the first interdigital transducer electrode by way of a first conductive via, and the second input/output terminal electrically to couple to the second interdigital transducer electrode by way of a second conductive via for the purpose achieving optimum space occupation.
As to claim 10, the modified Solal et al.’s figures show that the first piezoelectric layer is disposed on the first support substrate (Caron et al.’s 17 in the first bulk acoustic resonator) and the second piezoelectric layer is disposed on a second support substrate (Caron et al.’s 17 in the second bulk acoustic resonator) such that the first and second piezoelectric layers are positioned between the first and second support substrates.
As to claim 11, Solal et al.’s figures show that the first interdigital transducer electrode is disposed on, partially within, or embedded in the first piezoelectric layer.
Claims 12-16 and 18 recite similar limitations in claims above. Therefore, they are rejected for the same reasons.
As to claims 19 and 20, selecting the thickness as claimed is seen as an obvious design preference to ensure optimum performance, see MPEP 2144.05.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Solal et al. (US 8610518) in view of Caron et al. (US 20210167752) and Hatakayama et al. (US 20220416757).
As to claim 7, Solal et al.’s figures fail to show that a pitch of the first interdigital transducer electrode and a pitch of the second interdigital transducer electrode are different. However, Hatakeyama et al.’s figure 1 shows a similar device that its transducers have different pitches. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to select different pitches for Solal et al.’s transducers for the purpose of achieving desired filtering frequency.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Solal et al.’s figure shows a stack of first and second bulk acoustic resonators. Caron et al.’s figure shows a low noise bulk acoustic resonator comprises the layers as claimed. One skilled in the art would have motivated to further add support substrate, functional layer and trap rich layer for Solal et al.’s first and second bulk acoustic resonators for the purpose of reducing noise.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANH-QUAN TRA whose telephone number is (571)272-1755. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri from 8:00 A.M.-5:00 P.M.
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, Lincoln Donovan can be reached at 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.
/QUAN TRA/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2842