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 .
Preliminary Amendment
The amendment filed 3/26/2026 pursuant to 37 CFR 1.115 was entered.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted 1/17/2025, 8/19/2025 and 11/17/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and being considered by the examiner.
Due to the excessively lengthy IDS listing over 200 references submitted by the applicant, the examiner has given only a cursory review of the listed references. In accordance with MPEP 609.04(a), applicant is encouraged to provide a concise explanation of why the information is being submitted and how it is understood to be relevant. Concise explanations (especially those which point out the relevant pages and lines) are helpful to the Office, particularly where documents are lengthy and complex and applicant is aware of a section that is highly relevant to patentability or where a large number of documents are submitted and applicant is aware that one or more are highly relevant to patentability. Applicant is required to include a concise explanation of the relevance for any non-English language documents. See 37 CFR § 1.56.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 18 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 5, recites “interleaved fingers over a first cavity the first resonator device;”
To improve clarity and to provide the missing preposition, the examiner suggests revising as follows:
-- interleaved fingers over a first cavity of the first resonator device--
Claim 18, line 1, recites “wherein a ratio a mark”
To improve clarity and to provide the missing preposition, the examiner suggests revising as follows: -- wherein a ratio of a mark--
Appropriate correction is required.
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, 2, 4, 6-10, 12-14, 16-17, 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3, 5-7, 10-12, 15-16, 19-21, 23 of U.S. Patent No. 10,491,192 (“Plesski”) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0152145 A1, published June 5, 2015 (“Kando”), both cited by the applicant, as set forth in the chart below.
Present Application
(claims)
Plesski
(claims)
Kando
(disclosure)
1, 2, 12, 14
1, 10, 19
IDT/piezo<0.5, Figs. 66-67, ¶¶11, 98,151,158
4, 6
2, 11, 20
IDT/piezo<0.5, Figs. 66-67, ¶¶11, 98,151,158
7
3, 12, 21
IDT/piezo<0.5, Figs. 66-67, ¶¶11, 98,151,158
8
5, 23
IDT/piezo<0.5, Figs. 66-67, ¶¶11, 98,151,158
9
6, 7
IDT/piezo<0.5, Figs. 66-67, ¶¶11, 98,151,158
10
15, 16
IDT/piezo<0.5, Figs. 66-67, ¶¶11, 98,151,158
13, 16, 20
1, 10, 19
IDT/piezo<0.5, Figs. 66-67, ¶¶11, 98,151,158;
Fig. 2, intermediate layer 2
17
2, 11, 20
IDT/piezo<0.5, Figs. 66-67, ¶¶11, 98,151,158;
Fig. 2, intermediate layer 2
The corresponding claims of Plesski recite substantially similar limitations except “an intermediate layer” and “wherein a ratio of a thickness of at least one finger of the interleaved fingers of one or more of the first IDT and the second IDT and a thickness of the piezoelectric layer is less than 0.5.”
However, Kando, in the same field of endeavor, discloses a filter device (Fig. 71, ¶¶167-169) comprising: a substrate with a base (Figs. 70-71, ¶180, support wafer 2A) and an intermediate layer (¶97, support layer 2 made of dielectric), a piezoelectric layer (piezoelectric thin film 4) coupled to the substrate, first and second IDTs (IDT electrodes 5, ¶167) on the piezoelectric layer and the frequency-setting first and second dielectric layers disposed on the piezoelectric layer and between the fingers of the IDTs (Figs. 2-3, ¶¶142-148).
Kando also discloses that the thickness of piezoelectric layer is preferably set to less than 0.3λ and the thickness of the IDT fingers is preferably set to less than 0.08λ (Figs. 46-56, 66-67, ¶¶11, 98,151,158, 166), that is, ITD/piezo thickness<0.5.
