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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-4, 7-9, 11-14, & 17-19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12074584, hereinafter, the ’84 patent. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
As per claims 1-4 of the present application, the limitations thereof are disclosed in claim 1 of the ’84 patent using substantially similar language.
As per claim 7 of the present application, the limitations thereof are disclosed in claim 4 of the ’84 patent using substantially similar language.
As per claims 8-9 of the present application, the limitations thereof are disclosed in claims 5-6, respectively, of the ’84 patent using substantially similar language.
As per claims 11-14 of the present application, the limitations thereof are disclosed in claim 8 of the ’84 patent using substantially similar language.
As per claim 17 of the present application, the limitations thereof are disclosed in claim 12 of the ’84 patent using substantially similar language.
As per claims 18-19 of the present application, the limitations thereof are disclosed in claims 13-14, respectively, of the ’84 patent using substantially similar language.
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 14 & 20 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.
Claims 14 & 20 recite the limitation "for each of the bulk resonators" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 14 & 20 are dependent upon independent claim 1, but features a preamble similar to that of claim 11 and its dependents, which is absent from claim 1, thus appearing to be intended to be dependent upon claim 11.
For examination purposes, “claim 1” of claims 14 & 20 will be interpreted to be --claim 11--.
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) 1-3, 6, & 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nakahashi (US PGPub 20120187799).
As per claim 1:
Nakahashi discloses in Fig. 1:
An acoustic resonator comprising:
a piezoelectric layer (2); and
an interdigital transducer (IDT) (3, shown in related Fig. 2 as 4, 5, or 6) having interleaved fingers on a surface of the piezoelectric layer, the interleaved fingers consisting of a first layer (adhesion layer 9) that directly contacts the piezoelectric layer, and a second layer (3a) on the first layer,
wherein the first layer comprises a different metal than the second layer (Ti vs one of Pt or W, [0040-0041]), and the first layer has a thickness that is less than a thickness of the second layer ([0039-0040]), and
wherein the thicknesses of the first and second layers are measured in a direction on which the piezoelectric layer, the first layer and the second layer are stacked.
As per claim 2:
Nakahashi discloses in Fig. 1:
a transverse acoustic impedance of the second layer is higher than a transverse acoustic impedance of the first layer (W or Pt vs Ti, [0040-0041]).
As per claim 3:
Nakahashi discloses in Fig. 1:
the thicknesses of the first and second layers are measured in a direction orthogonal to the surface of the piezoelectric layer (the vertical direction of Fig. 1, as per the definition of thickness being the height of a layer).
As per claim 6:
Nakahashi discloses in Fig. 1:
the thickness of the first layer is less than one-half of an acoustic wavelength within the first layer at a resonance frequency, and the thickness of the second layer is less than one-half of an acoustic wavelength within the second layer at the resonance frequency ([0039-0040]).
As per claim 8:
Nakahashi discloses in Fig. 1:
the first layer comprises aluminum or titanium ([0040]).
As per claim 9:
Nakahashi discloses in Fig. 1:
the second layer comprises chromium or tungsten ([0041]).
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 & 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishimura et al. (US PGPub 20090121584)
As per claim 1:
Nishimura et al. discloses in Figs. 3-6:
An acoustic resonator (title) comprising:
a piezoelectric layer (10, 20); and
an interdigital transducer (IDT) (11, 21) having interleaved fingers on a surface of the piezoelectric layer (as seen in related Fig. 1), the interleaved fingers consisting of a first layer (intermediate layer 12, 22) that directly contacts the piezoelectric layer, and a second layer (electrode layer 13, 23) on the first layer,
wherein the first layer comprises a different metal ([0066, 0088]) than the second layer ([0068, 0089]), and
wherein the thicknesses of the first and second layers are measured in a direction on which the piezoelectric layer, the first layer and the second layer are stacked.
Nishimura further discloses:
Parameters related to the shape of the electrode, particularly the line width and the film thickness may be adjusted to control the mass and thus the frequency characteristics of the resonator ([0096]).
Nishimura is silent regarding:
the first layer has a thickness that is less than a thickness of the second layer.
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the first layer to have a thickness that is less than a thickness of the second layer as the film thickness of each layer of the IDT is a design parameter for determining the mass of the electrode, as taught by Nishimura ([0096]) and further for controlling the electrical properties of the resonator, as is well understood in the art, and as one of a limited number of options (less than, greater than, equal to).
