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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 3 & 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Applicant has amended claims 3 & 15 such that the third Euler angle (θ) is limited to be between -92º and -72º. Applicants remarks direct to [0034] of the specification for support. [0034] of the specification does not support such a limitation, explicitly citing the claimed angle range for the second Euler angle (µ), not for the third Euler angle. While [0034] cites crystallographic equivalents, [0034] does not cite the crystallographic equivalents of between -92º and -72º for the third Euler angle (θ). Support is not properly found in the original claim set either, as both claims 3 & 15 referred to the “second Euler angle” and not the third Euler angle. As such, the claim limitations lack written description and are not supported by the application.
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) 1-2, 4, 6-14, & 16-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Plesski et al. (US PGPub 20210265969), a reference of record, in view of Fukuhara et al. (US PGPub 20240063773), with evidence provided by the teaching references of Kimura et al. (US PGPub 20140152146) and the 2019 publication of Plessky et al.
As per claim 1:
Plesski et al. discloses in Fig. 1:
An acoustic resonator, comprising:
a substrate (120);
a lithium tantalate layer (piezoelectric plate 110, [0029]) disposed over the substrate; and
a transducer (130) on the lithium tantalate layer,
wherein the lithium tantalate layer ([0073]) has a crystalline orientation defined by a first Euler angle (λ), a second Euler angle (µ), and a third Euler angle (θ), and wherein the first Euler angle (λ), the second Euler angle (µ), and the third Euler angle (θ) are chosen such that an acoustic plate mode (APM) is a dominant mode excited in the acoustic resonator ([0034], wherein a bulk shear mode is an acoustic plate mode).
Plesski does not disclose:
a temperature coefficient of frequency (TCF) between -32 ppm/C and 0 ppm/C.
Fukuhara et al. discloses:
The use of a temperature compensation layer (16) on top of a piexoelectric layer (12) formed of lithium tantalate ([0039]) wherein the temperature compensation layer is used to compensate for the TCF of the piezoelectric layer and adjust it closer to zero ([0039]).
Kimura et al. discloses that lamb waves are types of plate waves ([0051])
The 2019 publication of Plessky et al. discloses that XBARs utilize the A1 lamb mode (page 2, fill paragraph 1).
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add a temperature compensation layer to adjust the TCF of the Lithium Tantalate piezoelectric layer closer to zero, such that it is between -32 ppm/C and 0 ppm/C as an art-recognized optimization that provides the known benefit of reducing the TCF as taught by Fukuhara et al. ([0039])
As per claim 2:
Plesski et al. discloses in Fig. 1:
the second Euler angle (µ) is in a range from about -60º to about +30º ([0073]).
As per claim 4:
Plesski et al. discloses in Fig. 1:
the first Euler angle (λ) is about 0º and the third Euler angle (θ) is in a range from about 0º to about 90º ([0073]).
As per claim 6:
Plesski et al. discloses in Fig. 1:
the transducer is an interdigital transducer comprising:
a first comb electrode comprising a first bus bar (132) and a first plurality of electrode fingers (136) extending transversely from the first bus bar; and
a second comb electrode comprising a second bus bar (134) and a second plurality of electrode fingers (136) extending transversely from the second bus bar such that:
the first bus bar is parallel to the second bus bar (as seen in Fig. 1);
the first plurality of electrode fingers extend from the first bus bar towards the second bus bar (as seen in Fig. 1);
the second plurality of electrode fingers extend from the second bus bar towards the first bus bar (as seen in Fig. 1); and
the first plurality of electrode fingers are interleaved with the second plurality of electrode fingers ([0033]).
As per claim 7:
Plesski et al. discloses in Fig. 1:
a ratio of a width of the electrode fingers over a pitch of the electrode fingers ranges from 0.25 to 0.35 ([0041], wherein a pitch to mark ratio is inverse to a width to pitch ratio).
As per claim 8:
Plesski et al. discloses in Fig. 1:
a ratio of a pitch of the electrode fingers over a thickness of the lithium tantalate layer is larger than 10 ([0041]).
