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) 12, 19-20 and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burak et al. (US 20220140806), newly cited.
As to claim 12, Burak et al.’s figure 2A shows an acoustic resonator 2001A comprising a piezoelectric layer 201A sandwiched between multilayer metal acoustic millimeter wave reflector top electrode 2015A and multilayer metal acoustic millimeter wave reflector bottom electrode 2013A. The figure fails to show the internal structure of the multilayer metal acoustic millimeter wave reflector top and bottom electrodes. However, figure 1A shows an acoustic resonator with internal structure of the multilayer metal acoustic millimeter wave reflector top and bottom electrodes (115 and 113). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to use the multilayer metal acoustic millimeter wave reflector top and bottom electrodes (115 and 113) in figure 1A for the top and bottom electrodes in figure 2A for the purpose of reducing noise, or use the piezoelectric layer 201A of figure 2A for piezoelectric stack 104 in figure 1A for the purpose of achieving desired resonant mode. Therefore, the modified figure 1A or 2A shows an overmoded acoustic resonator tuned to a fundamental frequency, comprising: a first Bragg mirror (119-133 in figure 1A) comprising alternating layers of a high impedance metal and a low impedance metal; a second Bragg mirror (137 and 139 in figure 1A) comprising alternating layers of a high impedance metal and low impedance metal; and a main cavity disposed between the first and second Bragg mirrors (that contains 201A in figure 2A used for 105-111 in figure 1A), the main cavity comprising a layer of piezoelectric material (201A); wherein a layer (119) of low impedance metal from the first Bragg mirror and a layer (137) of low impedance metal from the second Bragg mirror are in direct contact with opposite surfaces of the piezoelectric material respectively.
As to claim 19, figure 1A shows that the high acoustic impedance metal is Tungsten and the low acoustic impedance metal is Aluminum (¶0070).
As to claim 20, figure 1A shows that the active layers (119, 123…) in the first and second structures are composed of a material selected from a group consisting of Titanium, Aluminum, Chromium and Indium Tin Oxide (¶0070).
As to claim 23, selecting the number of layers for each of the top and/or bottom acoustic reflectors such that the acoustic resonator operates in a partially transduced 2nd overtone mode split between the main cavity and the low impedance metal layers of the first and second Bragg mirrors that are indirect contact with the piezoelectric material of the main cavity is seen as an obvious design preference to ensure optimum performance.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burak et al. (US 20220140806) in view of Ella et al. (US 20240097642).
As to claim 13, Burak et al.’s figure shows a first Aluminum routing layer (103, ¶0147) disposed on a surface of the first Bragg mirror opposite the main cavity; a second Aluminum routing layer (155, ¶0099) disposed on a surface of the second Bragg mirror opposite the main cavity. The figure fails to show a dielectric layer disposed on the routing layer of one of the first or second Bragg mirrors; and a substrate disposed on the dielectric layer opposite the routing layer. However, Ella et al.’s figure 1 shows a similar device that comprises a dielectric layer (142A, i.e., SiO2, ¶0028) disposed between routing layer 140A and substrate 112. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to dispose a dielectric layer between Burak et al.’s routing layer 103 and substrate (101) for the purpose of further limiting noise.
Claim(s) 14-17 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burak et al. (US 20220140806) in view of Ella et al. (US 20240097642) and Zhang (US 20110084779).
As to claim 14, the modified Burak et al.’s figure fails to show a stiffening layer disposed between the routing layer and the dielectric layer. However, Zhang’s 0017 teaches that dielectric material comprises at least one of or a combination of plurality of listed materials i.e., SiO2 and BCB. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to use a combination of SiO2 and BCB for the added dielectric layer for the purpose of improving reliability. Therefore, the modified Burak et al.’s figure shows that stiffening layer (SiO2) is disposed between the routing layer (103) and dielectric layer (BCB).
As to claim 15, Burak et al.’s figures show that other of the first or second structures is milled to define a top electrode and further wherein the one of the first or second structures is milled to define a bottom electrode.
As to claim 16, Burak et al.’s figure 1 shows an interconnect layer (171) disposed on the top electrode.
As to claim 17, Burak et al.’s figure 5 shows that the interconnect layer connects multiple acoustic resonators together in series.
As to claim 21, the modified Burak et al.’s figures show that the dielectric material is BCB.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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, 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.
/QUAN TRA/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2843