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, 2, 4-9, 11, 12, 15-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Goto et al. (US2023/0336145 A1, Cited by Applicant).
In regards to claims 1, 2, 11, 12 and 20, Goto et al. teaches in Fig. 3 a packaged multi-layer piezoelectric substrate surface acoustic wave device comprising:
A multi-layer piezoelectric substrate surface acoustic wave device including a multi-layer piezoelectric substrate having a piezoelectric layer (112) and a sapphire substrate (116), and an interdigital transducer electrode (110) in electrical communication with the piezoelectric layer; and
A polymer-based packaging structure (combination of 209, 209A, 108 and 106 and 104) including a conductive structure (108), a sidewall (209A) coupled to the multi-layer piezoelectric substrate, and a roof (209 and 106), the roof having a first roof portion (209) and a second roof portion (106), the roof at least partially positioned between the multi-layer piezoelectric substrate and a portion of the conductive structure (108), the conductive structure (108) positioned between the first roof portion (209) and the second roof portion (106), and the interdigital transducer electrode (110) positioned between the sapphire substrate (116) and the roof (209 and 106).
In regards to claim 4, based on Fig. 3, the portion of the conductive structure (108) is positioned between the first (209) and second (106) roof portions.
In regards to claims 5 and 15, based on Fig. 3 and paragraph [0043], the multi-layer piezoelectric substrate further includes a silicon oxide layer (114) between the piezoelectric layer (112) and the sapphire substrate (116).
In regards to claim 6, based on Fig. 3, the silicon oxide layer (114) is in direct contact with the sapphire substrate (116).
In regards to claims 7 and 16, based on Fig. 3, the polymer-based packaging structure further includes a terminal (104), and the conductive structure (108) connects the terminal and the multi-layer piezoelectric substrate.
In regards to claims 8 and 17, based on Fig. 3, the conductive structure (108) is a metal trace/structure.
In regards to claims 9 and 18, based on Fig. 3, the roof (209 and 106), the sidewall (209A) and the multi-layer piezoelectric substrate together define a cavity (C) in which the interdigital transducer electrode is positioned.
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.
Claims 3, 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goto et al. (US2023/0336145 A1, Cited by Applicant) in view of Eid et al. (US2017/0288642 A1).
As disclosed above, Goto et al. teaches the claimed invention as recited in claim 14. Goto et al. further teaches in paragraph [0039], that the second roof portion (106) can be any suitable polymer. However, Goto et al. does not teach in regards to claims 3 and 13, wherein the second roof portion includes a silica-filled polymer.
Eid et al. teaches in Fig. 1 an acoustic wave device (100) comprising an insulating layer (120). Eid et al. teaches that the insulating layer (120) is made from a silica-filled polymer.
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have replaced the generic polymer of the second roof portion with a silica-filled polymer as exemplary taught by Eid et al. because such a modification would have been a well-known in the art substitution of art-recognized alternative/equivalent for an insulating layer that able to perform the same function.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 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.
Bulger (USPAT 10,374,574 B2) teaches in Fig. 1 an acoustic wave package device comprising a polymer roof portion.
Goto et al. (US2020/0162053 A1) teaches in Fig. 1A an acoustic wave device comprising an IDT (12) located above a multilayer piezoelectric substrate including a piezoelectric layer (10) and a sapphire support substrate (16).
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