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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/15/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues “adding dielectric layers to Hey-Shipton’s SAW resonators” (Remark: Pages 8-9). However, this is not the combination as the resonators type (SAW) is made/replaced by the bulk acoustic wave resonators type of Yantchev.
Applicant argues “dielectric layer thickness variation is not described as a technique to achieve the extracted pole resonators’ frequency offsets according to Hey-Shipton” (Remark: Page 9). In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). The dielectric layer thickness variation is taught by Yantchev ‘284 (Col. 7 lines 6-12, Figs. 5, 8) and also Yantchev (‘407: Fig. 11). With the bulk acoustic wave resonators of Yantchev being used, the variation technique of Yantchev would certainly be useable therewith.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning (Remark: Page 9), it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). Yantchev teaches resonance frequency is dependent on the diaphragm thickness (including both the piezoelectric thickness and the dielectric thickness; Col. 7 lines 6-12, Figs. 5, 8) and pitch (Fig. 8). It is reasonable to use the thicknesses and pitch variations to adjust/control for desired resonance frequencies. There is no improper hindsight to use the variation techniques as taught by Yantchev.
Applicant argues “that the dielectric layers of the plurality of series resonators are thicker than the dielectric layer of the extracted pole resonator whose resonance frequency is higher than the upper edge of the passband. The Office Action’s reasoning treats this as an automatic and predictable consequence of the frequency order disclosed in Hey-Shipton, but this conclusion rests on the unstated and unsupported assumption that dielectric thickness variation would be the exclusive means by which the frequency difference between the series resonators and the extracted pole resonators is achieved” (Remark: Page 10). The Examiner disagrees.
First, the claim, nor the combination, stated or required dielectric thickness variation would be the exclusive means by which the frequency difference between the series resonators and the extracted pole resonators. However, the thickness variations are required by the claim. Hey-Shipton discloses the resonance frequency of the extracted pole resonator higher than the upper edge of the passband (Col. 7 lines 33-35) also means higher than the resonance frequency of the series resonators. Yantchev teaches the dielectric thickness variations would result in difference in resonance frequency (Col. 7 lines 6-12, Figs. 5, 8). Therefore, with the bulk acoustic wave resonators of Yantchev being used, it naturally follows that the resonance frequency differences can be achieved by dielectric thickness variations. The “lower” resonance frequencies of the series resonators (as compared to the extracted pole resonator with resonance frequency higher than the upper edge of the passband) can be designed with “thicker” thickness as taught by Yantchev (Col. 7 lines 6-12, Figs. 5, 8) and useable therewith.
Applicant argues “In this case, neither Hey-Shipton nor Yantchev discloses or suggest an extracted pole filter in which dielectric layer thickness is varied to configure the resonance frequencies of the extracted pole resonators relative to series resonators. … Not to mention, all Yantchev’s shunt resonators are described as being thicker than any of the series, not thinner as the extracted pole resonators in shunt on the high side is current claimed.” (Remark: Page 10). The Examiner disagrees.
Again, in response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
It is not required that Hey-Shipton teaches dielectric thickness variations nor Yantchev teaches the extracted pole resonators individually. The combination is the filter of Hey-Shipton with the bulk acoustic wave resonators of Yantchev. The frequency requirement is set by Hey-Shipton with the resonance frequency of the extracted pole resonator higher than the upper edge of the passband (hence also resonance frequencies of the series resonators). The specific filter of Yantchev is not being applied. Yantchev’s dielectric thickness variations for resonators are used therewith to achieve the required resonance frequencies (as set by Hey-Shipton), which would result in the series resonators (with lower resonance frequencies) having thicker dielectric thicknesses than the extracted pole resonator (with higher resonance frequency).
Applicant argues for claims 13, 14: “’[n]either Hey-Shipton nor Yantchev teaches using pitch variation … to simultaneously set both a high-side and a low-side extracted pole resonance at opposite edges of the passband” (Remark: Page 11). The Examiner agrees, and the corresponding rejections have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in addition with Guyette US 2022/0109420 of record.
