DETAILED ACTION
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted 7/22/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 7/24/2026 has been entered. The applicant has amended claims 1-4, 8, 9, 11, 16-18, and 20. Claims 1-20 remain pending. The amendment has overcome all claim rejections set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 4/28/2026 (“FAOM”), which are hereby withdrawn.
Response to Argument
Applicant’s argument, see pages 7-8 of the Remarks filed 7/24/2026 (“Remarks”), with respect to the rejections of record has been fully considered and found persuasive. Therefore, the rejections of record have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, new grounds of objections and rejections have been made, as set forth below, and the previously indicated allowability of claim 4 has been withdrawn.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the following features must be shown or cancelled: “a second piezoelectric layer between the temperature compensation structure and the second electrode,” as recited in the amended claim 4. The examiner notes that the disclosure does not even mention a “second piezoelectric layer.” Fig. 12E is described in the specification as containing a single piezoelectric layer with the “temperature compensation structure 25 embedded in the piezoelectric layer 36” (Specification, ¶154). This subject matter is already claimed in the original claim 6, which recites “wherein the temperature compensation structure is embedded in the piezoelectric layer.”
The drawings are also objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: Fig. 12E, 36a and 36b.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. No new matter should be entered. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: amended claim 4 recites “a second piezoelectric layer between the temperature compensation structure and the second electrode.” The disclosure does not mention the recited “second piezoelectric layer.”
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 7-12, 14-15, 17-18, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by DE 10 2011 119 660, published 5/29/2013 (“Jäger”), a machine translation of which is provided herewith.
Jäger discloses in Fig. 7, Abstract, ¶¶7-24, 49-50, 67-70, claims 1-6:
Claims 1, 18, 20
A bulk acoustic wave device (Fig. 7, Abstract, ¶¶7-24, 49-50, 67-70, claims 1-6) comprising:
a first electrode (E2);
a second electrode (E1);
a piezoelectric layer (PL) positioned between the first electrode and the second electrode; and
a temperature compensation structure (acoustic mirror AS) in thermal communication with the piezoelectric layer (¶50, “the first waveguide layer WL1 is formed as a glass and includes its main component a material that improves the temperature coefficient of frequency (TCF) of the device”), the temperature compensation structure including doped germanium oxide layer (¶¶7-13, claims 1-6, glass comprising germanium oxide as well as dopants such as glass modifiers and/or stabilizers) having a lower acoustic velocity and higher permittivity than silicon oxide (inherent).
Jäger teaches modifying its germanium oxide TCF layer with various dopants listed in claims 5-6 of Jäger. Jäger also teaches that germanium dioxide layers has a higher density than the silicon dioxide layers (¶11). While Jäger is silent on the acoustic velocity and permittivity of its doped germanium oxide layers, it is well known in the art that SiO2 has the acoustic velocity of about 3800 m/s and the permittivity about 4, while GeO2 has the acoustic velocity of about 2100 m/s and the permittivity of about 9. It is also well known in the art that doping GeO2 with a metal oxide, as taught by Jäger, would increase its mass density (ρ) and therefore decrease its acoustic velocity determined as
v
=
√
M
ρ
. It is also well known that doping GeO2 with a metal oxide increases its dielectric constant and therefore increases its permittivity. Thus, doped germanium oxide disclosed in Jäger would inherently have a lower acoustic velocity and higher permittivity than silicon oxide, as required by the claim.
Regarding claim 20, Jäger also discloses “one or more acoustic wave resonators electrically coupled to the bulk acoustic wave device” (Claim 16 of Jäger discloses electrically coupled first and second acoustic resonators in a filter).
Claims 3 and 11
wherein the temperature compensation structure includes a first layer with the doped germanium oxide layer and a second layer having silicon oxide (¶¶17-19, 34).
Jäger discloses a BAW resonator with an acoustic mirror (AS) comprising layers of “alternating relatively high and relatively low acoustic impedance” (¶34) and including temperature compensating layer(s) (¶¶7-13). Jäger also teaches that one acoustic mirror layer may include doped germanium oxide (¶¶12-13) and another layer may comprise silicon oxide (¶19).
Claim 7
wherein the second electrode is positioned between the piezoelectric layer and the temperature compensation structure (Fig. 7, second electrode E1 is positioned between PL and AS)
Claim 8
wherein doped germanium oxide layer has an acoustic velocity that is less than 70% of an acoustic velocity of silicon oxide (because undoped GeO2 has an acoustic velocity of approximately 55%= 2100/3800 of SiO2, doped GeO2 would inherently have even lower velocity, that is, less than 70%).
