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 § 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) 1-5, 8 and 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Grannen et al. (US 20110121689).
As to claim 1, Grannen et al.’s figure 1A, 1B or 2 shows a bulk acoustic wave device comprising: a first resonator including a first pair of electrodes (102 and 104 in figure 1A or 205 and 207 in figure 2) and a first piezoelectric layer (105 or 206), the first pair of electrodes having a first top electrode (104 or 207) and a first bottom electrode (102 or 205), the first piezoelectric layer positioned between the first top electrode and a first bottom electrode; and a second resonator including a second pair of electrodes (104 and 103 in figure 1A or 210 and 212 in figure 2) and a second piezoelectric layer (106 or 211), the second pair of electrodes having a second top electrode (103 or 212) and a second bottom electrode (104 or 210), the second piezoelectric layer positioned between the second top electrode and a second bottom electrode, the first and second piezoelectric layers positioned between the first bottom electrode and the second top electrode.
As to claim 2, figure 1B shows that the first bottom electrode and the second top electrode have a first polarity, and the first top electrode and the second bottom electrode have a second polarity opposite from the first polarity.
As to claim 3, figure 1B shows that the first resonator is electrically connected in parallel with the second resonator.
As to claim 4, figure 1A shows a single metal layer includes the first top electrode and the second bottom electrode.
As to claim 5, figure 1A or 1B shows that the first top electrode and the second bottom electrode are physically connected and contiguous.
As to claim 8, figure 2 shows that the first top electrode and the second bottom electrode are electrically isolated by an isolation layer (204).
Claims 14-16 recite similar limitations in claims above. Therefore, they are rejected for the same reasons.
Claim(s) 1-6, 14-15 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wunnicke et al. (US 20020175781).
As to claim 1, Wunnicke et al.’s figure 1 shows a bulk acoustic wave device comprising: a first resonator including a first pair of electrodes (4 and 6) and a first piezoelectric layer (5), the first pair of electrodes having a first top electrode (4) and a first bottom electrode (6), the first piezoelectric layer positioned between the first top electrode and a first bottom electrode; and a second resonator including a second pair of electrodes (4 and 3) and a second piezoelectric layer (2), the second pair of electrodes having a second top electrode (3) and a second bottom electrode (4), the second piezoelectric layer positioned between the second top electrode and a second bottom electrode, the first and second piezoelectric layers positioned between the first bottom electrode and the second top electrode.
As to claim 2, figure 4 shows that the first bottom electrode and the second top electrode have a first polarity, and the first top electrode and the second bottom electrode have a second polarity opposite from the first polarity.
As to claim 3, figure 4 shows that the first resonator is electrically connected in parallel with the second resonator.
As to claim 4, figure 1 or 4 shows a single metal layer includes the first top electrode and the second bottom electrode.
As to claim 5, figure 1 or 4 shows that the first top electrode and the second bottom electrode are physically connected and contiguous.
As to claim 6, figure 2 shows that the first resonator is electrically connected in series with the second resonator.
Claims 14-15 recite similar limitations in claims above. Therefore, they are rejected for the same reasons.
As to claim 20, Wunnicke et al.’s figure 5 further shows a plurality of additional acoustic wave resonators, the bulk acoustic wave device and the plurality of additional acoustic wave resonators configured to filter the radio frequency signal.
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.
Claim(s) 6-8 and 14-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grannen et al. (US 20110121689) in view of Wunnicke et al. (US 20020175781) or vice versa.
As to claim 6, Grannen et al.’s figure 1A or 2 fails to show that the first resonator is electrically connected in series with the second resonator. However, Wunnicke et al.’s figure 2 shows a similar device that its first resonator is electrically connected in series with its second resonator. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to set Grannen et al.’s first and second resonators connected in series for the purpose of achieving desire resonance frequency.
As to claim 7, Grannen et al.’s figure 2 shows an isolation layer (204) between the first resonator and the second resonator. Furthermore, Wunnicke figure fails to show the claimed isolation layer. However, in view of Grannen et al.’s layer 204. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to include an isolation layer between Wunnicke et al.’s first resonator and second resonator for the purpose of controlling the coupling acoustic energy between the first and second resonators.
As to claim 8, the modified Wunnicke et al.’s figure shows that the first top electrode and the second bottom electrode are electrically isolated by an isolation layer (the added Grannen et al.’s 204).
Claims 14-17 recite similar limitations in claims above. Therefore, they are rejected for the same reasons.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grannen et al. (US 20110121689) in view of Wunnicke et al. (US 20020175781) and Shin et al. (US 20130027153).
As to claim 9, Grannen et al. or Wunnicke et al.’s figure fails to show a temperature compensation layer coupled with the first piezoelectric layer, wherein the temperature compensation layer configured to dissipate heat generated in the first piezoelectric layer. However, Shin et al.’s figures 3-7 shows a BAW resonator that comprises a temperature compensation layer coupled with the first piezoelectric layer, wherein the temperature compensation layer configured to dissipate heat generated in the first piezoelectric layer. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to further include a temperature compensation layer coupled with Grannen et al. or Wunnicke et al.’s first piezoelectric layer for the purpose of improving the resonator performance.
Claim(s) 10-13 and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grannen et al. (US 20110121689) in view of Wunnicke et al. (US 20020175781) and Hou et al. (WO 2023000228).
As to claim 10, Grannen et al. or Wunnicke et al.’s figure fails to show a third resonator including a third pair of electrodes and a third piezoelectric layer, the second pair of electrodes having a third top electrode and a third bottom electrode, the third bottom electrode positioned between the second piezoelectric layer and the third piezoelectric layer. However, Hou et al.’s figure 3 shows three acoustic resonators stacked on each other. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to further stack a similar third BAW resonator in the current first and second Baw resonators for the purpose of achieving desired resonance frequency.
As to claim 11, the modified Grannen et al. or Wunnicke et al.’s figure shows that the first resonator, the second resonator, and the third resonator are electrically coupled in parallel with each other (see Hou et al.’s figure 13).
As to claim 12, the modified Grannen et al. or Wunnicke et al.’s figure shows that the first resonator has a first width and a first thickness, and the second resonator has a second width and a second thickness, a ratio between the first width and a total thickness of the first and second thicknesses is less than 50:1 (1:1 is less than 50:1. Furthermore selecting the ratio as claimed is seen as an obvious design preference to ensure optimum performance, MPEP 2144.05).
As to claim 13, selecting the first width to be less than 100 micrometers is seen as an obvious design preference to ensure optimum performance, MPEP 2144.05).
Claims 18-19 recite similar limitations in claims above. Therefore, they are rejected for the same reasons.
As to claim 20, Wunnicke et al.’s figure 5 or Hou et al.’s figure 13 further shows a plurality of additional acoustic wave resonators, the bulk acoustic wave device and the plurality of additional acoustic wave resonators configured to filter the radio frequency signal.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANH-QUAN TRA whose telephone number is (571)272-1755. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri from 8:00 A.M.-5:00 P.M.
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 571-272-5918. 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.
/QUAN TRA/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2843
Prosecution Insights