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 .
Response to Amendment
In the amendments filed November 25th, 2025, the following has occurred: claims 11-22 and 24-31 remain pending in this application. Applicant's request for reconsideration of the finality of the rejection of the last Office action is persuasive and, therefore, the finality of that action is withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(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) 11-12, 14-17, 22, 26-28, and 30-31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Plesski et al. (US 10491192 B1, “Plesski”).
Regarding claim 11, Plesski discloses an acoustic wave device comprising: a piezoelectric layer made of lithium niobate or lithium tantalate([column 3 lines 30-33], piezoelectric substrate made of lithium niobate crystal or lithium tantalate); a first electrode and a second electrode that face each other in a direction intersecting a thickness direction of the piezoelectric layer (Fig. 1, [column 3, lines 50-59], conductor pattern of the XBAR includes two busbars with IDT fingers extending out from them. Plurality of fingers are interleaved so as to overlap)(Fig. 1 illustrates the IDT fingers of the first and second busbar face each other in a direction intersecting a thickness direction of the piezoelectric layer); an additional film located on the piezoelectric layer or on at least one of the first electrode or the second electrode so as to overlap, in plan view, at least one of a first area or a second area, the first area including areas in which the first electrode and the second electrode are located, the second area being an area between the first electrode and the second electrode ([column 4, lines 56-63], thin (relative to the total thickness of the conductors) layers of other metals may be formed as layers over the fingers to improve adhesion between the fingers and the piezoelectric plate and encapsulate the fingers); d/p is equal to or less than about 0.5 where d represents a thickness of the piezoelectric layer, and p represents a center- to-center distance between the first electrode and the second electrode. ([column 8, lines 1-15], thickness of piezoelectric film is about 400nm and pitch of electrode fingers is about 3μm, meaning d/p is equal to about 0.13); and the acoustic wave device uses primary thickness-shear mode bulk waves ([column 3, lines 64-67]-[column 4, lines 1-2], excited acoustic wave is a bulk shear wave that propagates in a direction that is normal to the surface of the piezoelectric plate)
Regarding claim 12, Plesski discloses the acoustic wave device according to Claim 11. Plesski further discloses the d/p is equal to or less than about 0.24. ([column 8, lines 1-15], thickness of piezoelectric film is about 400nm and pitch of electrode fingers is about 3μm, meaning d/p is equal to about 0.13)
Regarding claim 14, Plesski discloses the acoustic wave device according to Claim 11. Plesski further discloses each of the first electrode and the second electrode is an electrode connected to a first busbar or an electrode connected to a second busbar (Fig. 1, [column 3, lines 50-59], conductor pattern of the XBAR includes two busbars with IDT fingers extending out from them. Plurality of fingers are interleaved so as to overlap)(Fig. 1 illustrates the IDT fingers of the first and second busbar face each other in a direction intersecting a thickness direction of the piezoelectric layer).
Regarding claim 15, Plesski discloses the acoustic wave device according to Claim 11. Plesski further discloses the first electrode and the second electrode have a lengthwise direction, and the first electrode faces the second electrode in a direction orthogonal to the lengthwise direction. (Fig. 1, [column 3, lines 50-59], conductor pattern of the XBAR includes two busbars with IDT fingers extending out from them. Plurality of fingers are interleaved so as to overlap)(Fig. 1 illustrates the IDT fingers of the first and second busbar face each other in a direction intersecting a thickness direction of the piezoelectric layer)
Regarding claim 16, Plesski discloses the acoustic wave device according to Claim 11. Plesski further discloses a thickness of the additional film is equal to or less than a thickness of each of the first electrode and the second electrode. (Implicit, [column 4, lines 56-63], thin (relative to the total thickness of the conductors) layers of other metals may be formed as layers over the fingers to improve adhesion between the fingers and the piezoelectric plate and encapsulate the fingers)(it is the examiner’s interpretation that if the encapsulation layer is thin relative to the thickness of the conductor (electrode), the additional layer is less thick than the conductor)
Regarding claim 17, Plesski discloses the acoustic wave device according to Claim 11. Plesski further discloses the additional film is provided on the piezoelectric layer so as to, at least, overlap, in plan view, the area between the first electrode and the second electrode. ([column 4, lines 56-63], thin (relative to the total thickness of the conductors) layers of other metals may be formed as layers over the fingers to improve adhesion between the fingers and the piezoelectric plate and encapsulate the fingers)(it is the examiner’s interpretation that in order to fully encapsulate the IDT fingers, the additional layer must be provided in a manner that occupies a part of a region between the first and second electrode)
