DETAILED ACTION
Notice to Applicant
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Claims 1-14 are pending.
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 11-14 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-4 of U.S. Patent No. 12,294,349, as cited by the Applicant, in view of Burak et al. US 2017/0288121.
As per claims 11-14, US Patent 12,294,349 discloses in claims 1-4 an acoustic filter comprising all of the limitations recited in claims 11-14, including: wherein a first ratio of a thickness of the first layer to a thickness of the second layer of the sandwich electrode in the first BAW device is different than a second ratio of a thickness of the first layer to a thickness of the second layer of the sandwich electrode in the second BAW device, BUT DOES NOT DISCLOSE the first material being a first non-metallic material.
Burak et al. ‘121 exemplarily discloses in Fig. 8a a BAW resonator device 800a comprising high acoustic impedance layers formed of Al2O3 (aluminum oxide) (Paragraph 40 of Burak et al. ‘121). Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have replaced the generic high impedance material of US Patent 12,294,349 with any specific high impedance material, such as for example Al2O3, as exemplarily taught by Burak et al. ‘121 as being an obvious art substitution of equivalence. As an obvious consequence of the modification, the combination would have necessarily included the first material being a first non-metallic material (e.g. A12O3).
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.
Claims 1, 3-4, and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burak et al. US 2015/0349743, as cited by the Applicant, in view of Burak et al. US 2017/0288121.
As per claims 1, 3-4, and 9-10, Burak et al. ‘743 discloses in Fig. 3b a bulk acoustic wave (BAW) device (e.g. acoustic resonator 300 which is a BAW resonator as stated in Paragraph 31), and a method of making the BAW device, comprising:
as per claims 1 and 10, a piezoelectric layer (e.g. piezoelectric layer 330); a first electrode (e.g. electrode 310) on a first side (e.g. bottom side of layer 330) of the piezoelectric layer; and a first sandwich electrode (e.g. electrode 340) on a second side (e.g. top side of layer 330) of the piezoelectric layer, the first sandwich electrode comprising: a first layer (e.g. layer 342) of a first material having a first acoustic impedance (Paragraph 36, material having a high acoustic impedance such as W, Mo, or Ir); and a second layer (e.g. layer 341) of a second material having a second acoustic impedance less than the first acoustic impedance (Paragraph 36, material having a low acoustic impedance), the second layer disposed between the first layer and the piezoelectric layer (Layer 341 is disposed between the layer 342 and the layer 330.);
as per claim 3, wherein the first electrode comprises a second sandwich electrode (e.g. electrodes 311 and 312), further comprising: a third layer (e.g. electrode 312) comprising the first material (Paragraph 36; The electrodes 312 and 342 are formed by a same material having a high acoustic impedance.); and a fourth layer (e.g. electrode 311) comprising the second material (Paragraph 36; The electrodes 311 and 341 are formed by a same material having a low acoustic impedance.) disposed between the third layer and the piezoelectric layer (The electrode 311 is disposed between the electrode 312 and 330.);
as per claim 4, a substrate (e.g. substrate 305) adjacent to the first electrode; and an air cavity (e.g. air cavity 308) between the substrate and the first electrode (The air cavity 308 is disposed between a lower portion of the substrate 305 and the electrode 310.); and
as per claim 9, integrated into a cellular phone (Paragraph 1; The resonator is used in cellular telephones.).
However, Burak et al. ‘743 does not disclose the first material being a first non-metallic material.
Burak et al. ‘121 exemplarily discloses in Fig. 8a a BAW resonator device 800a comprising high acoustic impedance layers formed of W, Mo, Ir, or Al2O3 (aluminum oxide) (Paragraph 40 of Burak et al. ‘121). Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have alternatively replaced the generic high impedance material of Burak et al. ‘743, such as for example W, with another high impedance material, such as for example Al2O3, as exemplarily taught by Burak et al. ‘121 as being an obvious art substitution of equivalence. As an obvious consequence of the modification, the combination would have necessarily included the first material being a first non-metallic material (e.g. A12O3).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the above combination, as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Schmidhammer US 2009/0309677, as cited by the Applicant.
As per claim 2, the above combination discloses the BAW device of claim 1, wherein the first layer consists of the first non-metallic material (In the combination circuit, layer 342 comprises only A12O3.) and the first electrode comprise molybdenum (Mo) (Layer 312 of electrode 310 and electrode 342 comprise molybdenum as stated in Paragraph 36.), but does not disclose the second material comprises aluminum and copper (AlCu).
Burak et al. ‘743 further discloses that the electrode 341 comprises aluminum (Paragraph 36 of Burak et al. ‘743). Schmidhammer exemplarily discloses in Fig. 1 an acoustic device comprising electrodes, where materials of the electrodes can be selected from Al, AlCu, etc. (Paragraph 72 of Schmidhammer). Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have alternatively replaced the material within any one of the electrodes of the combination circuit, such as for example the aluminum material of electrode 341 of Burak et al. ‘743, with another material such as for example AlCu as exemplarily taught by Schmidhammer as being an obvious design consideration of selectively modifying a thickness of the piezoelectric layer at an unchanged resonant frequency since different electrode materials have mutually different densities (Paragraph 72 of Schmidhammer). As an obvious consequence of the modification, the combination would have necessarily included the second material comprises aluminum and copper (AlCu).