As per claim 2:
Nishimura et al. discloses in Figs. 3-6:
a transverse acoustic impedance of the second layer is higher than a transverse acoustic impedance of the first layer (W or Ta vs Al, [0066, 0068, 0088-0089]).
As per claim 3:
Nishimura et al. discloses in Figs. 3-6:
the thicknesses of the first and second layers are measured in a direction orthogonal to the surface of the piezoelectric layer (the vertical direction of Figs. 3-6, as per the definition of thickness being the height of a layer, and further disclosed as film thickness, [0096]).
As per claim 8:
Nishimura et al. discloses in Figs. 3-6:
the first layer comprises aluminum or titanium ([0066, 0088]).
As per claim 9:
Nishimura et al. discloses in Figs. 3-6:
the second layer comprises tungsten ([0068]).
As per claim 10:
Nishimura et al. discloses in Figs. 3-6:
the second layer has a sidewall that tapers inward as the second layer extends away from the piezoelectric layer at a range between approximately 70 and 80 degrees ([0090]).
Claim(s) 1-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the 2019 publication of Plessky et al. (5 GHz laterally-excited bulk-wave resonators (XBARs) based on thin platelets of lithium niobate), hereinafter Plessky 1. in view of Nishimura et al. (US PGPub 20090121584)
As per claim 1:
Plessky 1 discloses in Fig. 1:
An acoustic resonator (title) comprising:
a piezoelectric layer (LN); and
an interdigital transducer (IDT) (electrodes, shown in Fig. 1) having interleaved fingers on a surface of the piezoelectric layer,
the interleaved fingers consisting of a first layer that directly contacts the piezoelectric layer (Al, as disclosed in col. 2 para 2).
Plessky 1 does not disclose:
a second layer on the first layer, wherein the first layer comprises a different metal than the second layer, and the first layer has a thickness that is less than a thickness of the second layer, and wherein the thicknesses of the first and second layers are measured in a direction on which the piezoelectric layer, the first layer and the second layer are stacked.
Nishimura et al. discloses in Figs. 3-6:
An acoustic resonator (title) comprising:
a piezoelectric layer (10, 20); and
an interdigital transducer (IDT) (11, 21) having interleaved fingers on a surface of the piezoelectric layer (as seen in related Fig. 1), the interleaved fingers consisting of a first layer (intermediate layer 12, 22) that directly contacts the piezoelectric layer, and a second layer (electrode layer 13, 23) on the first layer,
wherein the first layer comprises a different metal ([0066, 0088]) than the second layer ([0068, 0089]), and
wherein the thicknesses of the first and second layers are measured in a direction on which the piezoelectric layer, the first layer and the second layer are stacked.
Nishimura further discloses:
Parameters related to the shape of the electrode, particularly the line width and the film thickness may be adjusted to control the mass and thus the frequency characteristics of the resonator ([0096]).
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form the aluminum electrode of Plessky 1 as per the intermediate layer of Nishimura et al. and to provide the electrode layer and protective film of Nishimura et al. to provide the benefit of adjusting the frequency of the resonator using a “mass effect” as taught by Nishimura et al. ([0096]) and to increase the durability of the resonator as taught by Nishimura et al. ([0030])
It would have been further obvious for the first layer to have a thickness that is less than a thickness of the second layer as the film thickness of each layer of the IDT is a design parameter for determining the mass of the electrode, as taught by Nishimura ([0096]) and further for controlling the electrical properties of the resonator, as is well understood in the art, and as one of a limited number of options (less than, greater than, equal to).
As a consequence of the combination, the combination discloses a second layer on the first layer, wherein the first layer comprises a different metal than the second layer, and the first layer has a thickness that is less than a thickness of the second layer, and wherein the thicknesses of the first and second layers are measured in a direction on which the piezoelectric layer, the first layer and the second layer are stacked.
As per claim 2:
Plessky 1 does not disclose:
a transverse acoustic impedance of the second layer is higher than a transverse acoustic impedance of the first layer.
Nishimura et al. discloses in Figs. 3-6:
a transverse acoustic impedance of the second layer is higher than a transverse acoustic impedance of the first layer (W or Ta vs Al, [0066, 0068, 0088-0089]).
As a consequence of the combination of claim 1:
a transverse acoustic impedance of the second layer is higher than a transverse acoustic impedance of the first layer.
As per claim 3:
Plessky 1 does not disclose:
the thicknesses of the first and second layers are measured in a direction orthogonal to the surface of the piezoelectric layer.