As per claim 9:
Plesski et al. discloses in Fig. 1:
a ratio of a thickness of the lithium tantalate layer over a thickness of the transducer is larger than 10 ([0038 & 0041], where the thickness of the lithium tantalate layer may be 100-1500nm, and the thickness of the IDT may be from 110-500nm or greater).
As per claim 10:
Plesski et al. discloses in Fig. 1:
a thickness of the lithium tantalate layer defines a center frequency wavelength (k) of the acoustic resonator ([0037]).
As per claim 11:
Plesski et al. discloses in Fig. 1:
the thickness of the lithium tantalate layer is between about 0.1 um to about 1.1 um ([0038]).
As per claim 12:
Plesski et al. discloses in Fig. 1:
the substrate is a quartz substrate ([0031]).
As per claim 13:
Plesski et al. discloses in Fig. 1:
an oxide layer disposed over the transducer and in physical contact with the lithium tantalate layer (front side dielectric layer 214 [0039]).
As per claim 14:
Plesski et al. discloses in Fig. 1:
An acoustic resonator, comprising:
a substrate (120);
a piezoelectric crystal (piezoelectric plate 110 [0029]) disposed over the substrate,
wherein the piezoelectric crystal has a crystalline orientation defined by a first Euler angle (λ), a second Euler angle (µ), and a third Euler angle (θ), and wherein the second Euler angle (µ) ranges from about -60° to about +30° ([0073]); and
an interdigital transducer (130) on the piezoelectric crystal,
wherein an acoustic plate mode (APM) is a dominant mode excited in the acoustic resonator ([0034], wherein a bulk shear mode is an acoustic plate mode).
Plesski does not disclose:
a temperature coefficient of frequency (TCF) between -32 ppm/C and 0 ppm/C.
Fukuhara et al. discloses:
The use of a temperature compensation layer (16) on top of a piexoelectric layer (12) formed of lithium tantalate ([0039]) wherein the temperature compensation layer is used to compensate for the TCF of the piezoelectric layer and adjust it closer to zero ([0039]).
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add a temperature compensation layer to adjust the TCF of the Lithium Tantalate piezoelectric layer closer to zero, such that it is between -32 ppm/C and 0 ppm/C as an art-recognized optimization that provides the known benefit of reducing the TCF as taught by Fukuhara et al. ([0039])
As per claim 16:
Plesski et al. discloses in Fig. 1:
the piezoelectric crystal is made of lithium tantalate ([0073]).
As per claim 17:
Plesski et al. discloses in Fig. 1:
the piezoelectric crystal is made of lithium niobate ([0073]).
As per claim 18:
Plesski et al. discloses in Fig. 1:
a thickness of the piezoelectric crystal defines a dominant mode of an acoustic wave excited in the acoustic resonator ([0037]).
As per claim 19:
Plesski et al. discloses in Fig. 1:
the dominant mode is an acoustic plate mode (APM) ([0034, 0037]).
As per claim 20:
Plesski et al. discloses in Fig. 1:
a ratio of a pitch of the interdigital transducer over a thickness of the piezoelectric crystal is larger than 10, and a ratio of the thickness of the piezoelectric crystal over a thickness of the interdigital transducer is larger than 10 ([0038 & 0041], where the thickness of the lithium tantalate layer may be 100-1500nm, and the thickness of the IDT may be from 110-500nm or greater, and the pitch to thickness ratio is 2 to 20).
Claim(s) 1-6, 10-12, 14, & 16-19 (as best understood) is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kimura et al. (US PGPub 20140152146), a reference of record, in view of Fukuhara et al. (US PGPub 20240063773), with evidence provided by the teaching reference of Nagatomo (US PGPub 20220345108), a reference of record.