Claims 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the above combination, as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Choy et al. US 2014/0125203, as cited by the Applicant.
As per claim 5, the above combination discloses the BAW device of claim 1, but does not disclose an acoustic mirror disposed on the first electrode.
However, Burak et al. ‘743 further discloses in Paragraph 38 that the cavity 308 in Fig. 3b may alternatively be replaced by an acoustic mirror (DBR). Choy et al. exemplarily discloses in Fig. 3b a BAW resonator comprising an acoustic wave reflector which is a DBR or acoustic mirror (Paragraph 81 of Choy et al.). Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have alternatively replaced the generic air cavity in Fig. 3b of Burak et al. ‘743 of the combination circuit with a specific DBR acoustic mirror of Choy et al. as being an obvious art substitution of equivalence based on the exemplary teachings of Burak et al. (Paragraph 38 of Burak et al. ‘743).
As an obvious consequence of the modification, the combination would have necessarily included: as per claim 5, an acoustic mirror disposed on the first electrode (In the combination circuit, element 308 of Burak et al. ‘743 which is an acoustic mirror is disposed on a bottom surface of electrode 310.); as per claim 6, wherein the acoustic mirror comprises: a first mirror layer comprising one of a first dielectric layer and a first metal layer (Fig. 3b and Paragraph 83 of Choy et al., acoustic impedance layer 307 which is formed of silicon oxide); and a second mirror layer comprising one of a second dielectric layer and a second metal layer (Fig. 3b and Paragraph 83 of Choy et al., acoustic impedance 306 which is formed of tungsten); and as per claim 7, wherein the first dielectric layer comprises silicon dioxide, and the first metal layer comprises tungsten.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the above combination, as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Barber et al. US 2009/0267457, as cited by the Applicant.
As per claim 8, the above combination discloses the BAW device of claim 1, but does not disclose the BAW device integrated into a semiconductor die.
Burak et al. ‘743 further discloses that the substrate 305 is formed of a material compatible with semiconductor processes (Paragraph 38 of Burak et al. ‘743). Barber et al. exemplarily discloses in Fig. 1a a BAW resonator 100 that is utilized in a cell phone and is fabricated in a semiconductor die (Paragraph 13 of Barber et al.). Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have fabricated the resonator of the combination circuit within a semiconductor die as exemplarily taught by Barber et al. with the motivation of providing the well-known benefit of forming the resonator within a structure that is well-compatible within a cell phone.
Claims 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thalhammer et al. US 2017/0310303, as cited by the Applicant, Burak et al. US 2015/0349743, as cited by the Applicant, and Burak et al. US 2017/0288121, all taken in combination.
As per claims 11-14, Thalhammer et al. discloses in Fig. 5 an acoustic ladder filter (e.g. ladder filter 500) comprising:
as per claim 11, a first BAW device (e.g. leftmost series BAW device 501); and a second BAW device (e.g. leftmost shunt BAW device 502); and
as per claim 14, the first BAW device is a series-coupled device (The leftmost series BAW device 501 is series coupled with two other BAW devices 501.); and the second BAW device is a shunt-coupled device (The leftmost shunt BAW device 502 is shunt coupled to ground.).
However, Thalhammer et al. does not disclose each of the first and second BAW devices comprising the limitations recited in claims 11 and 13.
The combination of Burak et al. in view of Burak et al. discloses a BAW resonator comprising the limitations recited in claims 1 and 3 above (See above explanation for claims 1 and 3 pertaining to a “BAW device” which are the same as claims 11 and 13 and thus have not been repeated for the sake of brevity.). Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have replaced each of the generic BAW devices 501 and 502 within Thalhammer et al. with the specific BAW resonator of the above combination as being obvious art substitutions of equivalents. As an obvious consequence of the modification, the combination would have necessarily included: each of the first and second BAW devices comprising the limitations recited in claims 11 and 13.
As per claim 12, the above combination discloses the acoustic filter of claim 11, but does not disclose wherein in one of the first BAW device and the second BAW device, a thickness of the second layer of the sandwich electrode is greater than a thickness of the first layer of the sandwich electrode.
However, Burak et al. ‘743 further discloses in Paragraph 51 therein that thicknesses of the different layers may vary to provide unique benefits for any particular situation or to meet application specific design requirements of various implementations (Paragraph 51 of Burak et al. ‘743). Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have designed thicknesses of each of the resonators within the combination circuit to have been any desirable thickness, such as for example setting a thickness of the layer 341 to be greater than a thickness of the layer 342 of Burak et al. ‘743, as being an obvious design consideration to meet application design requirements based on the exemplary teachings of Burak et al. ‘743 (Paragraph 51 of Burak et al. ‘743).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAKESH PATEL whose telephone number is (571)272-0961. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM EST M-F.
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 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.
/RAKESH B PATEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2843