Nishimura et al. discloses in Figs. 3-6:
the thicknesses of the first and second layers are measured in a direction orthogonal to the surface of the piezoelectric layer (the vertical direction of Figs. 3-6, as per the definition of thickness being the height of a layer, and further disclosed as film thickness, [0096]).
As a consequence of the combination of claim 1:
the thicknesses of the first and second layers are measured in a direction orthogonal to the surface of the piezoelectric layer.
As per claim 4:
Plessky 1 discloses in Fig. 1:
a substrate having a surface (Si), wherein the piezoelectric layer is attached to the surface of the substrate via one or more intermediate layers (SiO2) and has a portion that forms a diaphragm over a cavity (region of Si and oxide release), and wherein the interleaved fingers of the IDT are on the diaphragm of the piezoelectric layer (as seen in Fig. 1).
As per claim 5:
Plessky 1 discloses in Fig. 1:
the IDT is configured such that a radio frequency signal applied to the IDT excites a primary shear acoustic mode in the piezoelectric layer, with the primary shear acoustic mode being a bulk shear mode where acoustic energy propagates along a direction substantially orthogonal to the surface of the piezoelectric layer, which is also transverse to a direction of an electric field created by the interleaved fingers (col. 2, last para).
As per claim 6:
Plessky 1 discloses in Fig. 1:
the thickness of the first layer (100 nm, col. 2, para 2) is less than one-half of an acoustic wavelength within the first layer at a resonance frequency (piezoelectric thickness is ~400 nm, col. 2, para 2, which is half the wavelength, col. 2 last para).
Plessky 1 does not disclose:
the thickness of the second layer is less than one-half of an acoustic wavelength within the second layer at the resonance frequency.
Nishimura discloses:
Parameters related to the shape of the electrode, particularly the line width and the film thickness may be adjusted to control the mass and thus the frequency characteristics of the resonator ([0096]).
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the thickness of the second layer to be less than one-half of an acoustic wavelength within the second layer at the resonance frequency, as a design parameter for determining the mass effect of the second layer on the frequency characteristics of the resonator as taught by Nishimura ([0096]).
As per claim 7:
Plessky 1 discloses in Fig. 1:
the thickness of the first layer (100 nm, col. 2, para 2) is in a range from 25% to 75% of a thickness of the piezoelectric layer (~400 nm, col. 2, para 2).
Plessky 1 does not disclose:
the thickness of the second layer is in a range from 25% to 75% of the thickness of the piezoelectric layer.
Nishimura discloses:
Parameters related to the shape of the electrode, particularly the line width and the film thickness may be adjusted to control the mass and thus the frequency characteristics of the resonator ([0096]).
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the thickness of the second layer to be in a range from 25% to 75% of the thickness of the piezoelectric layer, as a design parameter for determining the mass effect of the second layer on the frequency characteristics of the resonator as taught by Nishimura ([0096]), and as the second layer has a greater thickness than the first layer as per the combination of claim 1.
As per claim 8:
Plessky 1 discloses in Fig. 1:
the first layer comprises aluminum or titanium (col. 2, para 2).
As per claim 9:
Plessky 1 does not disclose:
the second layer comprises chromium or tungsten.
Nishimura et al. discloses in Figs. 3-6:
the second layer comprises tungsten ([0068]).
As a consequence of the combination of claim 1, the second layer comprises tungsten.
As per claim 10:
Plessky 1 does not disclose:
the second layer has a sidewall that tapers inward as the second layer extends away from the piezoelectric layer at a range between approximately 70 and 80 degrees.
Nishimura et al. discloses in Figs. 3-6:
the second layer has a sidewall that tapers inward as the second layer extends away from the piezoelectric layer at a range between approximately 70 and 80 degrees ([0090]).
As a consequence of the combination of claim 1, the second layer has a sidewall that tapers inward as the second layer extends away from the piezoelectric layer at a range between approximately 70 and 80 degrees.
Claim(s) 11-13, 15, & 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the 2019 publication of Turner et al. (5 GHz Band n79 wideband micracoustic filter using thin lithium niobate membrane), in view of Nishimura et al. (US PGPub 20090121584)
As per claim 11:
Turner discloses in Fig. 1:
A filter device comprising:
a plurality of bulk acoustic wave resonators (col. 2 para 1) that each comprise:
a piezoelectric layer (LiNbO3, col. 1 para 2); and
an interdigital transducer (IDT) having interleaved fingers on a surface of the piezoelectric layer (col. 1 para 2),
the interleaved fingers consisting of a first layer that directly contacts the piezoelectric layer (Al metal layer, col. 2 para 3).
