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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of invention I (claims 1-10) in the reply filed on 08/05/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 11-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 08/05/2026.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 6, & 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Geefay et al. (US PGPub 20070004079).
As per claim 1:
Geefay discloses in Figs. 9:
A package (900) for an acoustic wave device (device 506, [0014]), the package comprising:
a cap wafer (202) having a cavity (space between seal ring 310) defined in a lower surface thereof, outside walls of the cavity defining inner edges of an inner portion of a seal ring (seal ring 310) formed integral with the cap wafer (as seen in Fig. 9); and
a portion of a layer of a first metal (bonding pad 406, [0012]) disposed on and around the inner portion of the seal ring; and
a device wafer (502) including the acoustic wave device (device 506) and a layer of a second metal (bonding pad 504, [0014]), a portion of the layer of the second metal bonded to the portion of the layer of the first metal to define the seal ring (as seen in Fig. 9), the cavity surrounding the acoustic wave device and hermetically sealed by the cap wafer, device wafer, and seal ring ([0013]).
As per claim 6:
Geefay discloses in Fig. 9:
a support pillar (contactor 304), an inner portion of the support pillar formed integral with the cap wafer (as seen in Fig. 9) and a second portion of the layer of the first metal (404, [0012]), the second portion of the layer of the first metal disposed on and around the inner portion of the support pillar (as seen in Fig. 9), the support pillar extending between the cap wafer and a second portion of the layer of the second metal (contact pad 510) disposed on the device wafer (as seen in Fig. 9).
As per claim 8:
Geefay discloses in Fig. 9:
An acoustic wave filter ([0001, 0014]) including the package of claim 1.
As per claim 9:
Takano discloses in Figs. 3 & 25:
An electronic module (duplexer, [0001]) including the acoustic wave filter of claim 8 ([0001]).
As per claim 10:
Takano discloses in Figs. 3 & 25-26:
An electronic device (cellular handset [0001]) including the electronic module (duplexer [0001]) of claim 9.
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) 2-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Geefay et al. (US PGPub 20070004079). in view of Liao et al. (US PGPub 20170203959).
As per claim 2:
Geefay does not disclose:
the seal ring has a width of between 10 µm and 15 µm.
Liao et al. discloses:
A package for an acoustic wave device ([0003]) comprising a seal ring, wherein the seal ring has a width of between 10 µm and 15 µm ([0050]).
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the seal ring to have a width of between 10 µm and 15 µm as a design parameter for providing sealing with appropriate adhesion between the cap and device wafers and for preventing incursion from external materials (such as resin 120), and as a known in the art range for seal ring widths of acoustic wave device packages as taught by Liao et al. ([0050]).
As per claim 3:
Geefay does not disclose:
the seal ring has a height of between 1 µm and 3 µm.
Liao et al. discloses:
A package for an acoustic wave device ([0003]) comprising a seal ring, wherein the seal ring has a height of between 10 µm and 15 µm ([0050]).
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the seal ring to have a height of between 1 µm and 3 µm as a design parameter for providing a desired height for acoustic wave resonator operation while minimizing package size, as is well understood in the art, and as a known in the art range for seal ring heights of acoustic wave device packages as taught by Liao et al. ([0050]).
Claim(s) 1, 4-6, & 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takano (US PGPub 20180158801) in view of Geefay et al. (US PGPub 20070004079).
As per claim 1:
Takano discloses in Figs. 1-3:
A package for an acoustic wave device (resonators 11, [0063]), the package comprising:
a cap wafer (second substrate 20) having a cavity (19) defined at a lower surface thereof, outside walls of the cavity defining inner edges of an inner portion of a seal ring (side walls 33 & 34 [0026, 0030]) formed integral with the cap wafer (as seen in Fig. 2 & related Figs. 4A-4C);
a portion of a layer of a first metal (third metal layer 38) disposed on and around the inner portion of the seal ring; and
a device wafer (first substrate 10) including the acoustic wave device (resonators 11) and a layer of a second metal (first metal layer 36), a portion of the layer of the second metal bonded to the portion of the layer of the first metal to define the seal ring (as seen in Fig. 3), the cavity surrounding the acoustic wave device and hermetically sealed by the cap wafer, device wafer, and seal ring (resin 120 in related Fig. 2 provides further sealing, with the sealing protecting the cavity [0062]).
Takano does not disclose:
a cap wafer having a cavity defined in a lower surface thereof, outside walls of the cavity defining inner edges of an inner portion of a seal ring formed integral with the cap wafer.