Claim 9
wherein the doped germanium oxide has a permittivity of more than 1.5 times a permittivity of the silicon oxide (because undoped GeO2 has a permittivity of approximately two times of SiO2, doped GeO2 would inherently have even higher permittivity velocity, that is, more than 1.5 times).
Claim 10
wherein the temperature compensation structure has a thickness in a range of 300 nm to 800 nm (¶¶75, 77, the thickness of the germanium dioxide glass waveguide layer is reduced to 800 nm).
Claim 12
wherein the temperature compensation structure has a thickness in a range of 300 nm to 1200 nm (¶¶75, 77, the thickness of the germanium dioxide glass waveguide layer is reduced to 800 nm).
Claim 14
wherein the piezoelectric layer has a thickness that is greater than a thickness of the temperature compensation structure (¶69, PL thickness is approximately half a wavelength or an odd multiple thereof; ¶37, the thickness of the waveguide layer is preferably 5-50% of the wavelength).
Claim 15
wherein the first layer has a thickness in a range of 20% to 80% of a total thickness of the temperature compensation structure (¶34).
Jäger discloses a BAW resonator with an acoustic mirror (AS) comprising layers of “alternating relatively high and relatively low acoustic impedance” (¶34) and including temperature compensating layer(s) (¶¶7-13). Jäger also teaches that the sublayers of an acoustic mirror have a thickness of approximately one quarter of the wavelength (¶34), which means that a first layer will have a thickness in the range of 25%-50% of the total thickness of the temperature compensating structure.
Claim 17
wherein the doped germanium oxide layer has a lower acoustic velocity, a higher permittivity, and a higher effective electronegativity than silicon oxycarbide (because undoped GeO2 has a lower acoustic velocity, a higher permittivity and a higher effective electronegativity than silicon oxycarbide SiO2, doped GeO2 disclosed in Jäger would necessarily have even lower velocity, a higher permittivity, and a higher effective electronegativity than silicon oxycarbide).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jäger, taken alone.
Jäger discloses a BAW resonator with an acoustic mirror (AS) comprising layers of “alternating relatively high and relatively low acoustic impedance” (¶34) and including temperature compensating layer(s) (¶¶7-13). Jäger also teaches that one acoustic mirror layer may include doped germanium oxide (¶¶12-13) and another layer may comprise silicon oxide (¶19), as a layer of higher acoustic impedance than that of the doped germanium oxide layer.
Regarding claim 16, it was well known in the art that tellurium oxide has an acoustic impedance greater than that of doped germanium oxide. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use tellurium oxide as a simple substitution of one known high acoustic impedance element for another to obtain predictable results. MPEP 2143.I.B.
Claims 1-12, 14-15, 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2007/0120625, published May 31, 2007 (“Larson”), of record, in view of Jäger.
Larson discloses in Figs. 3A-3E and the corresponding description:
Claims 1, 18, 20
A bulk acoustic wave device (Figs. FBAR device 100) comprising:
a first electrode (112);
a second electrode (114);
a piezoelectric layer (116) positioned between the first electrode and the second electrode; and
a temperature compensation structure (temperature-compensating layer 115 made of doped SiO2) in thermal communication with the piezoelectric layer (¶¶32-49).
Larson does not disclose the temperature compensation structure including doped germanium oxide layer having a lower acoustic velocity and higher permittivity than silicon oxide.
As set forth above, Jäger, in the same field of endeavor, discloses this claim limitation.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Larson by replacing doped silicon oxide in its temperature-compensating layer with doped germanium oxide for the benefits of optimized waveguide properties, thinner TCF layer and shorter processing times, as taught by Jäger (¶¶9, 12-13).
In addition, it would have been obvious to substitute doped GeO2 disclosed in Jäger for doped SiO2 in the temperature compensation layer of Larson, as a simple substitution of one known temperature compensating element for another to obtain predictable results. MPEP 2143.I.B.
Regarding claim 20, Larson in view of Jäger also discloses “one or more acoustic wave resonators electrically coupled to the bulk acoustic wave device” (Figs. 3-5, ¶¶31, 54, disclosing an FBAR stack including electrically coupled FBARs)
Larson in view of Jäger discloses:
Claims 2 and 19
wherein the temperature compensation structure is between the first electrode and the second electrode (Larson, Fig. 3E, ¶49, TCF layer 115 is between electrodes 112 and 114).