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 filter device of Plesski to have a substrate comprising a base and an intermediate layer and the ratio of a thickness of at least one finger of the interleaved fingers of one or more of the first IDT and the second IDT and a thickness of the piezoelectric layer is less than 0.5 for the benefit of forming a recess/cavity in the intermediate layer and improving the electromechanical coupling coefficient and increasing the acoustic velocity of the utilized plate wave, as taught by Kando (¶¶11, 18, 98, 166).
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to carry out this modification with a reasonable expectation of success because both Plesski and Kando disclose structurally and operationally similar acoustic wave devices, using similar acoustic waves, made of similar materials, and used in similar applications.
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.
Claims 1-4, 6-7, 9-17, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kando.
Kando discloses in Figs. 1-3, 70-71 and the corresponding description:
Claims 1-2, 12-14, 16, 20
A filter device (Fig. 71, ¶¶167-169, a ladder filter may be created by combining a plurality of elastic wave resonators) comprising:
a substrate comprising a base (Figs. 70-71, ¶180, support wafer 2A) and an intermediate layer (¶97, support layer 2 made of dielectric);
a piezoelectric layer (piezoelectric thin film 4) coupled to the substrate (Figs. 2-3);
a first interdigital transducer (IDT) (IDT electrode 5 on top surface of the piezoelectric layer) of a first resonator device (Fig. 71, left resonator) on the piezoelectric layer and having interleaved fingers over a first cavity (¶95, recess 2a in the intermediate layer 2) of the first resonator device (¶95-96);
a second IDT (IDT electrode 5 on top surface of the piezoelectric layer) of a second resonator device (Fig. 71, right resonator) on the piezoelectric layer and having interleaved fingers over a second cavity (recess 2a in the intermediate layer 2) of the second resonator device (¶95-96);
a first dielectric layer having a first thickness disposed on the piezoelectric layer and between the interleaved fingers of the first IDT (Figs. 2-3, ¶¶142-148, dielectric film 3 disposed on the piezoelectric layer, between and over the IDT fingers);
and a second dielectric layer having a second thickness disposed on the piezoelectric layer and between the interleaved fingers of the second IDT (Figs. 2-3, ¶¶142-148, dielectric film 3 disposed on the piezoelectric layer, between and over the IDT fingers),
wherein a ratio of a thickness of at least one finger of the interleaved fingers of one or more of the first IDT and the second IDT and a thickness of the piezoelectric layer is less than 0.5 (Figs. 46-56, 66-67, ¶¶11, 98,151,158, 166; Kando discloses that the thickness of piezoelectric layer is preferably set to less than 0.3λ and the thickness of the IDT fingers is preferably set to less than 0.08λ), that is, IDT/piezo thickness<0.5).
While Kando does not explicitly disclose “wherein the first thickness is greater than the second thickness,” Kando teaches adjusting the thickness of dielectric film 3, for example, with ion milling, to adjust the frequencies of individual resonators (¶148). Kando therefore teaches that the thickness of the dielectric layer is a design parameter that can be used to set resonance frequencies of individual resonators.
Kando also teaches using a plurality of individual resonators to define a ladder filter or a duplexer (Fig. 71, ¶¶167-169). It was well-known in the art that a ladder filter or a duplexer must include a plurality of series and shunt resonators with different resonance frequencies.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to set the first dielectric layer over the first IDT at a first thickness and the second dielectric layer over the second IDT at a second thickness for the benefit of adjusting the frequencies of individual resonators, as taught by Kando, which can be used to provide the benefit of tuning individual resonance frequencies of different resonators such as the resonators of a ladder filter (Figs. 2-3, 71, ¶¶142-148, 167-169).
The modification would have been obvious because the thickness of the dielectric layers is a design parameter used for setting the resonance frequencies of series and shunt resonators in a ladder filter. The thickness of the dielectric layer may be set (greater, smaller, or different) as a result of routine optimization to achieve the desired characteristics of the ladder filter, as known in the art. MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
It would be obvious for the first thickness to be greater than the second thickness as the relative thickness of the dielectric layers of the resonators is one of a limited number of options (less than, greater than, or equal to) for the dielectric layers. MPEP 2143(I)(E).