Regarding claim 22, Kasamatsu, as modified in view of Plesski and Kadota teaches the acoustic wave device according to Claim 11. Kasamatsu further teaches wherein the first electrode faces the second electrode on an identical principal surface of the piezoelectric layer. (Fig. 1, [column 3, lines 50-59], conductor pattern of the XBAR includes two busbars with IDT fingers extending out from them. Plurality of fingers are interleaved so as to overlap)(Fig. 1 illustrates the IDT fingers of the first and second busbar face each other in a direction intersecting a thickness direction of the piezoelectric layer on an identical principal surface of the piezoelectric layer)
Regarding claim 26, Plesski discloses the acoustic wave device according to Claim 11. Plesski further discloses a thickness of the piezoelectric layer is equal to or greater than about 40 nm and equal to or less than about 1000 nm.([column 8, lines 1-15], thickness of piezoelectric film is about 400 nm)
Regarding claim 27, Plesski discloses the acoustic wave device according to Claim 11. Plesski further discloses the center-to- center distance between the first electrode and the second electrode is equal to or greater than about 1 pm and equal to or less than about 10 pm. ([column 8, lines 1-15], IDT finger pitch is equal to 3 microns)
Regarding claim 28, Plesski discloses the acoustic wave device according to Claim 11. Plesski further discloses a width of at least one of the first electrode and the second electrode is equal to or greater than about 50 nm and equal to or less than about 1000 nm. ([column 8, lines 1-15] width of IDT fingers are 500nm)
Regarding claim 30, Plesski discloses the acoustic wave device according to Claim 11. Plesski further discloses a thickness of the additional film is equal to or less than about 100 nm. ([column 4, lines 56-63], thin (relative to the total thickness of the conductors) layers of other metals may be formed as layers over the fingers to improve adhesion between the fingers and the piezoelectric plate) )([column 5, lines 14-18], thickness of the IDT fingers may be 100 nm)
Regarding claim 31, Plesski discloses the acoustic wave device according to Claim 11. Plesski further discloses d/p is equal to or less than about 0.1 ([column 8, lines 1-15], thickness of piezoelectric film is about 400nm and pitch of electrode fingers is about 3μm, meaning d/p is equal to about 0.13) (it is the examiner’s interpretation that the d/p ratio being equal to .13 is equivalent to being equal to about 0.1)
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Plesski in view of Mimura et al. (US 20190341905 A1, “Mimura”).
Regarding claim 18, Plesski discloses the acoustic wave device according to Claim 17. Plesski further discloses the piezoelectric layer includes first and second principal surfaces which face each other; the first electrode and the second electrode are provided on the first principal surface of the piezoelectric layer(Fig. 1, [column 3, lines 50-59], conductor pattern of the XBAR includes two busbars with IDT fingers extending out from them. Plurality of fingers are interleaved so as to overlap)(Fig. 1 illustrates the IDT fingers of the first and second busbar being adjacent to one another and are provided on the first principal surface of the piezoelectric layer); the additional film is located on the first principal surface of the piezoelectric layer, and the additional film covers the first electrode, the second electrode, and a portion, the portion being positioned between the first electrode and the second electrode on the first principal surface(Implicit, [column 4, lines 56-63], thin (relative to the total thickness of the conductors) layers of other metals may be formed as layers over the fingers to improve adhesion between the fingers and the piezoelectric plate).
Plesski may not explicitly teach and a first portion of the additional film is thinner than a second portion of the additional film, the first portion being provided on the first electrode and the second electrode, the second portion being provided on the piezoelectric layer.
Mimura teaches and a first portion of the additional film is thinner than a second portion of the additional film, the first portion being provided on the first electrode and the second electrode, the second portion being provided on the piezoelectric layer.(Fig. 2 (7) illustrates an additional dielectric layer that has a thickness which is greater on the piezoelectric layer (2) compared to the electrode (3))
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of acoustic wave devices, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the acoustic wave device of Plesski, to include the additional film thickness variation of Mimura with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of reducing the amount of material used while still protecting the IDT electrode.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Plesski in view of Iwaki et al. (JP 2017112603 A, “Iwaki”).
Regarding claim 19, Plesski discloses the acoustic wave device according to Claim 17. Plesski may not explicitly disclose the additional film is provided on the piezoelectric layer so as to overlap, in plan view, only the area between the first electrode and the second electrode.
Iwaki teaches wherein the additional film is provided on the piezoelectric layer so as to overlap, in plan view, only the area between the first electrode and the second electrode. (Fig. 32(a) additional layer (35) is provided on the substrate (10) only in the area between the electrode fingers (14))
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of acoustic wave devices, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the acoustic wave device of Plesski, to include the additional film disposition of Iwaki with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of allowing a subsequent insulating film layer to be coated on the electrode fingers ([attached machine translation, Pg. 14]).