Claims 3 and 11
wherein the temperature compensation structure includes a first layer with the doped germanium oxide layer and a second layer having silicon oxide (Larson, Fig. 3D, ¶47; TCF layers 113 and 115, Jäger, ¶¶17-19, 34).
Larson teaches using a temperature compensation structure including two layers 113 and 115, each layer of doped silicon dioxide (¶47).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Larson by replacing doped silicon oxide in one of its temperature-compensating layers with doped germanium oxide for the benefits of optimized waveguide properties, thinner TCF layer and shorter processing times, as taught by Jäger (¶¶9, 12-13).
In addition, it would have been obvious to substitute doped germanium oxide disclosed in Jäger for doped silicon oxide in one of the temperature compensation layers of Larson, as a simple substitution of one known temperature compensating element for another to obtain predictable results. MPEP 2143.I.B.
Claim 4
further comprising a second piezoelectric layer between the temperature compensation structure and the second electrode (Larson, Fig. 3E, ¶49, first piezoelectric layer 116A is between first electrode 112 and TCF 115 and second piezoelectric layer 116B is between TCF layer 115 and the second electrode 114).
Claim 5
wherein the temperature compensation structure is positioned between the piezoelectric layer and the second electrode (Larson, Fig. 3D, ¶47, TCF 113 is between piezoelectric layer 116 and first electrode 112 and TCF 115 is between 116 and the second electrode 114).
Claim 6
wherein the temperature compensation structure is embedded in the piezoelectric layer (Larson, Fig. 3E, ¶49, TCF 115 is embedded in the piezoelectric layer 116).
Claim 7
wherein the second electrode is positioned between the piezoelectric layer and the temperature compensation structure (Larson, Fig. 3C, ¶45, second electrode 114 is positioned between the piezoelectric layer 116 and the temperature compensation structure 115).
Claim 8
wherein doped germanium oxide layer has an acoustic velocity that is less than 70% of an acoustic velocity of silicon oxide (because undoped GeO2 has an acoustic velocity of approximately 55%= 2100/3800 of SiO2, doped GeO2 would inherently have even lower velocity, that is, less than 70%).
Claim 9
wherein the doped germanium oxide has a permittivity of more than 1.5 times a permittivity of the silicon oxide (because undoped GeO2 has a permittivity of approximately two times of SiO2, doped GeO2 would inherently have even higher permittivity velocity, that is, more than 1.5 times).
Claim 10
wherein the temperature compensation structure has a thickness in a range of 300 nm to 800 nm (Larson, ¶37, thickness of temperature-compensating layer 115 of about 620 nm; Jäger, ¶¶75, 77, the thickness of the germanium dioxide glass waveguide layer is reduced to 800 nm).
Claim 12
wherein the temperature compensation structure has a thickness in a range of 300 nm to 1200 nm (Larson, ¶37, thickness of temperature-compensating layer 115 of about 620 nm; Jäger, ¶¶75, 77, the thickness of the germanium dioxide glass waveguide layer is reduced to 800 nm).
Claim 14
wherein the piezoelectric layer has a thickness that is greater than a thickness of the temperature compensation structure (Larson, ¶37, piezo layer thickness is 1200 nm and TCF thickness is 630 nm; Jäger, ¶69, PL thickness is approximately half a wavelength or an odd multiple thereof; ¶37, the thickness of the waveguide layer is preferably 5-50% of the wavelength).
Claim 15
wherein the first layer has a thickness in a range of 20% to 80% of a total thickness of the temperature compensation structure (Larson, ¶47, layers 113 and 115 each are 50% of the total thickness of TCF; Jäger ¶34).
Claim 17
wherein the doped germanium oxide layer has a lower acoustic velocity, a higher permittivity, and a higher effective electronegativity than silicon oxycarbide (because undoped GeO2 has a lower acoustic velocity, a higher permittivity and a higher effective electronegativity than silicon oxycarbide SiO2, doped GeO2 disclosed in Jäger would necessarily have even lower velocity, a higher permittivity, and a higher effective electronegativity than silicon oxycarbide).
Claims 1, 11, 13, 16, 18, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0361664, published Dec. 11, 2014 (“Taniguchi”), of record, in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2012/0112282, published May 10, 2012 (“Lin”).
