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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 3 cites “the second Euler angle (θ),” wherein claim 1 cites “a second Euler angle (µ).” It is not clear if the second Euler angle is intended to be the same second Euler angle of claim 1, or a separate Euler angle with a different designation that lacks antecedent basis in claims 1 or 3.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 14, upon which claim 15 depends, cites the limitation “the second Euler angle (µ) is between -92º and -72º,” whereas claim 15 cites the limitation “the second Euler angle (µ) ranges from about -60º to about +30º” which conflicts with the limitation of claim 14.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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) 1-2, 4, 6-14, & 16-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Plesski et al. (US PGPub 20210265969).
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).
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.
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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kimura et al. (US PGPub 20140152146), with evidence provided by the teaching reference of Nagatomo (US PGPub 20220345108)
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]).
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.
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]).
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