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 1-5, 9-15, & 19-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-4, 8, 10-13, 17, & 19-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12267062 (hereinafter the ’62 patent). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
As per claims 1 & 4, claim 1 of the ’62 patent discloses the limitations of the current application using substantially similar language.
As per claims 2, 3, 5, & 9-10 claims 2-4, 8, & 19 of the ’62 patent discloses the limitations of the current application using substantially similar language.
As per claims 11 & 13, claim 10 of the ’62 patent discloses the limitations of the current application using substantially similar language.
As per claims 12, 14, 15, & 15-20 claims 11-13, 17, & 20 of the ’62 patent discloses the limitations of the current application using substantially similar language.
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.
Claim(s) 1-6, 9, 11-16, & 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi (US PGPub 20130234805) in view of Mimura (WO 2018116602, translation provided by US PGPub 20190305751), with evidence provided by the teaching support of Gong et al. (US PGPub 20190131953), as cited by applicant.
As per claim 1:
Takahashi discloses in Fig. 1:
A bulk acoustic resonator device (100, abstract) comprising:
a substrate (101) having a surface (top);
a piezoelectric layer (103) attached to the surface of the substrate either directly or via one or more intermediate layers (bonding layer 102); and
an interdigital transducer (IDT) (excitation electrode pair 4) having interleaved fingers (excitation electrode pair 104) on the piezoelectric layer, the IDT configured such that a radio frequency signal applied to the IDT excites a primary shear acoustic mode in the piezoelectric layer (resonator employs A1 mode, [0068], which is a thickness-shear mode, in contrast to shear-horizontal and length extensional modes, as evidenced by Gong et al.), and
wherein the primary shear acoustic mode is a bulk shear mode where acoustic energy propagates in a direction predominantly orthogonal to the surface of the piezoelectric layer and predominantly orthogonal to a direction of an electric field created by the interleaved fingers of the IDT that is predominantly lateral in the piezoelectric layer(being a thickness-shear mode).
Takahashi does not disclose:
wherein the interleaved fingers comprise a first layer proximate the piezoelectric layer, a second layer over the first layer, and a third layer over the second layer such that the second layer is between the first and third layers, wherein adjacent layers of the first, second and third layers are comprised of different metals.
Mimura discloses in Fig. 4:
an elastic wave device (abstract) utilizing an IDT electrode wherein the interleaved fingers comprise a first layer proximate a piezoelectric plate (LiNbO3 substrate 2), a second layer over the first layer, and a third layer over the second layer such that the second layer is between the first and third layers (layers 41-45 comprise 5 separate layers, forming a first, second, and third layer), wherein adjacent layers are comprised of different metals ([0080-0082]).
Gong et al. teaches:
A1 vibrating modes are a thickness shear laterally vibrating mode in contrast to shear-horizontal (SH0) modes ([0040]).
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the IDT electrode construction of Mimura for the IDT electrode construction of Takahashi as an art-recognized alternative/equivalent IDT electrode construction able to provide the same function of exciting elastic waves in an acoustic resonator, as taught by Mimura (abstract).
As per claims 2 & 12:
Takahashi does not disclose:
the first layer comprises a low acoustic impedance metal in comparison to the acoustic impedance of one or more of the second and third layer, wherein the second layer comprises a high acoustic impedance metal in comparison to the acoustic impedance of one or more of the first layer and the third layer, and wherein the third layer comprises an intermediate transverse acoustic impedance metal in comparison to the acoustic impedance of one or more of the first layer and the second layer.
Mimura discloses:
the first layer (close contact layer 41) comprises a low acoustic impedance metal (Ti [0080]) in comparison to the acoustic impedance of one or more of the second and third layer, wherein the second layer (main electrode 42) comprises a high acoustic impedance metal (tungsten, [0081]) in comparison to the acoustic impedance of one or more of the first layer and the third layer, and wherein the third layer (conductive auxiliary film 44) comprises an intermediate transverse acoustic impedance metal (Cu, [0082]) in comparison to the acoustic impedance of one or more of the first layer and the second layer.
As a consequence of the combination of claim 1/11, the first layer comprises a low acoustic impedance metal in comparison to the acoustic impedance of one or more of the second and third layer, wherein the second layer comprises a high acoustic impedance metal in comparison to the acoustic impedance of one or more of the first layer and the third layer, and wherein the third layer comprises an intermediate transverse acoustic impedance metal in comparison to the acoustic impedance of one or more of the first layer and the second layer.
As per claims 3 & 13:
Takahashi discloses:
The thickness of the piezoelectric layer is in a range of 0.05-1.0*λ ([0068]), where λ is the wavelength of the A1 mode ([0068]).
Takahashi does not disclose:
a thickness of the first layer is in a range from 25% to 75% of a thickness of the piezoelectric layer.