Claim 3
wherein the first thickness is less than or equal to 500 nm, and the second thickness is greater than zero. Kando discloses several embodiments with the dielectric film thickness in the range from 105 nm (¶158) to 175 nm (¶151). Kando therefore discloses the dielectric film thickness within the claimed range of less than or equal to 500 nm and greater than zero. For example, if the first thickness is set to 105 nm or 175 nm, it would have been obvious to set the second thickness different from the first thickness and greater than zero, as required by the claim.
Claims 4, 6, 17
wherein the first resonator device is configured to excite a bulk shear wave having a propagation direction perpendicular to a direction of a primarily laterally excited electric field generated by the first IDT, and wherein the electric field is primarily laterally excited when atomic motion of the bulk shear wave is primarily horizontal in the piezoelectric layer, while the bulk shear wave propagates in a direction primarily perpendicular to the direction of atomic motion (¶¶2, 10-11, 102, 123-124). The U1-2 mode of the Lamb plate wave used in Kando corresponds to the A1 Lamb wave mode (¶¶123-124), which is the same as, or similar to, the bulk shear wave, as claimed. See, e.g., Prov. App. No. 62/685,825 (Figs., 5-6) (describing XBAR as using A1 Lamb wave mode); Prov. App. No. 62/701,363 (Figs. 1-6, pp. 1-14) (same); Prov. App. No. 62/741,702 (Fig. 2, p. 5) (same); Prov. App. No. 62/748,883 (Fig. 2, p. 5) (same), to all of which the present application claims priority; see also Y. Yang et al., Toward Ka Band Acoustics: Lithium Niobate Asymmetrical Mode Piezoelectric MEMS Resonators, 2018 IEEE International Frequency Control Symposium (IFCS), IEEE, May 21-24, 2018, pp. 1-5 (“Yang”) and S. Yandrapalli et al., Analysis of XBAR Resonance and Higher Order Spurious Modes, 2019 IEEE Int’l. Ultrasonics Symp. (IUS), October 6-9, 2019, pp. 185-188 (“Yandrapalli”), both of which are cited herein as teaching references explaining the physical characteristics of the various Lamb wave modes.
Claim 7
wherein a thickness between front and back surfaces of the piezoelectric layer is greater than or equal to 200 nm and less than or equal to 1000 nm (¶¶151, 158, 166)
Claims 9-10
Regarding claims 9 and 10, Kando discloses all the limitations except “wherein the first resonator and the second resonators are either both series resonators or both shunt resonators in a ladder filter architecture,” as recited in claim 9, or “wherein the first resonator is a shunt resonator and the second resonators is a series resonator in a ladder filter architecture,” as recited in claim 10.
However, Kando teaches using a plurality of individual resonators to define a ladder filter (Fig. 71, ¶¶167-169). It was well-known in the art that a ladder filter must include one or more series and one or more shunt resonators with different resonance frequencies.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to set “the first resonator and the second resonators are either both series resonators or both shunt resonators” or “the first resonator is a shunt resonator and the second resonators is a series resonator” in a ladder filter architecture because the thickness of the dielectric layers is a design parameter used for setting the resonance frequencies of series and shunt resonators in a ladder filter. The thickness of the dielectric layer may be set (greater, smaller, or different) as a result of routine optimization to achieve the desired characteristics of the ladder filter, as known in the art. MPEP 2144.05(II)(A). It would also be obvious for the first thickness to be greater than the second thickness as the relative thickness of the dielectric layers of the series and shunt resonators is one of a limited number of options (less than, greater than, or equal to). MPEP 2143(I)(E).