Turner does not disclose:
a second layer on the first layer, wherein the first layer comprises a different metal than the second layer, and the first layer has a thickness that is less than a thickness of the second layer, and wherein the thicknesses of the first and second layers are measured in a direction on which the piezoelectric layer, the first layer and the second layer are stacked.
Nishimura et al. discloses in Figs. 3-6:
An acoustic resonator (title) comprising:
a piezoelectric layer (10, 20); and
an interdigital transducer (IDT) (11, 21) having interleaved fingers on a surface of the piezoelectric layer (as seen in related Fig. 1), the interleaved fingers consisting of a first layer (intermediate layer 12, 22) that directly contacts the piezoelectric layer, and a second layer (electrode layer 13, 23) on the first layer,
wherein the first layer comprises a different metal ([0066, 0088]) than the second layer ([0068, 0089]), and
wherein the thicknesses of the first and second layers are measured in a direction on which the piezoelectric layer, the first layer and the second layer are stacked.
Nishimura further discloses:
Parameters related to the shape of the electrode, particularly the line width and the film thickness may be adjusted to control the mass and thus the frequency characteristics of the resonator ([0096]).
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form the aluminum electrodes of Turner as per the intermediate layer of Nishimura et al. and to provide the electrode layer and protective film of Nishimura et al. to provide the benefit of adjusting the frequency of the resonator using a “mass effect” as taught by Nishimura et al. ([0096]) and to increase the durability of the resonator as taught by Nishimura et al. ([0030])
It would have been further obvious for the first layer to have a thickness that is less than a thickness of the second layer as the film thickness of each layer of the IDT is a design parameter for determining the mass of the electrode, as taught by Nishimura ([0096]) and further for controlling the electrical properties of the resonator, as is well understood in the art, and as one of a limited number of options (less than, greater than, equal to).
As a consequence of the combination, the combination discloses that each resonator comprises a second layer on the first layer, wherein the first layer comprises a different metal than the second layer, and the first layer has a thickness that is less than a thickness of the second layer, and wherein the thicknesses of the first and second layers are measured in a direction on which the piezoelectric layer, the first layer and the second layer are stacked.
As per claim 12:
Turner does not disclose:
a transverse acoustic impedance of the second layer is higher than a transverse acoustic impedance of the first layer.
Nishimura et al. discloses in Figs. 3-6:
a transverse acoustic impedance of the second layer is higher than a transverse acoustic impedance of the first layer (W or Ta vs Al, [0066, 0068, 0088-0089]).
As a consequence of the combination of claim 11, the combination discloses a transverse acoustic impedance of the second layer is higher than a transverse acoustic impedance of the first layer.
As per claim 13:
Turner does not disclose:
the thicknesses of the first and second layers are measured in a direction orthogonal to the surface of the piezoelectric layer.
Nishimura et al. discloses in Figs. 3-6:
the thicknesses of the first and second layers are measured in a direction orthogonal to the surface of the piezoelectric layer (the vertical direction of Figs. 3-6, as per the definition of thickness being the height of a layer, and further disclosed as film thickness, [0096]).
As a consequence of the combination of claim 11, the combination discloses the thicknesses of the first and second layers are measured in a direction orthogonal to the surface of the piezoelectric layer.
As per claim 15:
Turner discloses in Fig. 1:
the IDT is configured such that a radio frequency signal applied to the IDT excites a primary shear acoustic mode in the piezoelectric layer, with the primary shear acoustic mode being a bulk shear mode where acoustic energy propagates along a direction substantially orthogonal to the surface of the piezoelectric layer, which is also transverse to a direction of an electric field created by the interleaved fingers (col. 1 para 2, A1 resonance).
As per claim 18:
Turner discloses in Fig. 1:
the first layer comprises aluminum or titanium (col. 2, para 2).
As per claim 19:
Turner does not disclose:
the second layer comprises chromium or tungsten.
Nishimura et al. discloses in Figs. 3-6:
the second layer comprises tungsten ([0068]).
As a consequence of the combination of claim 11, the second layer comprises tungsten.
As per claim 20:
Turner does not disclose:
the second layer has a sidewall that tapers inward as the second layer extends away from the piezoelectric layer at a range between approximately 70 and 80 degrees.
Nishimura et al. discloses in Figs. 3-6:
the second layer has a sidewall that tapers inward as the second layer extends away from the piezoelectric layer at a range between approximately 70 and 80 degrees ([0090]).