As per claim 1:
Kimura et al. discloses in Figs. 1 & 10:
An acoustic resonator, comprising:
a substrate (2);
a lithium tantalate layer (piezoelectric layer 4, [0040]) disposed over the substrate; and
a transducer (IDT electrodes 5) on the lithium tantalate layer,
wherein the lithium tantalate layer ([0068-0070] & table 6) has a crystalline orientation defined by a first Euler angle (λ), a second Euler angle (µ), and a third Euler angle (θ), and wherein the first Euler angle (λ), the second Euler angle (µ), and the third Euler angle (θ) are chosen such that an acoustic plate mode (APM) is a dominant mode excited in the acoustic resonator ([0011]).
Kimura does not disclose:
a temperature coefficient of frequency (TCF) between -32 ppm/C and 0 ppm/C.
Fukuhara et al. discloses:
The use of a temperature compensation layer (16) on top of a piexoelectric layer (12) formed of lithium tantalate ([0039]) wherein the temperature compensation layer is used to compensate for the TCF of the piezoelectric layer and adjust it closer to zero ([0039]).
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add a temperature compensation layer to adjust the TCF of the Lithium Tantalate piezoelectric layer closer to zero, such that it is between -32 ppm/C and 0 ppm/C as an art-recognized optimization that provides the known benefit of reducing the TCF as taught by Fukuhara et al. ([0039])
As per claim 2:
Kimura et al. discloses in Figs. 1 & 10:
the second Euler angle (µ) is in a range from about -60º to about +30º (table 7, LiTaO3, A1 mode).
As per claim 3:
Kimura et al. discloses in Figs. 1 & 10:
the second Euler angle (θ) is between -92º and -72º (table 7, LiTaO3, SH0 mode, wherein -92º and -72º is crystallographically equivalent to 88º to 108º).
Nagatomo provides evidence that integer multiples of ±180º to the second Euler angle are crystallographically equivalent ([0027]).
As per claim 4:
Kimura et al. discloses in Figs. 1 & 10:
the first Euler angle (λ) is about 0º and the third Euler angle (θ) is in a range from about 0º to about 90º (table 7).
As per claim 5:
Kimura et al. discloses in Figs. 1 & 10:
an acoustic Bragg reflector (acoustic reflection layer 3) sandwiched between the substrate and the lithium tantalate layer.
As per claim 6:
Kimura et al. discloses in Figs. 1 & 10:
the transducer is an interdigital transducer comprising:
a first comb electrode comprising a first bus bar and a first plurality of electrode fingers extending transversely from the first bus bar (as seen in Fig. 1); and
a second comb electrode comprising a second bus bar and a second plurality of electrode fingers (as seen in Fig. 1) extending transversely from the second bus bar such that:
the first bus bar is parallel to the second bus bar (as seen in Fig. 1);
the first plurality of electrode fingers extend from the first bus bar towards the second bus bar (as seen in Fig. 1);
the second plurality of electrode fingers extend from the second bus bar towards the first bus bar (as seen in Fig. 1); and
the first plurality of electrode fingers are interleaved with the second plurality of electrode fingers (as seen in Fig. 1).
As per claim 10:
Kimura et al. discloses in Figs. 1 & 10:
a thickness of the lithium tantalate layer defines a center frequency wavelength (k) of the acoustic resonator ([0052]).
As per claim 11:
Kimura et al. discloses in Figs. 1 & 10:
the thickness of the lithium tantalate layer is between about 0.1 um to about 1.1 um ([0042]).
As per claim 12:
Kimura et al. discloses in Figs. 1 & 10:
the substrate is a quartz substrate ([0035]).
As per claim 14:
Kimura et al. discloses in Figs. 1 & 10:
An acoustic resonator, comprising:
a substrate (2);
a piezoelectric crystal (piezoelectric layer 4 [0076]) disposed over the substrate,
wherein the piezoelectric crystal ([0068-0070] & table 6) has a crystalline orientation defined by a first Euler angle (λ), a second Euler angle (µ), and a third Euler angle (θ), and wherein the second Euler angle (µ) ranges from about -60° to about +30° (table 7, LiTaO3, A1 mode); and
an interdigital transducer (IDT electrodes 5) on the piezoelectric crystal,
wherein an acoustic plate mode (APM) is a dominant mode excited in the acoustic resonator ([0011]).