Guyette discloses low-side extracted pole resonator (XL1, XL2) to be made/added in the combination. The resonant frequency of the low-side extracted pole resonator is lower than the lower edge of the passband ([0047], [0055]). The resonant frequency of the high-side extracted pole resonator is higher than the upper edge of the passband is already taught by Hey-Shipton (Col. 7 lines 33-35; Fig. 5 item 530; though Guyette also teaches that with XH1, XH2). Yantchev teaches pitch variations affect resonance frequencies (Fig. 8; higher pitch has lower resonant frequency when other conditions are equal). Therefore, it is obvious to apply the pitch variation technique to obtain the required resonance frequencies to the high-side and low-side extracted pole resonators.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 4, 8-10, 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hey-Shipton US 10,230,350 in view of Yantchev US 10,992,284.
1. Hey-Shipton discloses a bandpass filter (Fig. 4) comprising: a plurality of acoustic resonators (X1, X3, X4, etc.) each comprising:
a piezoelectric layer (Fig. 1; item 105), an interdigital transducer (IDT 110, 120) on the piezoelectric layer and having a plurality of interleaved fingers, and wherein the plurality of acoustic resonators includes:
a plurality of series resonators (X1, X3, etc.) connected in series between an input and an output of the bandpass filter,
a plurality of shunt resonators (X4, X6, etc.) that are each connected between a ground and a node between a respective pair of the plurality of series resonators,
a first extracted pole resonator (X2) connected between the ground and a node between the input and a first series resonator from among the plurality of series resonators, and
a second extracted pole resonator (X10) connected between the ground and a node between the output and a last series resonator from among the plurality of series resonators, and
wherein one extracted pole resonator of the first and second extracted pole resonators has a resonance frequency that is higher than an upper edge of a passband of the bandpass filter (Col. 7 lines 33-35).
Hey-Shipton does not disclose the acoustic resonators are bulk acoustic resonators each comprising: a piezoelectric layer; an IDT having a plurality of interleaved fingers; and a dielectric layer disposed on and between the interleaved fingers of the IDT; and wherein a thickness of the respective dielectric layers of the plurality of series resonators is thicker than the thickness of respective dielectric layer of the one of the first and second extracted pole resonators that has the resonance frequency that is higher than the upper edge of the passband of the bandpass filter.
Yantchev exemplarily discloses a filter (Figs. 1, 2, 5, 6, etc.) comprising: a plurality of bulk acoustic resonators (S1-S5, P1-P4; XBARs) comprising: a piezoelectric layer (Fig. 2 item 110; Fig. 5 item 510), an IDT (Fig. 2 item 238; Fig. 5 item 536) on the piezoelectric layer and having a plurality of interleaved fingers; and a dielectric layer (Fig. 2 item 214, Col. 4 lines 51-53; Fig. 5 item 570, 575) disposed on and between the interleaved fingers of the IDT; and thickness of the dielectric layer affects resonance frequencies of resonators (Col. 6 line 61 – Col. 7 line 12; Figs. 5, 8).
At the time of the filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have made/replaced the acoustic resonators as bulk acoustic resonators of Yantchev. The modification would have been obvious because the replacement of similar parts (MPEP 2143(I)(B)) and the bulk acoustic resonators are suited for use in high frequencies as taught by Yantchev (Col. 3 lines 21-23).
Further, due to the one extracted pole resonator has a higher resonance frequency than the upper edge (Hey-Shipton: Col. 7 lines 33-35, Fig. 5 item 530), it would have higher resonance frequencies than the series resonators that created the passband. The series resonators, being lower resonance frequencies can be designed with thicker dielectric layer thicknesses than that of the one extracted pole resonator (Yantchev: Col. 7 lines 6-12, Figs. 5, 8).
3. The bandpass filter according to claim 1, wherein each of the plurality of bulk acoustic resonators comprises a substrate (Yantchev: Fig. 1 item 120) and an intermediate dielectric layer (122) that couples the substrate to the piezoelectric layer, and wherein the piezoelectric layer includes a diaphragm (115) over a cavity (140) in the intermediate dielectric layer with the interleaved fingers of the respective IDT on the diaphragm (Col. 9 lines 4-17).