Mimura discloses in Fig. 4:
a thickness of the first layer (main electrode 42, wherein 43-45 comprises the second and third layers) has a thickness of 0.075λ ([0102]).
As a consequence of the combination of claim 1/11/21, a thickness of the first layer is in a range from 25% to 75% of a thickness of the piezoelectric layer (0.075λ being 37.5% of 0.2 λ, the thickness provided by Takahashi).
As per claims 4 & 14:
Takahashi discloses:
The thickness of the piezoelectric layer is in a range of 0.05-1.0*λ ([0068]), where λ is the wavelength of the A1 mode ([0068]).
Takahashi does not disclose:
a thickness of the second layer is in a range from 25% to 75% of a thickness of the piezoelectric layer.
Mimura discloses in Fig. 4:
a thickness of the second layer (main electrode 42, wherein 41 comprises the first layer and 43-45 comprises the third layers) has a thickness of 0.075λ ([0102]).
As a consequence of the combination of claim 1/11, a thickness of the first layer is in a range from 25% to 75% of a thickness of the piezoelectric layer (0.075λ being 37.5% of 0.2 λ, the thickness provided by Takahashi).
As per claims 5 & 15:
Takahashi discloses:
The thickness of the piezoelectric layer is in a range of 0.05-1.0*λ ([0068]), where λ is the wavelength of the A1 mode ([0068]).
Takahashi does not disclose:
a thickness of the third layer is in a range from 25% to 75% of a thickness of the piezoelectric layer.
Mimura discloses in Fig. 4:
a thickness of the third layer (auxiliary electrode 44, wherein 41-43 comprise the first and second layers) has a thickness of 0.08λ ([0103]).
As a consequence of the combination of claim 1/11, a thickness of the third layer is in a range from 25% to 75% of a thickness of the piezoelectric layer (0.08λ being 40% of 0.2 λ, the thickness provided by Takahashi).
As per claims 6 & 16:
Takahashi discloses in Fig. 1:
the IDT has a sidewall with at least one point that extends from the piezoelectric layer at an angle θ1 (the side wall of the IDT extends vertically from the surface of the piezoelectric layer).
Takahashi does not disclose:
the first layer has a sidewall with at least one point that extends from the piezoelectric layer at an angle θ1.
Mimura discloses in Fig. 4:
an elastic wave device (abstract) utilizing an IDT electrode wherein the interleaved fingers comprise a first layer proximate a piezoelectric plate (LiNbO3 substrate 2), a second layer over the first layer, and a third layer over the second layer such that the second layer is between the first and third layers (layers 41-45 comprise 5 separate layers, forming a first, second, and third layer), wherein adjacent layers are comprised of different metals ([0080-0082]), and each of the layers has a sidewall with at least one point that extends from the piezoelectric layer at an angle (as seen in Fig. 1).
As a consequence of the combination of claim 1/11, the first layer has a sidewall with at least one point that extends from the piezoelectric layer at an angle θ1.
As per claims 9 & 19:
Takahashi does not disclose:
an adhesion layer between the first layer and the diaphragm.
Mimura discloses:
an adhesion layer (close contact layer 41, wherein layers 42-45 comprise the first through third layers) between the first layer and the diaphragm.
As a consequence of the combination of claim 1/11, the combination discloses an adhesion layer between the first layer and the diaphragm.
As per claim 11:
Takahashi discloses in Figs. 1, 2, & 4:
A filter device (200) comprising:
a plurality of acoustic resonators (resonator 100 in Fig. 4, [0101]) that each comprise:
a substrate (101) having a surface (top);
a piezoelectric layer (103) attached to the surface of the substrate either directly or via one or more intermediate layers (bonding layer 102);
and a conductor pattern on a surface of the piezoelectric layer the conductor pattern including an interdigital transducer (IDT) (excitation electrode pair 4) having interleaved fingers that are disposed on the respective piezoelectric layer,
the piezoelectric layer and the IDT configured such that a radio frequency signal applied to the IDT excites a primary shear acoustic mode in the respective piezoelectric layer (resonator employs A1 mode, [0068]) which is a thickness-shear mode, in contrast to shear-horizontal and length extensional modes, as evidenced by Gong et al.),
and wherein the primary shear acoustic mode is a bulk acoustic wave having an electric field which is predominantly lateral in the piezoelectric layer, wherein bulk acoustic wave propagates in a direction orthogonal to the electric field and predominantly orthogonal to a surface of the piezoelectric layer (being the A1 thickness-shear mode).
Takahashi does not disclose:
wherein the interleaved fingers of the IDT of each of the plurality of acoustic resonators comprise a first layer proximate the respective piezoelectric layer, a second layer over the first layer, and a third layer over the second layer such that the second layer is between the first and third layers, wherein adjacent layers of the first, second and third layers are comprised of different metals,
Mimura discloses in Fig. 4:
an elastic wave device (abstract) utilizing an IDT electrode wherein the interleaved fingers comprise a first layer proximate a piezoelectric plate (LiNbO3 substrate 2), a second layer over the first layer, and a third layer over the second layer such that the second layer is between the first and third layers (layers 41-45 comprise 5 separate layers, forming a first, second, and third layer), wherein adjacent layers are comprised of different metals ([0080-0082]).
