DETAILED ACTION
Notice to Applicant
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Claims 1-21 are pending.
Claim Objections
Claim 21 is objected to because of the following informalities: On line 1 of claim 21, the Examiner suggests changing “material” to --layer-- to avoid potential 112 issues therein. 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 6, 11, 12, and 21 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.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the second heavy metal layer" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the lower surface" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the thickness" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 21 line 2 recites “patterned by sputtering, lithography, and dry etching. However, it is unclear to the Examiner as to how “the interleaved electrodes and sacrificial material” are patterned by three different processes. The Examiner construes that the Applicant intended to recite that the electrodes and the material are patterned by sputtering, lithograph, or dry etching.
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)(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 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Goto et al. US 2023/0327645.
As per claims 1-18, Goto et al. discloses in Figs. 18a-18e a surface acoustic wave (SAW) resonator (e.g. acoustic wave device 1800) device, comprising:
as per claim 1, a first electrode (Fig. 18e, mask layer 1816 and layer 1808a in a right IDT 1808) positioned on an upper surface of a piezoelectric film (e.g. upper surface of piezoelectric material 1806), the first electrode comprising a plurality of layers (Fig. 18e, layers 1816 and 1808a in the right IDT 1808) wherein a layer of the plurality of layers is a first heavy metal layer (e.g. mask layer 1816); and a first piezoelectric trench (PZT) (e.g. trench portion 1810) positioned adjacent to the first electrode, the first PZT including a recess in the piezoelectric film (Fig. 18e; Trench portion 1810 includes an opening or “recess” within a top portion of piezoelectric material 1806. The trench portion is positioned adjacent the mask layer 1816.);
as per claims 2-4, wherein the heavy metal layer of the first electrode is made of platinum, tungsten, or gold (Paragraph 176; The mask layer 1816 includes one of platinum, tungsten, or gold.);
as per claim 5, wherein the first electrode further comprises a second heavy metal layer (Paragraph 179, layer 1808b which is made of molybdenum, a well-known heavy metal);
as per claim 6, wherein the first heavy metal layer and the second heavy metal layer are separated by a conductive layer (e.g. The mask layer 1816 and the layer 1808b are separated by layer 1808a which is a conductive layer.);
as per claim 7, wherein the first PZT is positioned between the first electrode and a second electrode positioned on the upper surface of the piezoelectric film (Fig. 18e; The trench portion 1810 is disposed between the layer 1816 in the right IDT 1808 thereof and a layer 1816 (i.e. “a second electrode”) in a left IDT 1808 thereof.);
as per claim 8, further comprising a second electrode including a second heavy metal layer (Fig. 18e, mask layer 1816 in a left IDT 1808 which includes platinum as stated in paragraph 176);
as per claim 9, wherein the second electrode includes a third heavy metal layer (Fig. 18e, layer 1808b in the left IDT 1808 which is made of molybdenum as stated in Paragraph 179);
as per claim 10, wherein the first PZT is an upper PZT formed within the upper surface of the piezoelectric film (Fig. 18e; The trench 1810 is formed within the top portion of piezoelectric material 1806.);
as per claim 11, wherein the first PZT is a lower PZT formed within a lower surface of the piezoelectric film (Fig. 18e; The trench 1810 is formed within a lower portion relative to an upper portion aligning with IDTs 1808 of piezoelectric material 1806.);
as per claim 12, wherein a first trench depth of the first PZT is equal to or less than the thickness of the piezoelectric film (Fig. 18e; A trench depth of the piezoelectric material 1806 from a top surface of material 1806 to a bottom surface of trench 1810 is less than a thickness of the piezoelectric material from the top surface of material 1806 to a bottom surface of material 1806.);
as per claim 13, wherein a trench depth equal to the thickness of the piezoelectric film corresponds to a fully-etched PZT (In a case where a trench depth of the piezoelectric material 1806 is equal to the thickness of the material (i.e. from the top surface to the bottom surface thereof), the material 1806 is necessarily fully etched as it encompasses the entire thickness of the piezoelectric material.);
as per claim 14, a second PZT (Fig. 18e, trench 1810 disposed on a right side of the right IDT 1808) positioned within the piezoelectric film on a side of the first electrode opposite the first PZT (The trench 1810 disposed on the right side of the right IDT 1808 is disposed opposite of the trench 1810 on the left side of the right IDT 1808.);
