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 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-32 of U.S. Patent No. 12126319. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the patent’s claims and application’s claims recite similar limitations.
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) 1-10, 12-15 and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aigner et al. (US 20050012568) in view of Sadhu et al. (US 20180175826), hereinafter Sadhu ‘826, Sadhu et al. (US 20190305752), hereinafter Sadhu ‘752, and Umeda et al. (US 20060119230).
As to claim 1, Aigner et al.’s figure 2 shows BAW resonator. Aigner et al.’s fails to teach that the BAW resonator having a main resonant millimeter wave frequency. However, Sadhu ‘826 teaches that “BAW-based filters are the filter of choice for many 3rd Generation (3G) and 4th Generation (4G) wireless devices, and are destined to dominate filter applications for 5th Generation (5G) wireless devices”, ¶0003. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to use Aigner et al.’s BAW resonator in a filter for 5G wireless devices for the purpose of providing precise filtered signals. Thus, the modified Aigner et al.’s figure 2 shows a bulk acoustic millimeter wave resonator having a main resonant millimeter wave frequency and including at least: a piezoelectric stack (106, 108, 134, 136) including at least a number of piezoelectric layers, the number of piezoelectric layers including at least a first piezoelectric layer (104) having a first piezoelectric axis orientation, a second piezoelectric layer (108) having a second piezoelectric axis orientation, and a third piezoelectric layer (134 or 136) having a third piezoelectric axis orientation. Aigner et al.’s figure further fails to show that the third piezoelectric has a doping. However, figure 7 of Sadhu ‘826 shows a similar device that one of its piezoelectric layers is doped, ¶0006, and figure 3 of Sadhu ‘752 shows a similar device that one of its piezoelectric layers is doped, ¶0026. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to dope at least Aigner et al.’s third piezoelectric layer for the purpose of improving the electromechanical coupling coefficient (Sadhu ‘826’s ¶0055). The modified Aigner et al.’s figure further shows that the doping of the third piezoelectric layer and the number of piezoelectric layers are to facilitate determining a selected electromechanical coupling of the bulk acoustic millimeter wave resonator; and a top electrode (110). The figure fails to show that the top electrode comprises acoustic reflecting layers. However, Umeda et al.’s figure 2 shows a similar device that its top and bottom electrodes (50 and 40) comprise acoustic reflecting layer. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to use acoustic reflecting layer for Aigner et al.’s top and bottom electrodes for the purpose of reducing noise. Therefore, the modified Aigner et al.’s figure shows that the top electrode acoustically reflective of the main resonant millimeter wave frequency, in which the top electrode is electrically and acoustically coupled with the third piezoelectric layer having the doping to excite the main resonant millimeter wave frequency of the bulk acoustic millimeter wave resonator.
As to claim 2, the main resonant millimeter wave frequency to be in one of a Ku band, a K band, a Ka band, a V band and a Wband is seen as an obvious design preference to ensure optimum performance, MPEP 2144.05.
As to claim 3, the modified Aigner et al.’s figure shows that the second piezoelectric axis orientation is antiparallel to the third piezoelectric axis orientation.
As to claim 4, the modified Aigner et al.’s figure shows that the second piezoelectric layer is undoped to facilitate determining the selected electromechanical coupling of the bulk acoustic millimeter wave resonator.
As to claim 5, the modified Aigner et al.’s figure shows that in addition to the doping of the third piezoelectric layer, there is also another doping of the first piezoelectric layer (Sadhu ‘752 teaches that “Said aluminum nitride may be undoped or doped with one or more of scandium (Sc), erbium (Er), magnesium (Mg), hafnium (Hf), or the like” Therefore, it is seen as an obvious design preference to dope the first piezoelectric layer in order to ensure optimum performance).
As to claim 6, the modified Aigner et al.’s figure shows that in addition to the doping of the third piezoelectric layer, there is also yet another doping of the second piezoelectric layer (Sadhu ‘752 teaches that “Said aluminum nitride may be undoped or doped with one or more of scandium (Sc), erbium (Er), magnesium (Mg), hafnium (Hf), or the like” Therefore, it is seen as an obvious design preference to dope the second piezoelectric layer in order to ensure optimum performance).
As to claim 7, the modified Aigner et al.’s figure shows that in addition to the doping of the third piezoelectric layer, there is also another doping of the first piezoelectric layer, and there is also yet another doping of the second piezoelectric layer (see the rejection of claims 5 and 6).
As to claim 8, the modified Aigner et al.’s figure shows that the bulk acoustic millimeter wave resonator includes at least a bottom electrode stack (Umeda’s 40), the bottom electrode stack including at least a first bottom metal electrode layer, a second bottom metal electrode layer, a third bottom metal electrode layer, and a fourth bottom metal electrode layer, and in which the third bottom metal electrode layer and the fourth bottom metal electrode layer are electrically and acoustically coupled with the third piezoelectric layer to excite the main resonant millimeter wave frequency of the bulk acoustic millimeter wave resonator.
As to claim 9, the modified Aigner et al.’s figure shows that the top electrode includes at least a top electrode stack (Umeda’s 50), the top electrode stack including at least a first top metal electrode layer, a second top metal electrode layer, a third top metal electrode layer, and a fourth top metal electrode layer, and in which the third top metal electrode layer and the fourth top metal electrode layer are electrically and acoustically coupled with the third piezoelectric layer to excite the main resonant millimeter wave frequency of the bulk acoustic millimeter wave resonator.
