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 Objections
Claims 2, 4, 5, 9, 13, 16, 21 and 22 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 2, line 4; claim 4, lines 1-2; and claim 9, lines 2-3: the examiner suggests at each instance, rewriting “the bulk acoustic resonators” to --the two bulk acoustic resonators-- to provide consistency in the claim language.
Claim 4, line 3, the examiner suggests rewriting “a beam resonator the longest dimension” to --a beam resonator having a longest dimension-- to provide a more proper description and to avoid an antecedent issue.
Claim 5, line 2, the examiner suggests writing “the frequency” to --a frequency-- to avoid an antecedent issue.
Claim 5, lines 4-5, at both instances, the examiner suggests rewriting “the fundamental” to --a fundamental-- to avoid an antecedent issue.
Claim 5, lines 4-5, the examiner suggests rewriting “the first bulk acoustic resonator” to --a first bulk acoustic resonator of the two bulk acoustic resonators-- to avoid an antecedent issue and to provide a proper nexus to the previous defined “bulk acoustic resonators”.
Claim 5, lines 5-6, the examiner suggests rewriting “the second bulk acoustic resonator” to --a second bulk acoustic resonator of the two bulk acoustic resonators-- to avoid an antecedent issue and to provide a proper nexus to the previous defined “bulk acoustic resonators”.
Claim 13, line 1, the examiner suggests rewriting “the resonance” to --a resonance-- to avoid an antecedent issue.
Claim 16, line 2, the examiner suggests rewriting “the mass” to --a mass-- to avoid an antecedent issue.
Claim 21, line 2, the examiner suggests rewriting “the thickness” to --a thickness-- to avoid an antecedent issue.
Claim 22, line 3, the examiner suggests rewriting “the plane” to --a plane-- to avoid an antecedent issue.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 15, 21 and 25 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 15, line 2, note that the recitation of “is 50 µm or less, such as 20 µm or less” causes ambiguity in the claim since it is unclear if the recited “20 µm or less” supersedes the previous limitation of “is 50 µm or less”. Clarification is required.
Claim 21, lines 2-3, note that the recitation of “in the range from 0.5 µm to 4 µm, such as from 1 µm to 2 µm” causes ambiguity in the claim since it is unclear if the recited “from 1 µm to 2 µm” supersedes the previous limitation of “0.5 µm to 4 µm”. Clarification is required. For the purpose of examination, the examiner has interpreted that the claim only requires a range from “0.5 µm to 4 µm”.
Claim 25, lines 2-3, note that the recitation of “in the range from 7 MHz to 160 MHz such as in the range from 15 MHz to 110 MHz” causes ambiguity in the claim since it is unclear if the recited “from 15 MHz to 110 MHz” supersedes the previous limitation of “7 MHz to 160 MHz”. Clarification is required. For the purpose of examination, the examiner has interpreted that the claim only requires a range from “7 MHz to 160 MHz”.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, 7, 9, 11, 14, 19, 22, 24 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bannon III et al. (NPL “High-Q HF Microelectromechanical Filters”, Cited by Applicant).
In regards to claim 1, Bannon III et al. teaches in Figs. 1, 2 and 12 a clamped-clamped beam MEMS (microelectromechanical system) resonator assembly, comprising:
A support structure (Fig. 12: Silicon Substrate);
A resonator element (Resonator 1 and 2) suspended to the support structure; and
An actuator (Input Electrode) for exciting the resonator element to a resonance mode, wherein the resonator element comprises two bulk acoustic resonators (Resonators 1 and 2) and a flexural mode resonator (coupling spring), the said flexural mode resonator mechanically connects the two bulk acoustic resonators, and the MEMS resonator assembly is configured to vibrate in a collective resonance mode in which motions of the two bulk acoustic resonators are substantially in the same or 180 degrees shifted phase with respect to each other (See Fig. 2 in which the two resonators have a collective resonance mode that are symmetric/same or anti-symmetric/180° shifted).
In regards to claim 2, based on Fig. 2, the two bulk acoustic resonators are each length-extensional resonator (vibration occurs in the length extensional direction).