Claim 11
the first dielectric layer is a front-side dielectric layer disposed between the interleaved fingers of the first IDT (Figs. 2-3, dielectric film 3 disposed on the piezoelectric layer, between and over the IDT fingers, ¶¶142-148),
the filter device further comprises a first back-side dielectric layer disposed on a surface of the piezoelectric layer facing the substrate (Figs. 2-3, dielectric film 3 disposed on the piezoelectric layer, between and over the IDT fingers, ¶¶142-148),
the second dielectric layer is a front-side dielectric layer disposed between the interleaved fingers of the second IDT(Figs. 2-3, dielectric film 3 disposed on the piezoelectric layer, between and over the IDT fingers, ¶¶142-148), and
the filter device further comprises a second back-side dielectric layer disposed on a surface of the piezoelectric layer facing the substrate (¶147, “the dielectric film 3 may be defined on both the upper and lower surfaces.”)
Claim 15
further comprising a first opening (Fig. 1B, openings 6 and 7 are defined by partly cutting out the piezoelectric thin film 4) through the piezoelectric layer and to the first cavity; and
a second opening (Fig. 1B, openings 6 and 7 are defined by partly cutting out the piezoelectric thin film 4) through the piezoelectric layer and to the second cavity (¶¶96, 181).
Claims 5, 8, 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kando in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0054432 A1, published 2/23/2017 (“Olsson”).
Regarding claims 5 and 19, Kando discloses all the limitations except wherein either the first IDT, the second IDT, or both the first and second IDTs have an aperture defined by a distance of overlap of interleaved fingers that is between 20 microns and 60 microns.
However, Olsson, in the same field of endeavor, discloses a similar Lamb wave acoustic resonator including an IDT with an aperture (electrode overlap) of 50 μm (Figs. 1A-B, 4A-B, ¶30).
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 acoustic device of Kando to have an IDT with an aperture of 50 μm for the benefit of controlling the resonator characteristics, such as coupling coefficient and impedance as taught by Olsson (¶¶7, 102, 121).
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to carry out this modification with a reasonable expectation of success because both Kando and Olsson disclose structurally and operationally similar acoustic wave devices, using similar acoustic waves, made of similar materials, and used in similar applications.
Regarding claim 8, Kando discloses all the limitations except wherein at least one IDT of the first IDT and the second IDT has a pitch that is greater than or equal to 2 times a thickness of the piezoelectric layer and less than or equal to 20 times the thickness of the piezoelectric layer, and wherein pitch is a center-to-center spacing of two adjacent IDT fingers of the at least one IDT.
Olsson discloses an IDT with a pitch (gap between electrode g) of 4-14 μm and the piezoelectric layer of 1.2 μm thick (Figs. 1A-B, 4A-B, 6, 9; ¶¶30, 53, 94), that is, pitch/piezo>2. Olsson also teaches that the pitch, width and aperture of the IDT fingers as well as the thickness of the piezoelectric plate are all design parameters that can be optimized to provide desired device characteristics. (¶¶7, 50, 55, 60, 70). In particular, Olsson teaches that the resonator can be optimized to promote symmetric modes, asymmetric modes, and/or shear modes of the acoustic wave (¶55).
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 acoustic device of Kando to have an IDT with a pitch of greater than 2 times a thickness of the piezoelectric layer for the benefit of controlling the resonator characteristics, such as coupling coefficient, as taught by Olsson (Figs. 8-9, ¶34).
Regarding claim 18, Kando discloses all the limitations except wherein a ratio of a mark of at least one of the interleaved fingers of the first IDT and the pitch between at least two adjacent interleaved fingers of the first IDT is greater than or equal to 0.2 and less than or equal to 0.3.
Olsson discloses an IDT with a pitch (gap between electrode g) of 4-14 μm and the mark (electrode width e) of 2.5-7.0 μm thick with the mark/pitch ratio at approximately 0.25 for the optimal coupling coefficient (Fig 9).
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 acoustic device of Kando to have an IDT with a mark/pitch ratio between 0.2-0.3 for the benefit of optimizing the coupling coefficient of the device, as taught by Olsson (Fig. 9).
Conclusion
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