Taniguchi discloses in Fig. 1B and the corresponding description:
Claims 1, 18, 20
A bulk acoustic wave device (¶25, Film Bulk Acoustic Resonator) comprising:
a first electrode (20);
a second electrode (16);
a piezoelectric layer (18) positioned between the first electrode and the second electrode; and
a temperature compensation structure (additional film 12 and temperature compensating film 14 positioned below the second electrode) in thermal communication with the piezoelectric layer (¶31).
Taniguchi discloses that the temperature compensation structure includes a germanium oxide layer (¶31, for temperature compensating film 14, a germanium oxide GeO2 film may be used) but does not disclose that the temperature compensation structure includes doped germanium oxide having a lower acoustic velocity and higher permittivity than silicon oxide.
However, Lin, a reasonably pertinent reference from a relevant field of endeavor, teaches that “germanium oxides are volatile and introduce a large number of defect states resulting in poor device reliability” (¶6) and further teaches a solution to this problem, using a stabilized germanium oxide formed by doping germanium oxide with a stabilizing metal oxide (¶¶21, 23-24, 53-54, claims 13-15, 20).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Taniguchi by doping its germanium oxide layer with a stabilizing metal oxide for the benefit of achieving low defect density and preventing environmental degradation of the germanium oxide, as taught by Lin (¶¶21, 23-24).
In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the known technique of doping germanium oxide to reduce defects and to prevent germanium oxide degradation, as was well known in the art. MPEP 2143.I.C.
While Lin is silent on the acoustic velocity and permittivity of its doped germanium oxide layers, it is well known in the art that SiO2 has the acoustic velocity of about 3800 m/s and the permittivity about 4, while GeO2 has the acoustic velocity of about 2100 m/s and the permittivity of about 9. It is also well known in the art that doping GeO2 with a metal oxide, as taught by Lin, would increase its mass density (ρ) and therefore decrease its acoustic velocity determined as
v
=
√
M
ρ
. It is also well known that doping GeO2 with a metal oxide increases its dielectric constant and therefore increases its permittivity. Thus, doped germanium oxide disclosed in Lin would necessarily have a lower acoustic velocity and higher permittivity than silicon oxide, as required by the claim.
Regarding Claim 20, Taniguchi discloses one or more acoustic wave resonators electrically coupled to the surface acoustic wave device (Taniguchi, Fig. 16, ¶67).
Taniguchi in view of Lin discloses:
Claim 11
wherein the temperature compensation structure has a multi-layer structure that includes the doped germanium oxide layer as one of a first layer (Taniguchi, Fig. 1B, layer 14; Lin, ¶¶21, 23-24, 53-54, claims 13-15, 20) and a second layer (Taniguchi, Fig. 1B, additional film 12, ¶32).
Claim 13
wherein the first layer has a thickness in a range of 0.1L to 0.2L where L is a wavelength generated by the bulk acoustic wave device (Taniguchi, ¶65, the additional film 12 and the temperature compensation film 14 have film thicknesses sufficiently less than λ/4).
Claim 16
wherein the temperature compensation structure has a multi-layer structure that includes a first layer having the doped germanium oxide layer (Taniguchi, Fig. 1B, layer 14; Lin, ¶¶21, 23-24, 53-54, claims 13-15, 20) and a second layer (Taniguchi, Fig. 1B, additional film 12, ¶32) that includes germanium oxide, amorphous zinc phosphate, amorphous aluminum phosphate, amorphous gallium phosphate, amorphous silicon oxycarbide, tellurium oxide, or beryllium fluoride.
Taniguchi teaches that “the additional film 12 has an acoustic impedance greater than that of the temperature compensation film 14” (Taniguchi, ¶32). Taniguchi further teaches to use a germanium oxide film as the temperature compensation film 14 (¶31) and an aluminum nitride or an aluminum oxide film as the additional film 12, because both aluminum nitride and aluminum oxide have an acoustic impedance greater than that of germanium oxide (¶32) or doped germanium oxide disclosed in Lin, as explained above.
It was also well known in the art that tellurium oxide has an acoustic impedance greater than that of doped germanium oxide. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use tellurium oxide in the additional film 12 as a simple substitution of one known high acoustic impedance element for another to obtain predictable results. MPEP 2143.I.B.
Conclusion
This Office Action is made Non-Final due to the withdrawal of the previously indicated allowability of claim 4.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VICTOR COLE, telephone number (571) 272-4686. The examiner can be reached Monday-Friday, 9AM-5PM ET.
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 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 www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and 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.
/VICTOR COLE/
Examiner, Art Unit 2843
/ANDREA LINDGREN BALTZELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2843
Prosecution Insights