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Plesski in view of Ikuta et al. (US 20130335170 A1, “Ikuta”).
Regarding claim 21, Plesski discloses the acoustic wave device according to Claim 11. Plesski may not explicitly disclose the additional film includes first and second surfaces and end surfaces, the first and second surfaces facing each other in a thickness direction of the additional film, the end surfaces connecting with the first surface and the second surface; and the end surfaces extend at an inclination with respect to a direction in which the first surface faces the second surface.
Ikuta teaches wherein the additional film includes first and second surfaces and end surfaces, the first and second surfaces facing each other in a thickness direction of the additional film (Fig. 1B (9)), the end surfaces connecting with the first surface and the second surface(Fig. 1B (9); and the end surfaces extend at an inclination with respect to a direction in which the first surface faces the second surface. (Fig. 1B (9) illustrates the end surfaces extending at an inclination with respect to a direction in which the first surface faces the second surface)
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of acoustic wave devices, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the acoustic wave device Plesski to include the additional film geometry of Ikuta with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of creating a high electromechanical coupling factor ([0070]).
Claim(s) 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Funemi et al. (JP 2000196409 A, “Funemi”) in view of Plesski.
Regarding claim 24, Funemi discloses a filter device ([attached machine translation, pg. 7], Fig. 1 is a plan view of a ladder type surface acoustic wave filter) comprising: at least one serial arm resonator ([attached machine translation, Pg. 5], pitch of IDT electrodes is different between serial and parallel resonators); and at least one parallel arm resonator([attached machine translation, Pg. 5], pitch of IDT electrodes is different between serial and parallel resonators); and a thickness of the additional film of the at least one serial arm resonator is different from a thickness of the additional film of the at least one parallel arm resonator([attached machine translation, pg. 5], For this reason, in actual control, the thickness of the protective film may be made different for each resonator.)
Funemi may not explicitly teach wherein at least one of the at least one serial arm resonator and at least one of the at least one parallel arm resonator are defined by the acoustic wave device according to Claim 11;
Plesski teaches wherein at least one of the at least one serial arm resonator and at least one of the at least one parallel arm resonator are defined by the acoustic wave device according to Claim 11;(see rejection of claim 11)
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of acoustic filter devices, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the filter device of Funemi, to include the acoustic wave device of Plesski, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of providing creating a transversely excited bulk acoustic wave resonator with desired resonant frequency characteristics (Plesski, [column 8, lines 1-15]).
Claim(s) 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Plesski in view of Kishimoto et al. (US 20170366160 A1, “Kishimoto”).
Regarding claim 25, Plesski discloses the acoustic wave device according to Claim 11. Plesski may not explicitly disclose an acoustic multilayer film located on the piezoelectric layer; wherein the acoustic multilayer film includes a laminated structure including at least one low acoustic impedance layer and at least one high acoustic impedance layer; and an acoustic impedance of the at least one low acoustic impedance layer is relatively low and lower than an acoustic impedance of the at least one high acoustic impedance layer, and the acoustic impedance of the at least one high acoustic impedance layer is relatively high and higher than the acoustic impedance of the at least one low acoustic impedance layer.
Kishimoto teaches further comprising: an acoustic multilayer film located on the piezoelectric layer; wherein the acoustic multilayer film includes a laminated structure including at least one low acoustic impedance layer and at least one high acoustic impedance layer; and an acoustic impedance of the at least one low acoustic impedance layer is relatively low and lower than an acoustic impedance of the at least one high acoustic impedance layer, and the acoustic impedance of the at least one high acoustic impedance layer is relatively high and higher than the acoustic impedance of the at least one low acoustic impedance layer. ([0036]-[0038], Fig. 1A illustrates piezoelectric layer (2) having a multilayer film of alternating low and high acoustic impedance layers (5a-5f) in which low acoustic impedance layers have a lower acoustic impedance than the high acoustic impedance layers)
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of acoustic wave devices, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the acoustic wave device of Plesski, to include the multilayer varying acoustic impedance layers of Kishimoto with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of uniformly reflecting unwanted waves in order to reduce attenuation [0047].
Claim(s) 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Plesski in view of Takamine (US 20160261249 A1, “Takamine”).