4. The bandpass filter according to claim 1, wherein a thickness of the respective dielectric layers of each of the first and second extracted pole resonators is different than a thickness of the respective dielectric layers of the plurality of series resonators and the plurality of shunt resonators (Hey-Shipton: Col. 7 lines 33-35, Fig. 5 item 530: transmission zero at frequencies higher than the passband means that the resonance frequencies are higher than that of the series and shunt resonators which created the passband; Yantchev: Col. 7 lines 6-12, Figs. 5, 8: the resonance frequencies depend on thicknesses, with lower resonance frequencies having thicker dielectric thickness).
8. The combination discloses the bandpass filter according to claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose a thickness of the respective piezoelectric layers of each of the first and second extracted pole resonators is different than a thickness of the respective piezoelectric layers of the plurality of series resonators and the plurality of shunt resonators. However, Hey-Shipton discloses the X2/X10 resonators have higher resonance frequencies (Col. 7 lines 33-35; Fig. 5 item 530) and Yantchev discloses the resonance frequency is highly dependent on the thickness of the diaphragm (Col. 7 lines 6-12, piezoelectric thickness is part of the diaphragm), thus at the time of the filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have made the piezoelectric thicknesses (to affect diaphragm thicknesses) of the extracted pole resonators to be different from that of the series and shunt resonators. The modification would have been obvious as a mean to achieve the different in resonance frequencies (Hey-Shipton: Col. 7 lines 33-35; Yantchev: Col. 7 lines 6-12).
9. The bandpass filter according to claim 1, wherein a stack (diaphragm) thickness of each of the first and second extracted pole resonators is different than a stack thickness of the plurality of series resonators and the plurality of shunt resonators (Hey-Shipton: Col. 7 lines 33-35; Yantchev: Col. 7 lines 6-12).
10. The bandpass filter according to claim 9, wherein the stack thickness of the plurality of series resonators is thicker than the stack thickness of the one of the first and second extracted pole resonators that has the resonance frequency that is higher than the upper edge of the passband of the bandpass filter (Hey-Shipton: Col. 7 lines 33-35; Yantchev: Col. 7 lines 6-12, Figs. 5, 8; extracted pole resonators have higher resonance frequencies so that their thickness is “thinner”, thus the series resonators would have “thicker” thicknesses).
16. The bandpass filter according to claim 1, wherein the respective IDTs of each of the plurality of bulk acoustic resonators are configured to excite primary shear acoustic waves in the respective piezoelectric layer in response to a radio frequency signal or a microwave signal applied to the IDT (Yantchev: XBAR, title; Col. 4 lines 15-21).
Claim(s) 2, 6, 7, 11-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Hey-Shipton US 10,230,350 in view of Yantchev US 10,992,284 as applied to claims 1, 5, 10 above, and further in view of Guyette US 2022/0109420.
2. The combination discloses the invention as discussed above, but does not disclose the other of the first and second extracted pole resonators has a resonance frequency that is lower than a lower edge of the passband of the bandpass filter.
Guyette discloses a filter (Fig. 3A) comprising: a filter section (310) between input and output ports (FP1, FP2); low extracted pole resonators (XL1, XL2) between the ports and ground; high extracted pole resonators (XH1, XH2) between the ports and ground; the low extracted pole resonators provide transmission zeros (resonance frequencies) lower than a lower edge of the passband ([0047]; [0055]); the high extracted pole resonators provide transmission zeros (resonance frequencies) higher than an upper edge of the passband ([0047]; [0055]).
At the time of the filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have made/added the other extracted pole resonator as a low extracted pole resonator to the filter. The modification would have been obvious because the low extracted pole resonators would provide transmission zeroes at the lower edge of the passband to help shape the filter response and reduce insertion loss at the lower edge as taught by Guyette (abstract; Fig. 3A, 5).
6. The combination discloses the invention as discussed above, but does not disclose the thickness of the respective dielectric layers of the plurality of shunt resonators is thinner than the thickness of respective dielectric layer of the other of the first and second extracted pole resonators that has a resonance frequency that is lower than a lower edge of the passband of the bandpass filter.
