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 & 11 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 9 & 10 of U.S. Patent No. 10911023 (herein after the ’23 patent) in view of Kando et al. (US PGPub 20140152145)
As per claim 1:
Claims 9 & 10 of the ’23 patent disclose the limitations of claim 1 of the current application using substantially similar language with the exception that thee ’23 patent does not identify the acoustic resonators are bulk acoustic resonators, that the etch stop layer is a dielectric layer, that the substrate includes a plurality of materials, or that the second dielectric layer (the frequency setting dielectric layer) is disposed over the interleaved fingers.
Kando discloses in Fig. 2:
a frequency setting dielectric layer (dielectric film 3), which is disposed over and between IDT fingers ([0143]) of a bulk acoustic resonator (plate wave, abstract), and wherein the piezoelectric film (3) is positioned as a diaphragm over a cavity (2a) in a substrate formed from a plurality of materials (the substrate is made up as seen in related Fig. 70, wherein SiO2 is the support layer 2 and support wafer 2A may be high-resistance Si, [0179-0180], or as per [0023] of the specification, the plurality of materials may include sacrificial material, such as 42)
Chang discloses in Fig. 2N:
The use of a plurality of materials for forming a substrate (substrate 10, sacrificial material 27, which is removed, insulating layer 11) for acoustic resonators.
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to dispose the frequency setting dielectric layer of the ’23 patent over and between the interleaved fingers as a configuration for frequency setting layers as taught by Kando ([0148]).
It would have been further obvious for the substrate of the ’23 patent to be formed from a plurality of materials as an art-recognized alternative/equivalent substrate configuration as disclosed by Chang et al.
It would have been further obvious for the acoustic resonator of the ’23 patent to be configured as a bulk acoustic wave resonator, as an IDT on a single-crystal piezoelectric layer may be used to form bulk acoustic wave resonators, as taught by Kando (abstract).
It would have been further obvious for the etch stop layer to be a dielectric layer, as the use of dielectric materials such as aluminum oxide is well understood in the art.
As per claim 11:
Claims 9 & 10 of the ’23 patent disclose the limitations of claim 1 of the current application using substantially similar language with the exception that thee ’23 patent does not identify the acoustic resonators are bulk acoustic resonators, that the etch stop layer is a dielectric layer, that the substrate includes a plurality of materials, or that the second dielectric layer (the frequency setting dielectric layer) is disposed over the interleaved fingers.
Kando discloses in Fig. 2:
a frequency setting dielectric layer (dielectric film 3), which is disposed over and between IDT fingers ([0143]) of a bulk acoustic resonator (plate wave, abstract), and wherein the piezoelectric film (3) is positioned as a diaphragm over a cavity (2a) in a substrate formed from a plurality of materials (support layer 2)
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to dispose the frequency setting dielectric layer of the ’23 patent over and between the interleaved fingers as a configuration for frequency setting layers as taught by Kando ([0148]).
It would have been further obvious for the substrate of the ’23 patent to be formed from a plurality of layers as an art-recognized alternative/equivalent substrate configuration as disclosed by Kando et al.
It would have been further obvious for the acoustic resonator of the ’23 patent to be configured as a bulk acoustic wave resonator, as an IDT on a single-crystal piezoelectric layer may be used to form bulk acoustic wave resonators, as taught by Kando (abstract).
It would have been further obvious for the etch stop layer to be a dielectric layer, as the use of dielectric materials such as aluminum oxide is well understood in the art.
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 2-5, 8, 12-15, & 18 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 2 & 12 recite the limitation "the dielectric layer" in lines 2 of the respective claims. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 1 & 11 each recite “a first dielectric layer” and “a second dielectric layer,” such that it is unclear if “the dielectric layer” refers to a particular one of the first or second dielectric layers or a third unidentified dielectric layer.
Claims 3-5 & 13-15 are rejected as being dependent upon the respective claim 2 or 12.
For examination purposes, “the dielectric layer” will be interpreted as --one or more of the dielectric layers--.
Claims 8 & 18 recite the limitation "the etch-stop layer" in lines 1 of the respective claims. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 2 & 12 each recite “an etch-stop layer” but claims 8 & 18 are dependent upon claims 1 & 11, respectively, which do not feature “an etch-stop layer.”