Regarding claim 29, Plesski discloses the acoustic wave device according to Claim 11. Plesski may not explicitly teach further comprising: a supporting substrate located on the piezoelectric layer; wherein the supporting substrate includes a material including Si; and a resistivity of the supporting substrate is equal to or greater than about 4 kΩ
Takamine teaches further comprising: a supporting substrate located on the piezoelectric layer; wherein the supporting substrate includes a material including Si; and a resistivity of the supporting substrate is equal to or greater than about 4 kΩ([0057], support substrate (22) is a Si substrate and is located on the piezoelectric layer in a similar manner to the claimed invention as disclosed in Applicant’s specification at [0053])(It is the examiner’s interpretation that based on Applicant’s disclosure of the supporting substrate in the specification at [0053], the resistivity of the support substrate of Takamine would implicitly meet the claim limitation as they are comprised of the same material)
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of acoustic wave devices, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the acoustic wave device of Plesski to include the silicon support substrate of Takamine with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of providing a supporting member for further components to be secured.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 13 and 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 13, Plesski discloses the acoustic wave device according to Claim 11. Plesski may not explicitly disclose a metallization ratio MR satisfies an expression, MR <= 1.75(d/p) + 0.075, the metallization ratio MR being a ratio of an area of the first electrode and the second electrode in an excitation zone with respect to the excitation zone, the excitation zone corresponding to an area in which the first electrode overlaps the second electrode when viewed in a direction in which the first electrode faces the second electrode.
Metzger et al. (US 20210013862 A1, “Metzger”) teaches a metallization ratio MR satisfies an expression, MR <= 1.75(d/p) + 0.075, the metallization ratio MR being a ratio of an area of the first electrode and the second electrode in an excitation zone with respect to the excitation zone, the excitation zone corresponding to an area in which the first electrode overlaps the second electrode when viewed in a direction in which the first electrode faces the second electrode. ([0050], piezoelectric layer thickness ranges from 1200nm to 3700nm and electrode pitch equals 0.8μm, which implicitly satisfies the expression. [0050] further teaches that the metallization ratio is calculated based on the width of electrode fingers and a distance between centers of neighboring electrode fingers, indicating that it is implicitly based on an excitation region between first and second electrodes having a region in which the electrodes overlap when viewed in a direction in which the first electrode faces the second direction, However Metzger is directed towards a surface acoustic wave (SAW) device, and would therefore change the principle mode of operation of Plesski and therefor would not render the claim limitations obvious. No other identified prior art teaches the claim limitation with sufficient motivation to combine)
Regarding claim 20, Plesski discloses the acoustic wave device according to Claim 11. Plesski further discloses the first electrode is adjacent to the second electrode (Fig. 1, [column 3, lines 50-59], conductor pattern of the XBAR includes two busbars with IDT fingers extending out from them. Plurality of fingers are interleaved so as to overlap)(Fig. 1 illustrates the IDT fingers of the first and second busbar being adjacent to one another and are provided on the first principal surface of the piezoelectric layer); and t/p x 100(%) is equal to or less than about 0.83% where t represents a thickness of the additional film, and p represents a center-to-center distance between the first electrode and the second electrode. ([column 8, lines 1-15], thickness of piezoelectric film is about 400nm and pitch of electrode fingers is about 3μm)(Implicit, [column 4, lines 56-63], thin (relative to the total thickness of the conductors) layers of other metals may be formed as layers over the fingers to improve adhesion between the fingers and the piezoelectric plate)([column 5, lines 14-18], thickness of the IDT fingers may be 100 nm)(it is the examiners interpretation that as the center-to-center distance of the electrode fingers is 3μm and the thickness of the additional layers is less than 100nm, t/p x 100(%) would implicitly be equal to or less than .033 or 3.3%)(Plesski does not explicitly state the thickness of the additional layer nor does he provide any reason for selecting the thickness of the additional layer to be based on achieving a particular t/p ratio. No other identified prior art teaches the limitation in part without changing the principle mode of operation of the device or providing sufficient motivation to combine).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicants Remarks, filed November 25th, 2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 11 under 35 U.S.C. 103 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 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2).
Conclusion
Prior art made of record though not relied upon in the present basis of rejection are noted in the attached PTO 892 and include:
Zou et al. (U.S. Patent No. 10873313) which discloses an acoustic filter device with IDT electrodes attached to busbars having overlapping electrode fingers in a first direction
Saji et al. (U.S. Patent Application No. 20190149128) which discloses an elastic wave device, front-end circuit, and communication apparatus
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER RICHARD WALKER whose telephone number is (571)272-6136. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 am - 5:00 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, Yuqing Xiao can be reached on 571-270-3603. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER RICHARD WALKER/ Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/YUQING XIAO/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3645