as per claim 15, a plurality of electrodes (Annotated Fig. 18a below and Fig. 18e, mask layer 1816 in IDTs annotated as A and B) positioned on an upper surface of a piezoelectric film (Fig. 18e, upper surface of piezoelectric material 1806) of a first thickness (Fig. 18e, “first” thickness of piezoelectric material 1806 from a top surface of layer 1804 to a bottom surface of layers 1808b), each electrode of the plurality of electrodes comprising at least one heavy metal layer (Paragraph 176; The mask layer 1816 includes one of platinum, tungsten, or gold.); and a plurality of piezoelectric trenches (PZTs) (Annotated Fig. 18a below, trenches 1810 annotated as C) formed within the piezoelectric film between the plurality of electrodes (Annotated Fig. 18a below; The trenches annotated as C are formed in piezoelectric material 1806 between the IDTs annotated as A and B which comprise mask layers 1816.), wherein the plurality of PZTs correspond to regions of the piezoelectric film of a second thickness less than the first thickness (Fig. 18e; The trenches 1810 correspond to regions of the material 1806 which have a “second” thickness from the top surface of layer 1804 to a bottom surface of layer 1810, where the “second” thickness is less than the “first thickness”.);
as per claim 16, wherein the plurality of electrodes are spaced from one another by a first pitch and the plurality of PZTs are spaced from one another by a second pitch (Annotated Fig. 18a below; The plurality of electrodes in the IDTs annotated as A and B are spaced apart from one another by a distance or “first pitch” and the plurality of trenches annotated as C are spaced apart from one another by a distance of “second pitch”.);
as per claim 17, wherein the first pitch is different than the second pitch (Annotated Fig. 18a below; The “first pitch” corresponding to the distance between the IDTs annotated as A and B is larger than the “second pitch” corresponding to the distance between the trenches annotated as C.); and
as per claim 18, wherein the plurality of electrodes are spaced from one another by a modulated pitch, such that a first subset of two or more electrodes are spaced from one another by a first pitch and a second subset of two or more interdigital transducers are spaced from one another by a second pitch (Annotated Fig. 18a below; The mask layers 1816 in the IDTs annotated as A and B are spaced apart from one another by a distance or “first pitch” and the plurality of IDTs annotated as A and B are spaced apart from one another by a distance of “second pitch”.).
PNG
media_image1.png
390
693
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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.
Claims 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goto et al. US 2023/0327645 in view of Yang US 2021/0184643.
As per claims 19-21, Goto et al. discloses in Fig. 18a a method, comprising:
as per claim 19, receiving a SAW resonator device (e.g. acoustic wave device 1800), the device comprising: a piezoelectric film (e.g. piezoelectric material 1806); an interdigital transducer (e.g. IDT 1808) including a plurality of interleaved electrodes (e.g. mask layer 1816 in each of the IDT electrodes 1808) positioned on the piezoelectric film, each electrode of the plurality of interleaved electrodes comprising a heavy metal layer (Paragraph 176; The mask layer 1816 includes one of platinum, tungsten, or gold.); and a sacrificial layer (related Fig. 16d, etching mask 1650) positioned on the plurality of interleaved electrodes; and applying a dry etching to the upper surface of the SAW resonator device such that the sacrificial layer is removed and forming piezoelectric trenches (PZTs) between the plurality of interleaved electrodes (Paragraphs 162-163; Etching step 1606 forms the trenches between the IDTs and removes the mask leading to acoustic wave device with trench portions therein. );
as per claim 20, patterning the plurality of interleaved electrodes on the piezoelectric film; and patterning the sacrificial layer on the plurality of interleaved electrodes (The etching mask is disposed on the IDTs which are disposed on the piezoelectric material.); and
as per claim 21, wherein the interleaved electrodes and sacrificial layer are patterned by sputtering, lithography, or dry etching (Paragraph 170; A dry etching process is used to form the electrodes.).
However, Goto et al. does not disclose applying the dry etching being applying an ion beam.
Yang exemplarily discloses in Fig. 3d an acoustic wave device utilizing a dry etching process, such as for example ion beam etching (Paragraph 39 of Yang). Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have performed any type of dry etching within the acoustic device of Goto et al., such as for example ion beam etching, as being a well-known design process in the art as exemplarily taught by Yang.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAKESH PATEL whose telephone number is (571)272-0961. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM EST M-F.
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.
/RAKESH B PATEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2843