For examination purposes, claims 8 & 18 will be interpreted to depend upon claims 2 & 12, respectively.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 6-7, 9, 11, 16-17, & 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Kando et al. (US PGPub 20140152145)
As per claim 1:
Kando et al. discloses in Figs. 2-3:
A bulk acoustic resonator (plate wave, a type of bulk acoustic wave, abstract) comprising:
a substrate including a plurality of materials (as seen in related Fig. 70, wherein SiO2 is the support layer 2 and support wafer 2A may be high-resistance Si, [0179-0180], or as per [0023] of the specification, the plurality of materials may include sacrificial material) and a cavity (recess 2a) disposed therein;
a piezoelectric layer (4) attached to the substrate by a first dielectric layer (dielectric layer 3 may be defined on both upper and lower surfaces of the piezoelectric film, [0147]);
an interdigital transducer (IDT) (5) on a surface of the piezoelectric layer and having interleaved fingers (as seen in related Fig. 1B) on a portion of the piezoelectric layer that is over the cavity; and
a second dielectric layer (dielectric layer 3 may be defined on both upper and lower surfaces of the piezoelectric film, [0147]) disposed over and between the interleaved fingers, wherein a sum of a thickness of the first dielectric layer and the second dielectric layer (dielectric layer 3 is given an example thickness of 175 nm) is less than 35% of a thickness of the piezoelectric layer (the thickness of the piezoelectric layer is provided across the range of less than or equal to 0.3λ [0016] where λ is set to 3500 nm ([0151], thus being less than 35%).
In the alternative interpretation, Kando et al. discloses that the thickness of the dielectric layers is a design parameter adjusted for frequency adjustment ([0148]).
Kando et al. does not disclose a sum of a thickness of the first dielectric layer and the second dielectric layer is less than 35% of a thickness of the piezoelectric layer.
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the sum of a thickness of the first dielectric layer and the second dielectric layer is less than 35% of a thickness of the piezoelectric layer as the thicknesses of the dielectric layers are design parameters that provide the benefit of determining a frequency adjustment as taught by Kando et al. ([0148])
As per claims 6 & 16:
Kando et al. discloses in Figs. 2-3:
at least one of the first dielectric layer and the second dielectric layer is silicon dioxide ([0147]).
As per claims 7 & 17:
Kando et al. discloses in Figs. 2-3:
the piezoelectric layer is one of lithium niobate and lithium tantalate ([0010]).
As per claims 9 & 19:
Kando et al. discloses in Figs. 2-3:
the thicknesses of each of the first dielectric layer and the second dielectric layer are measured in a direction orthogonal to the surface of the piezoelectric layer (dielectric layer 3 is disclosed as a film, with a film thickness, such that the thickness is orthogonal to the surface upon which the film rests).
As per claim 11:
Kando et al. discloses in Figs. 2-3:
A filter device comprising:
a plurality of bulk acoustic wave resonators (plate wave, a type of bulk acoustic wave, abstract) including a shunt resonator and a series resonator (as per a ladder or lattice filter, as disclosed [0169]), wherein at least one of the plurality of bulk acoustic resonators comprises:
a substrate including a plurality of materials (as seen in related Fig. 70, wherein SiO2 is the support layer 2 and support wafer 2A may be high-resistance Si, [0179-0180], or as per [0023] of the specification, the plurality of materials may include sacrificial material) and a cavity (recess 2a) disposed therein;
a piezoelectric layer (4) attached to the substrate by a first dielectric layer (dielectric layer 3 may be defined on both upper and lower surfaces of the piezoelectric film, [0147]);
an interdigital transducer (IDT) (5) on a surface of the piezoelectric layer and having interleaved fingers (as seen in related Fig. 1B) on a portion of the piezoelectric layer that is over the cavity; and
a second dielectric layer (dielectric layer 3 may be defined on both upper and lower surfaces of the piezoelectric film, [0147]) disposed over and between the interleaved fingers, wherein a sum of a thickness of the first dielectric layer and the second dielectric layer (dielectric layer 3 is given an example thickness of 175 nm) is less than 35% of a thickness of the piezoelectric layer (the thickness of the piezoelectric layer is provided across the range of less than or equal to 0.3λ [0016] where λ is set to 3500 nm ([0151], thus being less than 35%).
In the alternative interpretation, Kando et al. discloses that the thickness of the dielectric layers is a design parameter adjusted for frequency adjustment ([0148]).