Geefay discloses in Fig. 9:
A package (900) for an acoustic wave device (device 506, [0014]), the package comprising:
a cap wafer (202) having a cavity defined in a lower surface thereof, outside walls of the cavity defining inner edges of an inner portion of a seal ring (seal ring 310) formed integral with the cap wafer (as seen in Fig. 9); and
a portion of a layer of a first metal (bonding pad 406) disposed on and around the inner portion of the seal ring; and
a device wafer (502) including the acoustic wave device (device 506) and a layer of a second metal (bonding pad 504), a portion of the layer of the second metal bonded to the portion of the layer of the first metal to define the seal ring (as seen in Fig. 9), the cavity surrounding the acoustic wave device and hermetically sealed by the cap wafer, device wafer, and seal ring ([0003, [0008]).
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form the cap wafer of Takano as per the cap wafer of Geefay to reduce the amount of metal (second metal layer 37, formed of copper) used for the sidewalls of Takano.
As a consequence of the combination, the combination discloses a cap wafer having a cavity defined in a lower surface thereof, outside walls of the cavity defining inner edges of an inner portion of a seal ring formed integral with the cap wafer, wherein a portion of a layer of a first metal is disposed on and around the inner portion of the seal ring.
As per claim 4:
Takano discloses in Fig. 3:
the portion of the layer of the first metal and the portion of the layer of the second metal are bonded to one another with transient liquid phase bonds ([0066]).
As per claim 5:
Takano discloses in Fig. 3:
the first metal is Sn and the second metal is Au ([0065]).
As per claim 6:
Takano discloses in Fig. 3:
a support pillar (column 53) , the support pillar extending between the cap wafer and a second portion of the layer of the second metal disposed on the device wafer ([0101]).
Takano does not disclose:
an inner portion of the support pillar formed integral with the cap wafer and a second portion of the layer of the first metal, the second portion of the layer of the first metal disposed on and around the inner portion of the support pillar.
Geefay discloses in Fig. 9:
A support pillar (contactors 302 & 304), an inner portion of the support pillar formed integral with the cap wafer and a second portion of the layer of the first metal (pads 404, 402), the second portion of the layer of the first metal disposed on and around the inner portion of the support pillar.
As a consequence of the combination of claim 1, an inner portion of the support pillar formed integral with the cap wafer and a second portion of the layer of the first metal, the second portion of the layer of the first metal disposed on and around the inner portion of the support pillar.
As per claim 8:
Takano discloses in Fig. 3:
An acoustic wave filter ([0063]) including the package of claim 1.
As per claim 9:
Takano discloses in Figs. 3 & 25:
An electronic module (2500) including the acoustic wave filter of claim 8 ([0144]).
As per claim 10:
Takano discloses in Figs. 3 & 25-26:
An electronic device (2600) including the electronic module (2500) of claim 9.
Claim(s) 2-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the resultant combination of Takano (US PGPub 20180158801) in view of Geefay et al. (US PGPub 20070004079) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Liao et al. (US PGPub 20170203959)
The resultant combination discloses the package for an acoustic wave device of claim 1, as rejected above.
As per claim 2:
The resultant combination does not disclose:
the seal ring has a width of between 10 µm and 15 µm.
Liao et al. discloses:
A package for an acoustic wave device ([0003]) comprising a seal ring, wherein the seal ring has a width of between 10 µm and 15 µm ([0050]).
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the seal ring to have a width of between 10 µm and 15 µm as a design parameter for providing sealing with appropriate adhesion between the cap and device wafers and for preventing incursion from external materials (such as resin 120), and as a known in the art range for seal ring widths of acoustic wave device packages as taught by Liao et al. ([0050]).
As per claim 3:
The resultant combination does not disclose:
the seal ring has a height of between 1 µm and 3 µm.
Liao et al. discloses:
A package for an acoustic wave device ([0003]) comprising a seal ring, wherein the seal ring has a height of between 10 µm and 15 µm ([0050]).
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the seal ring to have a height of between 1 µm and 3 µm as a design parameter for providing a desired height for acoustic wave resonator operation while minimizing package size, as is well understood in the art, and as a known in the art range for seal ring heights of acoustic wave device packages as taught by Liao et al. ([0050]).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the resultant combination of Takano (US PGPub 20180158801) in view of Geefay et al. (US PGPub 20070004079) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Satoh (US PGPub 20110265298).
The resultant combination discloses the package for an acoustic wave device of claim 1, as rejected above.
As per claim 7:
The resultant combination discloses in Takano, the use of Cu (second metal layer 57, [0100]) between the first metal and the cover wafer.
The resultant combination does not disclose:
a seed layer including Ti and Cu disposed on the inner portion of the seal ring between the inner portion of the seal ring and the portion of the layer of the first metal.
Satoh discloses the use of a seed layer including Ti and Cu as a material upon which to plate Cu ([0087]).
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form a seed layer including Ti and Cu disposed on the inner portion of the seal ring between the inner portion of the seal ring and the portion of the layer of the first metal as a known in the art method of preparing a surface to form plated Cu as taught by Satoh et al. ([0087]).
As a consequence of the combination, a seed layer including Ti and Cu disposed on the inner portion of the seal ring between the inner portion of the seal ring and the portion of the layer of the first metal.
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