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 .
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) 1, 6-7, 9-11, 16-17, & 19-20 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., both references of record, with evidence provided by the teaching reference of Iwamoto et al. (US PGPub 20110266918)
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%).
Kando et al. further discloses that the thickness of the dielectric layers is a design parameter adjusted for frequency adjustment, which can be performed by grinding ([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, wherein a m/p of the IDT is more than 0.05 and less than 0.5, wherein "m" is a width of at least one finger of the interleaved fingers and "p" is a center-to-center distance between two adjacent interleaved fingers of the IDT, and wherein the thickness of the first dielectric layer is not equal to the thickness of the second dielectric layer.
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), wherein a m/p of the IDT is more than 0.05 and less than 0.5, wherein "m" is a width of at least one finger of the interleaved fingers and "p" is a center-to-center distance between two adjacent interleaved fingers of the IDT (500nm vs 3-5µm, page 1, col. 2 second paragraph).
The teaching reference of Iwamoto et al. discloses that LiTaO3 and LiNb are art-recognized alternative/equivalent single crystal piezoelectric materials that can be used for the propagation of plate waves including lamb waves ([0004, 0039])
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to configure the resonator of Kando as per the lamb wave mode of Plessky 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), and as an alternative/equivalent art-recognized lamb wave resonator as per the teaching reference of Iwamoto et al.
It would be further obvious for the thickness of the first dielectric layer to not be equal to the thickness of the second dielectric 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]), wherein each layer may be individually adjusted by grinding, as taught by Kando et al. ([0148]).
It would have been further 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]) and wherein the thickness of the piezoelectric layer is used to adjust the acoustic velocity of specific modes of the plate wave, as taught by Kando et al.([0016])
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 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).
As a consequence of the combination of claims 1 & 11, 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.
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%).
Kando et al. further discloses that the thickness of the dielectric layers is a design parameter adjusted for frequency adjustment, which can be performed by grinding ([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, wherein a m/p of the IDT is more than 0.05 and less than 0.5, wherein "m" is a width of at least one finger of the interleaved fingers and "p" is a center-to-center distance between two adjacent interleaved fingers of the IDT, and wherein the thickness of the first dielectric layer is not equal to the thickness of the second dielectric layer.
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), wherein a m/p of the IDT is more than 0.05 and less than 0.5, wherein "m" is a width of at least one finger of the interleaved fingers and "p" is a center-to-center distance between two adjacent interleaved fingers of the IDT (500nm vs 3-5µm, page 1, col. 2 second paragraph).
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to configure the resonator of Kando as per the lamb wave mode of Plessky 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), and as an alternative/equivalent art-recognized lamb wave resonator as per the teaching reference of Iwamoto et al.
It would be further obvious for the thickness of the first dielectric layer to not be equal to the thickness of the second dielectric 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]), wherein each layer may be individually adjusted by grinding, as taught by Kando et al. ([0148]).
It would have been further 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]) and wherein the thickness of the piezoelectric layer is used to adjust the acoustic velocity of specific modes of the plate wave, as taught by Kando et al.([0016])
Claim(s) 2-5, 8, 12-15, & 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the resultant combination of Kando et al. (US PGPub 20140152145) in view of the 2019 publication of Plessky et al., as applied to claims 1 & 11 above, and further in view of Whatmore et al. (US PGPub 20020121337), all references of record.
The resultant combination discloses the bulk acoustic resonator of claims 1 & 11, as rejected above.
As per claims 2 & 12:
The resultant combination 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 The resultant combination as an art-recognized alternative/equivalent substrate for an acoustic resonator as disclosed by Whatmore et al. ([0012])
As per claims 3 & 13:
The resultant combination 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 claims 2 & 12, the combination discloses the etch-stop layer is one of silicon dioxide, sapphire, a nitride, silicon carbide, and diamond.
As per claims 4 & 14:
The resultant combination 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 claims 2 & 12, the combination discloses a bonding layer between the etch-stop layer and the substrate.
As per claims 5 & 15:
The resultant combination 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 claims 2 & 12, the combination discloses the substrate is silicon and the bonding layer is silicon dioxide.
As per claims 8 & 18:
The resultant combination discloses in Plessky et al.:
the thickness of the piezoelectric layer is a design parameter for determining the resonance frequency of the resonator (abstract).
The resultant combination 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]).
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious for a thickness of the etch-stop layer is less than or equal to 20% of the thickness of the piezoelectric layer to provide the benefit of minimizing the amount of material used for production of the resonator of the resultant combination, as is well-understood in the art, and as the thickness of the piezoelectric layer is a design parameter for determining the resonance frequency of the resonator, as taught by Plessky et al. (abstract)
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see applicant’s remarks, filed 06/11/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-9, & 11-19 under Kando et al. and Kando et al. in view of Whatmore et al. have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Kando et al. in view of Plessky et al. and Kando et al. in view of Plessky et al. and Whatmore et al.
Applicant has provided arguments in regards to the combination of Kando in view of Plessky et al., however the combinations regarding claims 1 & 11 are not the same as those of the previous combination of claims 10 and 20, and as such the arguments are not directed to the current rejection of claims 1 & 11.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. 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 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
Prosecution Insights