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 .
Drawings
Figure 1 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated (per Figure 1 disclosed to be “an example” in the specification). See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 7, Line 1, “at least one bulk acoustic wave resonator” should be rewritten as –at least one bulk acoustic wave resonator of the plurality of bulk acoustic wave resonators—to provide clarity about the relationship of the claim 7 recitation with that of claim 1, from which this claim depends.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-20 are 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. Claims 2-6, 8-9 and 18-20 depend upon rejected claim 1 and inherit the deficiency thereby.
Claim 1, Line 5, “metallic mass loading layers” is unclear to one of ordinary skill in the art as to whether this recitation is related to the “metallic mass loading layers” as previously defined in lines 3-4 of the same claim (i.e. the same metallic mass loading layers, separate and distinct metallic mass loading layers, etc.), thereby leaving the boundaries of the claim unclear.
Claim 7, Line 2; and Claims 15 Line 2 and Line 4, “a metallic mass loading layer” is unclear to one of ordinary skill in the art as to how this recitation is related to the “metallic mass loading layers” as previously defined in Claim 1, from which this claim depends (i.e. the same metallic mass loading layers, separate and distinct metallic mass loading layers, etc.), thereby leaving the boundaries of the claim unclear.
Claim 10, Line 2 and Line 4; Claim 11, Line 2 and Line 4; Claim 12, Line 2 and Line 4; Claim 16, Line 2 and Line 4; and Claim 17, Line 2 and Line 4, “a first metallic mass loading layer” and “a second metallic mass loading layer” are unclear to one of ordinary skill in the art as to how this recitation is related to the “metallic mass loading layers” as previously defined in Claim 1, from which this claim depends (i.e. the same metallic mass loading layers, separate and distinct metallic mass loading layers, etc.), thereby leaving the boundaries of the claim unclear.
Claim 13, Line 2; and Claim 14, Line 2, “two metallic mass loading layers” is unclear to one of ordinary skill in the art as to how this recitation is related to the “metallic mass loading layers” as previously defined in Claim 1, from which this claim depends (i.e. the same metallic mass loading layers, separate and distinct metallic mass loading layers, etc.), thereby leaving the boundaries of the claim unclear.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claims 1 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burak (US 9490771).
As per Claims 1 and 19-20: Burak discloses in Figure 1B:
A die (“substrate”, 105) comprising a plurality of bulk acoustic wave (BAW) resonators (“acoustic resonator”, 100B is part of a ladder filter, [Col. 8, Lines 38-39, 51-54], containing a plurality of BAW resonators), each of the plurality of BAW resonators including a piezoelectric material film (“piezoelectric layer”, 125) having an active region (the region within the “double-headed arrows” 114) including a first subset with metallic mass loading layers (“collar”, 140) disposed above an upper electrode (“top electrode”, 135) disposed on the piezoelectric material film (125) in the active region (as is evident by the placement of 140 within 114), and (as per Claims 19 and 20) a radio frequency device (a cellular phone, [Col. 1, Lines 16-18]) including an electronic device module (transmit and/or receive portion of the cellular phone, [Col. 1, Lines 16-19]) including the die (105). Burak does not disclose:
The plurality of BAW resonators having a second subset with metallic mass loading layers disposed below a lower electrode disposed on the piezoelectric material film in the active region to cause the first subset to exhibit a different operating frequency than the second subset. Burak discloses in Figure 1C:
The plurality of BAW resonators (“acoustic resonator”, 100C is part of a ladder filter, similar to that of 100B, [Col. 8, Lines 38-39, 51-54, Col. 9, Lines 13-14], containing a plurality of BAW resonators) having a second subset with metallic mass loading layers (“frame”, 150) disposed below a lower electrode (“bottom electrode”, 115) disposed on the piezoelectric material film (“piezoelectric layer”, 125) in the active region (the region within the “double-headed arrows” 114).
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the resonator 100B of Burak to be in series and the resonator 100C of Burak to be in parallel due to it being one of the available options based on the disclosure of Burak when choosing the series and parallel resonators to provide the benefit of forming a ladder filter (Burak, [Col. 8, Lines 38-39, 51-54]).
As an obvious consequence of this modification, the first subset will exhibit a different operating frequency than the second subset due to the fact that the second resonator is a parallel resonator that will have a different operating frequency than the first resonator, which is series.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABIGAIL YALDO whose telephone number is (703)756-1784. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7 AM - 4 PM.
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.
/ABIGAIL AMIR YALDO/Examiner, Art Unit 2843
/ANDREA LINDGREN BALTZELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2843
Prosecution Insights