In regards to claim 3, based on Fig. 1, wherein one extending right side of a first of the two bulk acoustic resonators (Resonator 1) is connected by the flexural mode resonator (coupling spring) with one extending left side of a second of the two bulk acoustic resonators (Resonator 2).
In regards to claim 4, based on Fig. 2, the two bulk acoustic resonators resonate in a direction of vibration (extension direction), and the flexural mode resonator (coupling spring) is a beam resonator the longest dimension of which being oriented perpendicular to said direction of vibration.
In regards to claim 7, based on Fig. 1, the flexural mode resonator (coupling spring) is an in-plane flexural beam resonator (i.e. the coupling spring is a beam that is “in-plane” with resonators 1 & 2).
In regards to claim 9, based on Figs. 1 and 2, the flexural mode resonator (coupling spring) is mechanically connected to the bulk acoustic resonators at anti-nodal points of the bulk acoustic resonators (i.e. the coupling spring is connected between edges of both resonators 1 & 2, which would be “anti-nodal” points of both resonators 1 & 2).
In regards to claim 11, based on Fig. 1, the flexural mode resonator (coupling spring) is mechanically connected to a first (resonator 1) of the two bulk acoustic resonators at one or more connection points on a first/left side of the flexural mode resonator and to a second (resonator 2) of the two bulk acoustic resonators at one or more connection points on a second/right side, opposite, side of the flexural mode resonator.
In regards to claim 14, based on Fig. 1, wherein the actuator (input electrode) electrostatic actuator having a bias voltage connected to it.
In regards to claim 19, based on Fig. 1, a cavity (gap) separates the resonator element from the support structure.
In regards to claim 22, based on Fig. 1, a first (resonator 1) of the two bulk acoustic resonators and a second (resonator 2) of the two bulk acoustic resonators are tethered to the same support structure which is formed within a plane of the resonator element along a line which is in the middle of the first and second bulk acoustic resonators.
In regards to claim 24, based on Fig. 1, the flexural mode resonator (coupling spring) comprises a material portion which has a form of a rectangular frame.
In regards to claim 25, based on the 35 USC 112(b) interpretation above, based on the abstract, a frequency of the said collective resonance mode is at 8 MHz, which is within the range from 7 MHz to 160 MHz.
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.
Claims 20 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bannon III et al. (NPL “High-Q HF Microelectromechanical Filters”, Cited by Applicant) in view of Chen et al. (US2011/0187227 A1).
As discussed above, Bannon III et al. teaches the claimed invention as recited in claim 1. In regards to claim 21, in light of the 35 USC 112(b) interpretation above, Bannon III et al. further teaches in TABLE II, that each of the bulk acoustic resonators have a resonating portion having a thickness of 1.9 µm (1.9 µm being in the range from 0.5 µm to 4 µm) . However, Bannon III et al. discloses that the resonating portion is made from a polysilicon (see Fig. 12), therefore does not teach: in regards to claim 20, wherein the resonator element comprises a layer of piezoelectric AlN, Sc-doped AlN, ZnO, LiNbO3, or LiTaO3; and in regards to claim 21, wherein the resonator element comprises a layer of piezoelectric.
Chen et al. teaches in Fig. 2 a microelectromechanical resonator comprising a resonating portion made from a piezoelectric material (204). Based on Paragraphs [0032] and [0035], the resonator is a clamped-clamped beam/bridge resonator in which the piezoelectric material is made from aluminum nitride (AIN).
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the invention of Bannon III et al. and have replaced the resonating polysilicon material with a piezoelectric material made from aluminum nitride because such a modification would have been an art recognized replacement for a resonating material that can be used in a MEMS as suggested by Chen et al. (see Paragraphs [0032] and [0035]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5, 13, 16, 17 and 23 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.
Claim 15 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include 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.
Gounji et al. (USPAT 4,555,682) teaches in Fig. 5 two vibrators (20) which are mechanically coupled via coupler (52).
Jaakkola et al. (US2012/0038431 A1) teaches in Fig. 1A two resonator plates (10A and 10B) which are mechanically connected via a piezoelectric transducer (12).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JORGE L SALAZAR JR whose telephone number is (571)-272-9326. The examiner can normally be reached between 9am - 6pm Monday-Friday.
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 on 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 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.
/JORGE L SALAZAR JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2843