Gong et al. teaches:
A1 vibrating modes are a thickness shear laterally vibrating mode in contrast to shear-horizontal (SH0) modes ([0040]).
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the IDT electrode construction of Mimura for the IDT electrode construction of Takahashi as an art-recognized alternative/equivalent IDT electrode construction able to provide the same function of exciting elastic waves in an acoustic resonator, as taught by Mimura (abstract).
Claim(s) 7-8 & 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the resultant combination of Takahashi (US PGPub 20130234805) in view of Mimura (WO 2018116602, translation provided by US PGPub 20190305751), as applied to claims 1 & 11 above, and further in view of Nishimura et al. (20090121584), as cited by applicant.
The resultant combination discloses the bulk acoustic wave resonator device of claim 1 and the filter device of claim 11, as rejected above.
As per claims 7 & 17:
The resultant combination does not disclose:
the second layer has a sidewall with at least one point that extends from the piezoelectric layer at an angle θ2 that is different than angle θ1.
Nishimura et al. discloses in Figs. 3-10:
A multi-layer interdigital transducer (IDT) (11) having interleaved fingers (11a) on a piezoelectric layer (10) wherein each layer has a sidewall with at least one point that extends from the piezoelectric layer at an angle that is different than the angle of a separate layer (angles alpha and beta differ [0083]).
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the second layer to have a sidewall with at least one point that extends from the piezoelectric layer at an angle θ2 that is different than angle θ1 as a design parameter that provides the benefit of managing the shear stress between layers based on the thermal expansion of materials of the layers as taught by Nishimura et al. ([0081])
As per claims 8 & 18:
The resultant combination does not disclose:
the third layer has a sidewall with at least one point that extends from the piezoelectric layer at an angle θ3, wherein angles θ1, θ2, and θ3 are different from each other.
Nishimura et al. discloses in Figs. 3-10:
A multi-layer interdigital transducer (IDT) (11) having interleaved fingers (11a) on a piezoelectric layer (10) wherein each layer has a sidewall with at least one point that extends from the piezoelectric layer at an angle that is different than the angle of a separate layer (angles alpha and beta differ [0083]).
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the third layer to have a sidewall with at least one point that extends from the piezoelectric layer at an angle θ3, wherein angles θ1, θ2, and θ3 are different from each other. as a design parameter that provides the benefit of managing the shear stress between layers based on the thermal expansion of materials of the layers as taught by Nishimura et al. ([0081])
Claim(s) 10 & 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the resultant combination of Takahashi (US PGPub 20130234805) in view of Mimura (WO 2018116602, translation provided by US PGPub 20190305751), as applied to claims 1 & 11 above, and further in view of the 2019 publication of Plessky et al. (5 GHz laterally-excited bulk-wave resonators (XBARs) Based on Thin Platelets of Lithium Niobate), as cited by applicant.
The resultant combination discloses the bulk acoustic wave resonator device of claim 1 and the filter device of claim 11, as rejected above.
As per claims 10 & 20:
The resultant combination does not disclose at least a portion of the interleaved fingers of the IDT have a mark that is greater than 0.05 times and less than 0.5 times a pitch of the portion of the interleaved fingers, and wherein the mark is a width of at least one of the interleaved fingers and the pitch is a center-to-center spacing between adjacent fingers of the interleaved fingers extending from opposite busbars.
Plessky et al. discloses in Fig. 1:
A bulk acoustic wave resonator utilizing the A1 mode (page 1, col. 1, paragraph 3) wherein disclose at least a portion of the interleaved fingers of the IDT have a mark that is greater than 0.05 times and less than 0.5 times a pitch of the portion of the interleaved fingers, and wherein the mark is a width of at least one of the interleaved fingers and the pitch is a center-to-center spacing between adjacent fingers of the interleaved fingers extending from opposite busbars (page 1, col. 2, paragraph 2).
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for at least a portion of the interleaved fingers of the IDT have a mark that is greater than 0.05 times and less than 0.5 times a pitch of the portion of the interleaved fingers, and wherein the mark is a width of at least one of the interleaved fingers and the pitch is a center-to-center spacing between adjacent fingers of the interleaved fingers extending from opposite busbars to provide the benefit of concentrating the acoustic resonance almost exclusively in the free-standing LN platelet zone between the electrodes, as taught by Plessky et al. (page 1, col. 2, paragraph 2)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAMUEL S OUTTEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7123. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:30AM-6:00PM.
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 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.
/Samuel S Outten/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2843
Prosecution Insights