Guyette discloses a filter (Fig. 3A) comprising: a filter section (310) between input and output ports (FP1, FP2); low extracted pole resonators (XL1, XL2) between the ports and ground; high extracted pole resonators (XH1, XH2) between the ports and ground; the low extracted pole resonators provide transmission zeros (resonance frequencies) lower than a lower edge of the passband ([0047]; [0055]); the high extracted pole resonators provide transmission zeros (resonance frequencies) higher than an upper edge of the passband ([0047]; [0055]).
At the time of the filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have made/added low extracted pole resonator(s) to the filter. The modification would have been obvious because the low extracted pole resonators would provide transmission zeroes at the lower edge of the passband to help shape the filter response and reduce insertion loss at the lower edge as taught by Guyette (abstract; Fig. 3A, 5).
As a result of the combination, the low extracted pole resonator would have a lower resonance frequency than that of the shunt resonators, so that the thickness of the dielectric layer for the low extracted pole resonator can be designed to be “thicker” in order for the low extracted pole resonator to have the lower resonance frequency and that of the shunt resonators would be “thinner” in order for shunt resonators to have the higher resonance frequency as taught by Yantchev (Col. 7 lines 6-12; Figs. 5, 8).
7. The bandpass filter according to claim 6, wherein the respective thicknesses of the dielectric layers of the plurality of bulk acoustic resonators are measured in a direction orthogonal to surfaces of the respective piezoelectric layers (Yantchev: Fig. 2).
11. For brevity, low extracted pole resonator(s) is made/added as similarly discussed in claims 2 or 6 above. The low extracted pole resonator would have a lower resonance frequency than that of the shunt resonators, so that the stack thickness (diaphragm) for the low extracted pole resonator would be “thicker” and that of the shunt resonators would be “thinner” (Guyette: [0047], [0055]; abstract; Fig. 3A, 5; Yantchev: Col. 7 lines 6-12, Figs. 5, 8).
12. The bandpass filter according to claim 11, wherein the respective stack thicknesses of the plurality of bulk acoustic resonators are measured in a direction orthogonal to surfaces of the respective piezoelectric layers (Yantchev: Fig. 2).
13. The combination discloses the bandpass filter according to claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose a pitch of the respective IDTs of each of the first and second extracted pole resonators is different than a pitch of the respective IDTs of the plurality of series resonators and the plurality of shunt resonators, and wherein the difference in pitch is selected to set one extracted pole resonance above the upper edge of the passband and the other resonance below the lower edge of the passband.
Guyette discloses a filter (Fig. 3A) comprising: a filter section (310) between input and output ports (FP1, FP2); low extracted pole resonators (XL1, XL2) between the ports and ground; high extracted pole resonators (XH1, XH2) between the ports and ground; the low extracted pole resonators provide transmission zeros (resonance frequencies) lower than a lower edge of the passband ([0047]; [0055]); the high extracted pole resonators provide transmission zeros (resonance frequencies) higher than an upper edge of the passband ([0047]; [0055]).
At the time of the filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have made/added low extracted pole resonator(s) to the filter. The modification would have been obvious because the low extracted pole resonators would provide transmission zeroes at the lower edge of the passband to help shape the filter response and reduce insertion loss at the lower edge as taught by Guyette (abstract; Fig. 3A, 5).
Effectively the filter has high extracted pole resonator (Hey-Shipton: Col. 7 lines 33-35; X2/X10; Guyette: XH1, XH2) with resonance frequency higher than the upper edge of the passband (mapped as one extracted pole resonator) and low extracted pole resonator (Guyette: XL1, XL2) with resonance frequency lower than the lower edge of the passband (mapped as other extracted pole resonator).
Yantchev also discloses the resonance frequency can be affected by pitch of the IDT (Fig. 8), thus at the time of the filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have made the pitches of the extracted pole resonators to be different from that of the series and shunt resonators and the difference in pitch is selected to set one extracted pole resonance above the upper edge of the passband and the other resonance below the lower edge of the passband. The modification would have been obvious as pitch is also a mean to achieve the different in resonance frequencies (Yantchev: Fig. 8).