Kando et al. does not disclose a sum of a thickness of the first dielectric layer and the second dielectric layer is less than 35% of a thickness of the piezoelectric layer.
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the sum of a thickness of the first dielectric layer and the second dielectric layer is less than 35% of a thickness of the piezoelectric layer as the thicknesses of the dielectric layers are design parameters that provide the benefit of determining a frequency adjustment as taught by Kando et al. ([0148])
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 2-5, 8, 12-15, & 18 (as best understood) is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kando et al. (US PGPub 20140152145) in view of Whatmore et al. (US PGPub 20020121337)
As per claims 2 & 12:
Kando et al. does not disclose:
an etch-stop layer sandwiched between the substrate and the dielectric layer, the etch-stop layer being impervious to an etch process used to form the cavity in the substrate.
Whatmore et al. discloses in Fig. 2:
A method of forming a cavity (7) in a substrate, wherein a substrate (wafer 1, layer 6, third wafer 14) with a plurality of materials ([0026]) is formed with a top etch-stop layer (layer 3, [0012]) sandwiched between the substrate and an acoustic resonator.
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the method and configuration of Whatmore et al. to form the substrate and cavity of Kando et al. as an art-recognized alternative/equivalent substrate for an acoustic resonator as disclosed by Whatmore et al. ([0012])
As per claims 3 & 13:
Kando et al. does not disclose:
the etch-stop layer is one of silicon dioxide, sapphire, a nitride, silicon carbide, and diamond.
Whatmore et al. discloses in Fig. 2:
the etch-stop layer is one of silicon dioxide, sapphire, a nitride, silicon carbide, and diamond ([0012]).
As a consequence of the combination of claim 2, the combination discloses the etch-stop layer is one of silicon dioxide, sapphire, a nitride, silicon carbide, and diamond.
As per claims 4 & 14:
Kando et al. does not disclose:
a bonding layer between the etch-stop layer and the substrate.
Whatmore et al. discloses in Fig. 2:
a bonding layer (layers 6 or 15) between the etch-stop layer and the substrate.
As a consequence of the combination of claim 2, the combination discloses a bonding layer between the etch-stop layer and the substrate.
As per claims 5 & 15:
Kando et al. does not disclose:
the substrate is silicon and the bonding layer is silicon dioxide.
Whatmore et al. discloses in Fig. 2:
the substrate is silicon ([0036]) and the bonding layer is silicon dioxide ([0012 or 0039]).
As a consequence of the combination of claim 2, the combination discloses the substrate is silicon and the bonding layer is silicon dioxide.
As per claims 8 & 18:
Kando et al. discloses:
the thickness of the piezoelectric layer is provided across the range of less than or equal to 0.3λ ([0016]) where λ is set to 3500 nm ([0151]).
Kando et al. does not disclose:
a thickness of the etch-stop layer is less than or equal to 20% of the thickness of the piezoelectric layer.
Whatmore et al. discloses in Fig. 2:
a thickness of the etch-stop layer is 200 nm ([0026]).
As a consequence of the combination of claim 2, a thickness of the etch-stop layer is less than or equal to 20% of the thickness of the piezoelectric layer (200 nm being ~19% of the thickness of the piezoelectric layer).
Claim(s) 10 & 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kando et al. (US PGPub 20140152145) in view of the 2019 publication of Plessky et al. (provided by examiner)
As per claims 10 & 20:
Kando et al. does not disclose:
the IDT is configured such that radio frequency signals applied thereto excites a bulk shear acoustic wave in the piezoelectric layer where acoustic energy propagates along a direction substantially orthogonal to the surface of the piezoelectric layer, which is transverse to a direction of an electric field created by the interleaved fingers of the IDT.
Plessky et al. discloses in Fig. 1:
An acoustic wave resonator utilizing a lamb wave (page 2, column 1, first full paragraph) wherein the IDT is configured such that radio frequency signals applied thereto excites a bulk shear acoustic wave in the piezoelectric layer where acoustic energy propagates along a direction substantially orthogonal to the surface of the piezoelectric layer, which is transverse to a direction of an electric field created by the interleaved fingers of the IDT (col. 2 second and last paragraphs with Fig. 1).
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the lamb wave mode of Plessky et al. for the resonator of Kando et al. as an art-recognized alternative/equivalent lamb-wave mode that further provides the benefit of low-loss, wide band filters in the 3-6 GHZ range as disclosed by Plessky et al. (abstract)
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