As a consequence of the combination of claim 11, the second layer has a sidewall that tapers inward as the second layer extends away from the piezoelectric layer at a range between approximately 70 and 80 degrees.
Claim(s) 14 & 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the resultant combination of Turner, in view of Nishimura et al. (US PGPub 20090121584) as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Plessky 1.
The resultant combination discloses the filter device of claim 11, as rejected above.
As per claim 14:
The resultant combination does not disclose:
each of the bulk acoustic wave resonators further comprises: a substrate having a surface, wherein the piezoelectric layer is attached to the surface of the substrate via one or more intermediate layers and has a portion that forms a diaphragm over a cavity, and wherein the interleaved fingers of the IDT are on the diaphragm of the piezoelectric layer.
Plessky 1 discloses in Fig. 1:
a substrate having a surface (Si), wherein the piezoelectric layer is attached to the surface of the substrate via one or more intermediate layers (SiO2) and has a portion that forms a diaphragm over a cavity (region of Si and oxide release), and wherein the interleaved fingers of the IDT are on the diaphragm of the piezoelectric layer (as seen in Fig. 1).
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form the substrate, piezoelectric layer, and aluminum layer of the IDT of the resultant combination as per Plessky 1 as an art-recognized alternative/equivalent XBAR device as per the titles of both Plessky 1 & 2.
As per claim 16:
The resultant combination discloses in Turner:
The acoustic wavelength is twice that of the thickness of the piezoelectric layer (col. 2 para 2)
The resultant combination discloses in Nishimura:
Parameters related to the shape of the electrode, particularly the line width and the film thickness may be adjusted to control the mass and thus the frequency characteristics of the resonator ([0096]).
The resultant combination does not disclose:
for each of the bulk acoustic wave resonators, the thickness of the first layer is less than one-half of an acoustic wavelength within the first layer at a resonance frequency, and the thickness of the second layer is less than one-half of an acoustic wavelength within the second layer at the resonance frequency.
Plessky 1 discloses in Fig. 1:
the thickness of the first layer (100 nm, col. 2, para 2) is less than one-half of an acoustic wavelength within the first layer at a resonance frequency (piezoelectric thickness is ~400 nm, col. 2, para 2, which is half the wavelength, col. 2 last para).
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form the substrate, piezoelectric layer, and aluminum layer of the IDT of the resultant combination as per Plessky 1 as an art-recognized alternative/equivalent XBAR device as per the titles of both Plessky 1 & 2.
As a consequence of the combination, the thickness of the first layer (100 nm, col. 2, para 2) is less than one-half of an acoustic wavelength within the first layer at a resonance frequency (piezoelectric thickness is ~400 nm, col. 2, para 2, which is half the wavelength).
It would have been further obvious for the thickness of the second layer to be less than one-half of an acoustic wavelength within the second layer at the resonance frequency, as a design parameter for determining the mass effect of the second layer on the frequency characteristics of the resonator as taught by Nishimura ([0096]).
As per claim 17:
The resultant combination discloses in Turner:
The acoustic wavelength is twice that of the thickness of the piezoelectric layer (col. 2 para 2)
The resultant combination discloses in Nishimura:
Parameters related to the shape of the electrode, particularly the line width and the film thickness may be adjusted to control the mass and thus the frequency characteristics of the resonator ([0096]).
The resultant combination does not disclose:
for each of the bulk acoustic wave resonators, the thickness of the first layer is in a range from 25% to 75% of a thickness of the piezoelectric layer, and wherein the thickness of the second layer is in a range from 25% to 75% of the thickness of the piezoelectric layer.Plessky 1 discloses in Fig. 1:
the thickness of the first layer (100 nm, col. 2, para 2) is in a range from 25% to 75% of a thickness of the piezoelectric layer (~400 nm, col. 2, para 2).
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form the substrate, piezoelectric layer, and aluminum layer of the IDT of the resultant combination as per Plessky 1 as an art-recognized alternative/equivalent XBAR device as per the titles of both Plessky 1 & 2.
As a consequence of the combination, is in a range from 25% to 75% of a thickness of the piezoelectric layer.
It would have been further obvious for the thickness of the second layer to be in a range from 25% to 75% of the thickness of the piezoelectric layer, as a design parameter for determining the mass effect of the second layer on the frequency characteristics of the resonator as taught by Nishimura ([0096]), and as the second layer has a greater thickness than the first layer as per the combination of claim 11.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAMUEL S OUTTEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7123. The examiner can normally be reached 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, Andrea Lindgren Baltzell 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.
/Samuel S Outten/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2843