As to claim 10, the modified Aigner et al.’s figure shows that the bulk acoustic millimeter wave resonator includes at least a bottom electrode; a first mesa structure includes at least the piezoelectric stack; a second mesa structure comprises the bottom electrode; and a third mesa structure includes at least the top electrode.
As to claim 12, the modified Aigner et al.’s figure shows a fourth piezoelectric layer (136 or 134), and further comprising at least one or more of: a third pair of piezoelectric layers, a fourth pair of piezoelectric layers, a fifth pair of piezoelectric layers, a sixth pair of piezoelectric layers, a seventh pair of piezoelectric layers, an eighth pair of piezoelectric layers and a ninth pair of piezoelectric layers (Aigner et al.’s figure 2B shows N of piezoelectric layers and ¶0050 of Sadhu ‘826 teaches “[t]he multilayer piezoelectric structure 42 includes two or more piezoelectric layers”. Therefore, selecting the number of piezoelectric layers as claimed (9 pairs = 18 layers) for Aigner et al.’s piezoelectric layers is seen as an obvious design preference to ensure optimum performance, MPEP 2144.05.
As to claim 13, it is seen as an obvious design preference to set a quality factor of the BAW resonator to be approximately 730 or greater at the main resonant millimeter wave frequency of the bulk acoustic millimeter wave resonator to ensure optimum performance, MPEP 2144.05.
As to claim 14, it is seen as an obvious design preference to set the main resonant millimeter wave frequency of the bulk acoustic millimeter wave resonator to be in a 3rd Generation Partnership Project (3GPP) band in at least one of a 3GPP n257 band, a 3GPP n258 band, a 3GPP n260 band, and a 3GPP n261 to achieve desired operating frequency range.
As to claim 15, it is seen as an obvious design preference to set the main resonant millimeter wave frequency of the bulk acoustic millimeter wave resonator to be in a Ku band to achieve desired operating frequency range.
As to claims 19-20, the modified Aigner et al.’s figure fails to show that the first electrode has a thickness of greater than a quarter of an acoustic wavelength of the main resonant millimeter wave frequency of the acoustic millimeter wave resonator. However, it is seen that the number of layers in the first electrode determined its thickness, see Umeda’s figure 2. Therefore, would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to select the number of layers in the first electrode such that its thickness is greater than a quarter of an acoustic wavelength of the main resonant millimeter wave frequency of the acoustic millimeter wave resonator in order to ensure optimum performance.
Claim(s) 11 and 16-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aigner et al. (US 20050012568) in view of Sadhu et al. (US 20180175826), hereinafter Sadhu ‘826, Sadhu et al. (US 20190305752), hereinafter Sadhu ‘752, Umeda et al. (US 20060119230) and Uno et al. (US 20070096851).
As to claim 11 the modified Aigner et al.’s figure fails to show the layout as claimed. However, Uno et al.’s figure 14 shows a filter circuit comprising BAW resonator 62 in which: an etched edge region (right edge of 62) extends through its electrodes and piezoelectric layer; the top electrode of 62 includes at least a connection portion (71) of the top electrode; a gap (19 under 71) is formed beneath the connection portion of the top electrode adjacent to where the etched edge region extends through the piezoelectric layer; the gap is filled with at least one of air and a dielectric material. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art arrange the layout as claimed for Aigner et al.’s resonator or use Aigner et al.’s resonator for each of Uno et al.’s resonators for the purpose of forming a compact and precise filter circuit.
As to claim 16, Uno et al.’s figure 14 in the modified Aigner et al.’s figure further shows millimeter wave resonator filter having a millimeter wave filter band comprising: a substrate (11 or Aigner et al.’s 100) ; a plurality of acoustic millimeter wave resonators (Aigner et al.’s resonator that is used for Uno et al.’s 61 and 63) coupled to provide the millimeter wave resonator filter, in which at least one of the plurality of acoustic millimeter wave resonators includes at least: a piezoelectric stack including at least a doped piezoelectric layer and a plurality of piezoelectric layers, in which an arrangement of members of the piezoelectric stack has alternating piezoelectric axis orientations, the doped piezoelectric layer and the plurality of piezoelectric layers having respective thicknesses, the respective thicknesses facilitating a main resonant millimeter wave frequency of the at least one of the plurality of acoustic millimeter wave resonators being in the millimeter wave filter band; and a first electrode coupled over the piezoelectric stack and electrically interfacing with the doped piezoelectric layer and the plurality of piezoelectric layers (see the rejection of claim 1).
Claims 17-18 recite similar limitations in claims above. Therefore, they are rejected for the same reasons.
As to claims 19-20, the modified Aigner et al.’s figure fails to show that the first electrode has a thickness of greater than a quarter of an acoustic wavelength of the main resonant millimeter wave frequency of the acoustic millimeter wave resonator. However, it is seen that the number of layers in the first electrode determined its thickness, see Umeda’s figure 2. Therefore, would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to select the number of layers in the first electrode such that its thickness is greater than a quarter of an acoustic wavelength of the main resonant millimeter wave frequency of the acoustic millimeter wave resonator in order to ensure optimum performance.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANH-QUAN TRA whose telephone number is (571)272-1755. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri from 8:00 A.M.-5:00 P.M.
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, Lincoln Donovan 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.
/QUAN TRA/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2842