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 terminal disclaimer filed on 8/20/2026 has been approved. Therefore, the non-statutory double patenting rejections of record have been withdrawn.
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 1 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han et al. (US2017/0244021 A1, Reference of Record).
In regards to claim 1, Han et al. teaches in Figs 1 and 2 a bulk acoustic wave device comprising: A first electrode (121);
A second electrode (125);
A piezoelectric layer (123) between the first electrode and the second electrode; and
A raised frame structure (170) including a first raised frame layer (171) and a second raised frame layer (172), the second raised frame layer overlapping a portion of the first raised frame layer, and the first raised frame layer (171) extending further inward towards a middle section of the bulk acoustic wave device than the second raised frame layer (see Fig. 2);
Based on Fig. 2 the first raised frame layer (171) includes a non-gradient portion (i.e. non sloped portion) with a substantially uniform thickness and a gradient portion (i.e. taper portion) with a tapered thickness, and the second raised frame layer (172) includes a second non-gradient portion (i.e. non-sloped portion) with a substantially uniform thickness and a second gradient portion (i.e. taper portion) with a tapered thickness.
In regards to claim 9, based on Fig. 1 an active region where the first electrode (121) overlaps the second electrode (125), the active region including the middle area, and the raised frame structure (171) positioned outside the middle area of the active region (i.e. located on an edge portion of the resonator), the combined thickness of the first electrode, the piezoelectric layer, and the second electrode being taken at the middle area of the active region.
Han et al. does not teach: in regards to claim 1, wherein the second raised frame layer having a higher acoustic impedance than the first raised frame layer.
However, Han et al. teaches in Paragraphs [0067] and [0101] that the first and second frame layers can be made from different material selected from aluminum nitride (AlN), lead zirconate titanate (PZT), silicon oxide (SiO.sub.2), titanium oxide (TiO.sub.2), ruthenium (Ru), molybdenum (Mo), gold (Au), titanium (Ti), copper (Cu), tungsten (W), or aluminum (Al).
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the invention of Han et al. and have designed the first raised frame layer to be made from silicon oxide and the second raised frame layer to be made from molybdenum because such a modification would have been one of the limited design considerations when choosing the materials for the first and second raised frame layers (See Paragraphs [0067] and [0101]). As an obvious consequence of the modification, the second raised frame layer will be made from molybdenum which will have a higher acoustic impedance than the first raised frame layer made from silicon oxide.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-8 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.
Claims 10-20 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
In regards to claim 10, the most relevant prior art reference is the modification of Han et al. as discussed above. However, Han et al. does not teach in regards to claim 10, wherein the first raised frame layer is between the first electrode and the second electrode. Therefore, the applicants’ claimed invention has been determined to be novel and non-obvious. By virtue of dependency from claim 10, claims 11-20 have also been determined to be novel and non-obvious.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 8/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 8 of the applicant response, the applicant made the argument that the 35 USC 103 combination of record of Han et al. does not teach the amended claim 1 language of wherein “a first raised frame layer that includes a first non-gradient portion with a substantially uniform thickness and a first gradient portion with a tapered thickness and a second raised frame layer that includes a second non-gradient portion with a substantially uniform thickness and a second gradient portion with a tapered thickness”.
The examiner finds this remark not persuasive. As discussed above, the examiner has detailed how Han et al. teaches claim 1 as amended, furthermore, the examiner note that the amended claimed language added to claim 1 was previously presented claim 3, which was previously rejected (note that claim 3 has been amended to include different limitations). Therefore, the examiner has maintained the rejection of record since the modification of Han et al. as discussed above, teaches the claimed invention as amended.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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