Kimura does not disclose:
a temperature coefficient of frequency (TCF) between -32 ppm/C and 0 ppm/C.
Fukuhara et al. discloses:
The use of a temperature compensation layer (16) on top of a piexoelectric layer (12) formed of lithium tantalate ([0039]) wherein the temperature compensation layer is used to compensate for the TCF of the piezoelectric layer and adjust it closer to zero ([0039]).
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add a temperature compensation layer to adjust the TCF of the Lithium Tantalate piezoelectric layer closer to zero, such that it is between -32 ppm/C and 0 ppm/C as an art-recognized optimization that provides the known benefit of reducing the TCF as taught by Fukuhara et al. ([0039])
As per claim 16:
Kimura et al. discloses in Figs. 1 & 10:
the piezoelectric crystal is made of lithium tantalate (table 7, LiTaO3, A1 mode).
As per claim 17:
Kimura et al. discloses in Figs. 1 & 10:
the piezoelectric crystal is made of lithium niobate (table 7, LiNbO3, A1 mode).
As per claim 18:
Kimura et al. discloses in Figs. 1 & 10:
a thickness of the piezoelectric crystal defines a dominant mode of an acoustic wave excited in the acoustic resonator ([0052]).
As per claim 19:
Kimura et al. discloses in Figs. 1 & 10:
the dominant mode is an acoustic plate mode (APM) ([0052]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks, filed 04/21/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-20 under Plesski or Kimura have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Plesski in view of Fukuhara et al. and Kimura in view of Fukuhara et al.
Applicant's arguments filed 04/21/2025 with respect to the plate mode of Plesski, and the correction of the 112 rejections of claims 3 & 15 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 5 of the applicant’s remarks, the applicant argues:
Claims 3 and 15 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention. Claims 3 and 15 have been amended. Support can be found throughout the application as filed, e.g., in the specification at paragraph [0034].
Withdrawal of the rejections is respectfully requested.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. [0034] of the specification does not support the amendments of claims 3 & 15 as written, providing support for the cited range only for the second Euler angle, and not the third, as claimed. While the previous 112(b) rejection is withdrawn, the amendments are rejected under a new rejection of 112(a) as provided above.
On page 6 of the applicant’s remarks, the applicant argues:
The cited prior art references fail to teach or fairly suggest the salient features of claim 1. As an initial matter, Plesski does not teach the claimed "APM mode," let alone the APM mode being the dominant mode. Rather, Plesski teaches a bulk shear mode as the primary mode. See Plesski at [0034] ("the primary acoustic mode is a bulk shear mode where acoustic energy propagates along a direction substantially orthogonal to the surface of the piezoelectric plate, which is also normal, or transverse, to the direction of the electric field created by the IDT fingers.") The bulk shear mode of Plesski does not amount to any APM mode, as recited by claim 1. See also Specification at [0034] ("On such a piezoelectric layer, the acoustic resonator is excited primarily APM waves. The mechanical displacement associated with these waves is primarily in the direction parallel to the electrodes. The advantage of APM waves is to produce a center frequency primarily determined by the piezoelectric layer thickness instead of an electrode pitch, tother with a large electroacoustic coupling and a relatively good temperature stability of the device frequency.").
The examiner respectfully disagrees. The limitation of “an acoustic plate mode” is generic for any type of plate mode, whereas Kimura discloses, as noted above, that a lamb mode is a type of plate mode, the newly provided teaching reference of the 2019 publication of Plessky et al. discloses that XBARs utilize the A1 lamb mode, which meets the limitation of “an acoustic plate mode.” The amendment of claims 1 & 14 include further limitations, requiring the alteration of the grounds of rejection, but applicant’s argument against Plessky regarding “an acoustic plate mode” is not persuasive.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 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 /Samuel S Outten/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2843