14. The bandpass filter according to claim 13, wherein the pitch of the respective IDTs of the plurality of series resonators is larger than a pitch of the one extracted pole resonator that has the resonance frequency that is higher than the upper edge of the passband of the bandpass filter (Hey-Shipton: Col. 7 lines 33-35; Yantchev: Fig. 8; X2/X10 have higher resonance frequencies, so the pitch can be made "smaller" as shown in Yantchev, thus the series resonators having resonance frequencies "lesser" than, the resonance frequency of the one/high extracted pole resonator that is higher than the upper edge of the passband, would have "larger" pitch); the one extracted pole resonator (Hey-Shipton: X2/X10) being connected between ground and a node between the output and the last series resonator or between ground and a node between the input and the first series resonator (see Hey-Shipton: Fig. 4).
15. The bandpass filter according to claim 14, wherein the pitch of the respective IDTs of the plurality of shunt resonators is less than a pitch of the other extracted pole resonator that has the resonance frequency that is lower than the lower edge of the passband of the bandpass filter (Guyette: abstract, [0047], [0055], Figs. 3A, 5; the low extracted pole resonator XL1/XL2 would have a lower resonance frequency than that of the shunt resonators; Yantchev: Fig. 8 teaches pitches can affect resonance frequency as discussed above; thus the shunt resonators having resonance frequencies “higher” than the resonance frequency of the low/other extracted pole resonator that is lower than the lower edge of the passband, would have “lesser” pitch.
Claim(s) 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Hey-Shipton US 10,230,350 in view of Yantchev US 10,992,284 and Guyette US 2022/0109420.
18. Hey-Shipton discloses a bandpass filter (Fig. 4) comprising: a plurality of acoustic resonators (X1, X3, X4, etc.) each comprising:
a piezoelectric layer (Fig. 1 item 105), an interdigital transducer (IDT 110, 120) on the piezoelectric layer and having a plurality of interleaved fingers, and wherein the plurality of acoustic resonators includes:
a plurality of series resonators (X1, X3, etc.) connected in series between an input and an output,
a plurality of shunt resonators (X4, X6, etc.) that are each connected between a ground and a node that is between a respective pair of series resonators of the plurality of series acoustic resonators,
a high side extracted pole resonator (X2, X10) connected between the ground and either the input or the output, and wherein the high side extracted pole resonator has a resonance frequency that is higher than an upper edge of a passband of the bandpass filter (Col 7 lines 33-35).
Hey-Shipton does not disclose the acoustic resonators are bulk acoustic resonators each comprising: a piezoelectric layer; an IDT having a plurality of interleaved fingers; and a dielectric layer disposed on and between the interleaved fingers of the IDT; a low side extracted pole resonator connected between the ground and the other of the input or the output, wherein the low side extracted pole resonator has a resonance frequency that is lower than a lower edge of a passband of the bandpass filter, and wherein a thickness of the respective dielectric layers of each of the plurality of series resonators is thicker than a thickness of respective dielectric layer of the high side extracted pole resonator.
Yantchev exemplarily discloses a filter (Figs. 1, 2, 5, 6, etc.) comprising: a plurality of bulk acoustic resonators (S1-S5, P1-P4; XBARs) comprising: a piezoelectric layer (Fig. 2 item 110; Fig. 5 item 510), an IDT (Fig. 2 item 238; Fig. 5 item 536) on the piezoelectric layer and having a plurality of interleaved fingers; and a dielectric layer (Fig. 2 item 214, Col. 4 lines 51-53; Fig. 5 item 570, 575) disposed on and between the interleaved fingers of the IDT; and thickness of the dielectric layer affects resonance frequencies of resonators (Col. 6 line 61 – Col. 7 line 12; Figs. 5, 8).
Guyette discloses a filter (Fig. 3A) comprising: a filter section (310) between input and output ports (FP1, FP2); low extracted pole resonators (XL1, XL2) between the ports and ground; high extracted pole resonators (XH1, XH2) between the ports and ground; the low extracted pole resonators provide transmission zeros (resonance frequencies) lower than a lower edge of the passband ([0047]; [0055]); the high extracted pole resonators provide transmission zeros (resonance frequencies) higher than an upper edge of the passband ([0047]; [0055]).
At the time of the filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have made/replaced the acoustic resonators as bulk acoustic resonators of Yantchev. The modification would have been obvious because the replacement of similar parts (MPEP 2143(I)(B)) and the bulk acoustic resonators are suited for use in high frequencies as taught by Yantchev (Col. 3 lines 21-23).
Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have made/added low extracted pole resonator(s) to the filter as the low side extracted pole resonator. The modification would have been obvious because the low extracted pole resonators would provide transmission zeroes at the lower edge of the passband to help shape the filter response and reduce insertion loss at the lower edge as taught by Guyette (abstract; Fig. 3A, 5).
Further, due to the high side extracted pole resonator has a higher resonance frequency than the upper edge (Hey-Shipton: Col. 7 lines 33-35, Fig. 5 item 530), it would have higher resonance frequencies than the series resonators that created the passband. The series resonators, being lower resonance frequencies can be designed with thicker dielectric layer thicknesses than that of the high side extracted pole resonator (Yantchev: Col. 7 lines 6-12, Figs. 5, 8).
19. The bandpass filter according to claim 18, wherein: a stack thickness of the plurality of series resonators is thicker than a stack thickness of the high side extracted pole resonator (Hey-Shipton: Col. 7 lines 33-35, Fig. 5; Yantchev: Col. 7 lines 6-12, Figs. 5, 8; high side extracted pole resonator would have “higher” resonance frequency than that of the series resonator so that the stack thickness of the high side extracted pole resonator is “thinner” and that of the series resonator is “thicker”),
a stack thickness of the plurality of shunt resonators is thinner than a stack thickness of the low side extracted pole resonator (Guyette: [0047], [0055]; Yantchev: Col. 7 lines 6-12, Figs. 5, 8; low side extracted pole resonator would have “less” resonance frequency that that of shunt resonator so that the stack thickness of low side extracted pole resonator is “thicker” and that of shunt resonator is “thinner”); and
the respective stack thicknesses of the plurality of bulk acoustic resonators are measured in a direction orthogonal to surfaces of the respective piezoelectric layers (Yantchev: Fig. 2).
20. The bandpass filter according to claim 18, wherein the respective IDTs of each of the plurality of bulk acoustic resonators are configured to excite primary shear acoustic waves in the respective piezoelectric layer in response to a radio frequency signal or a microwave signal applied to the IDT (Yantchev: XBAR, title; Col. 4 lines 15-21).
Claim(s) 1, 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hey-Shipton US 10,230,350 in view of Yantchev US 11,165,407.
1, 17. For brevity, Hey-Shipton discloses the invention as discussed above, but does not disclose Hey-Shipton does not disclose the acoustic resonators are bulk acoustic resonators each comprising: a piezoelectric layer; an IDT having a plurality of interleaved fingers; and a dielectric layer disposed on and between the interleaved fingers of the IDT; a substrate and a Bragg reflector that couples the substrate to the piezoelectric layer.
Yantchev ‘407 discloses an acoustic resonator (Figs. 2, 3, etc.) comprising: a substrate (220); a Bragg reflector (340), a piezoelectric layer (210), IDT (236) having a plurality of interleaved fingers on the piezoelectric layer; a dielectric layer (314) disposed on and between the interleaved fingers of the IDT (Col. 5 lines 49-55); and a thickness of the dielectric layer affects resonant frequency of the resonator (Fig. 11).
At the time of the filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have made/replaced the acoustic resonators as bulk acoustic resonators of Yantchev ‘407. The modification would have been obvious because the replacement of similar parts (MPEP 2143(I)(B)) and the bulk acoustic resonators are suited for use in high frequencies as taught by Yantchev ‘407 (Col. 4 lines 51-53).
Further, due to the one extracted pole resonator has a higher resonance frequency than the upper edge (Hey-Shipton: Col. 7 lines 33-35, Fig. 5 item 530), it would have higher resonance frequencies than the series resonators that created the passband. The series resonators, being lower resonance frequencies can be designed with thicker dielectric layer thicknesses than that of the one extracted pole resonator (Yantchev ‘407: Fig. 11).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action (e.g., claims 13, 14 are rejected with addition of Guyette US 2022/0109420). 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 ALAN WONG whose telephone number is (571)272-3238. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 10am - 7:00pm.
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, 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.
/A.W/Examiner, Art Unit 2843
/ANDREA LINDGREN BALTZELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2843
Prosecution Insights