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 Interpretation
Note that the rejections below groups the apparatus claim with corresponding method claims, since the method claims are generic forming steps in which the apparatus structure would anticipate such steps.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 5, 12-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yun et al. (US2017/0141756 A1).
In regards to claims 1, 2 and 17, Yun et al. teaches in Figs. 2A-2C an acoustic wave device comprising:
A substrate (206) having a first/top side and a second/bottom side opposite the first side;
A bulk acoustic wave resonator (layers 222, 220 and 208) over the first/top side of the substrate; and
An inductor (inductor portions 212, 214 and 233) formed with/on the substrate, at least a portion of the inductor (based on Fig. 2A: 212 and 214) disposed on the second side of the substrate.
In regards to claim 3, based on Figs. 2A and 2B the inductor is a spiral inductor having a portion (Fig. 2A: 212 and 214) formed on the second side of the substrate.
In regards to claims 5 and 18, based on Fig. 2A, an overcoat/insulating layer (202) is over a side of the inductor (portions 212 and 214) on the second side of the substrate.
In regards to claim 12, Yun et al. teaches in paragraph [0043], that the substrate is made from glass.
In regards to claim 13, based on Fig. 2A, the substrate includes a terminal (225) configured to electrically connect the acoustic wave device to an external device via external connection bump (269).
In regards to claim 14, based on Fig. 2A, a lid (top portion of capping layer 228) coupled to the substrate.
In regards to claim 15, based on Fig. 2A, a second inductor (inductor portions 213, 244 and 229) formed with the lid and an interconnect (225) that connects the substrate and the second inductor.
In regards to claim 16, based on Fig. 2A, the substrate and the lid are coupled by a seal ring (side wall of capping layer 228), the substrate, the lid, and the seal ring together define a sealed/hermetic cavity (227) in which the resonator is positioned.
In regards to claim 20, Yun et al. teaches in Figs. 2A-2C an acoustic wave device comprising: an inductor integrated substrate (204) including an inductor (inductor portions 212, 214 and 233), the inductor integrated substrate having a first/top side and a second/bottom side opposite the first side; and
A bulk acoustic wave resonator (layers 222, 220 and 208) over the first side of the inductor integrated substrate, at least a portion of the inductor (212 and 214) disposed on the second side of the inductor integrated substrate.
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.
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 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yun et al. (US2017/0141756 A1) in view of Sridhar et al. (US2007/0035364 A1).
As discussed above, Yun et a. teaches the claim invention as recited in claim 5. Yun et al. teaches in paragraph [0034], that the overcoat/insulating layer (202) is made from a glass or polymer material. Yun et al. does not teach: in regards to claim 6, wherein the overcoat layer includes a low dielectric loss polymeric material that has a dielectric loss less than 0.01; and in regards to claim 7, wherein the low dielectric loss polymeric material is polyimide, fluoropolymer, polyphenylene sulfide, or benzocyclobutene.
Sridhar et al. teaches in Fig. 2 a bulk acoustic wave resonator having an insulating low acoustic impedance layer (48). Based on paragraph [0014], the insulating low acoustic impedance layer is made from a low-loss polymer such as polyimide (polyimide necessarily having a dielectric loss less than 0.01).
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have replaced the generic polymer material of the overcoat/insulating layer with a low-loss insulating material made from polyimide as exemplary taught by Sridhar et al. (see paragraph [0014]) because such a modification would have been a well-known in the art substitution of art-recognized alternative/equivalent for an insulating material that able to perform the same function.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yun et al. (US2017/0141756 A1) in view of Cheon (US2018/0048291 A1).
As discussed above, Yun et a. teaches the claim invention as recited in claim 1. Yun et al. merely discloses that the inductor is formed from a metal (i.e. generic), therefore Yun et al. does not teach: in regards to claim 11, wherein the inductor includes copper, aluminum, gold, silver, tungsten, molybdenum, ruthenium, iridium, or platinum.
Cheon teaches in Fig. 1 an acoustic wave device comprising a bulk acoustic wave resonator (150) and an inductor (130). Cheon teaches in paragraph [0051], that the inductor (130) is made from copper.
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have replaced the generic metal material of the inductor with copper as exemplary taught by Cheon (see paragraph [0051]) because such a modification would have been a well-known in the art substitution of art-recognized alternative/equivalent for a metal material that able to perform the same function.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 8-10 and 19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Jung et al. (US2011/0090651 A1) teaches in Fig. 2 a package structure comprising a bulk acoustic wave resonator (20) having a lid (40), in which the lid (40) contains an embedded inductor (50) within the lid.
Park et al. (US2019/0019939 A1) teaches in Fig. 1 a package structure comprising a bulk acoustic wave resonator (110) having a lid (300), in which the lid (300) contains an embedded inductor (320) within the lid.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JORGE L SALAZAR JR whose telephone number is (571)-272-9326. The examiner can normally be reached between 9am - 6pm Monday-Friday.
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 on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JORGE L SALAZAR JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2843
Prosecution Insights