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 § 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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koyanagi et al. (US 2019/0393854) in view of Yamamoto et al. (US 2012/0025931).
With respect to claim 1, Koyanagi et al. discloses a surface acoustic wave resonator (Fig 1A) comprising: a multi-layer piezoelectric substrate including a carrier substrate (item 2), a layer of a first dielectric material (item 3) disposed on a front side of the carrier substrate (Fig 1A), and a layer of piezoelectric material (item 4) disposed on a front side of the layer of the first dielectric material (Fig 1A); and interdigital transducer electrodes (item 5) disposed on a front side of the layer of piezoelectric material (Fig 1A).
Koyanagi et al. does not disclose the piezoelectric material having a cut angle θ of from about 12 degrees to about 25 degrees to suppress bulk leakage and improve gamma.
Yamamoto et al. teaches a piezoelectric acoustic wave device in which the piezoelectric material having a cut angle θ of from about 12 degrees to about 25 degrees to suppress bulk leakage and improve gamma (Paragraph 46).
Before the effective filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the cut angle of the piezoelectric layer of Yamamoto et al. with the acoustic wave device of Koyanagi et al. for the benefit of providing improved characteristics for use in a filter arrangement (Paragraphs 29 and 61of Yamamoto et al.).
With respect to claim 2, the combination of Koyanagi et al. and Yamamoto et al. discloses the surface acoustic wave resonator of claim 1. Yamamoto et al. discloses a layer of a second dielectric material (item 3) disposed on the layer of piezoelectric material and the interdigital transducer electrodes (Fig 1A).
With respect to claim 3, the combination of Koyanagi et al. and Yamamoto et al. discloses the surface acoustic wave resonator of claim 2. Koyanagi et al. discloses that the first dielectric material comprises silicon dioxide (Paragraph 59).
With respect to claim 4, the combination of Koyanagi et al. and Yamamoto et al. discloses the surface acoustic wave resonator of claim 2. Yamamoto et al. discloses that the second dielectric material comprises silicon dioxide (Paragraph 47).
With respect to claim 5, the combination of Koyanagi et al. and Yamamoto et al. discloses the surface acoustic wave resonator of claim 1. Koyanagi et al. discloses that the layer of piezoelectric material has a thickness of from about 0.1λ to about 0.2λ (Paragraph 63).
With respect to claim 6, the combination of Koyanagi et al. and Yamamoto et al. discloses the surface acoustic wave resonator of claim 1. Koyanagi et al. discloses that the layer of the first dielectric material has a thickness of from about 0.05λ to about 0.40λ (Paragraph 63)
With respect to claim 7, the combination of Koyanagi et al. and Yamamoto et al. discloses the surface acoustic wave resonator of claim 1. The language “exhibiting a temperature coefficient of frequency at its resonant frequency of greater than about -19 ppm/°K” refers only to a goal of the invention that is an inherent result of the material properties, and this language does not further limit the structural features of the device.
With respect to claim 8, the combination of Koyanagi et al. and Yamamoto et al. discloses the surface acoustic wave resonator of claim 1. The language “exhibiting an electromagnetic coupling coefficient of at least about 15.5” refers only to a goal of the invention that is an inherent result of the material properties, and this language does not further limit the structural features of the device.
With respect to claim 9, t the combination of Koyanagi et al. and Yamamoto et al. discloses the surface acoustic wave resonator of claim 1. The language “exhibiting a quality factor at its resonance frequency of at least about 1450” refers only to a goal of the invention that is an inherent result of the material properties, and this language does not further limit the structural features of the device.
With respect to claim 10, the combination of Koyanagi et al. and Yamamoto et al. discloses the surface acoustic wave resonator of claim 1. Yamamoto et al. discloses that the layer of piezoelectric material is formed of lithium niobate (Paragraph 46)
With respect to claim 11, the combination of Koyanagi et al. and Yamamoto et al. discloses the surface acoustic wave resonator of claim 1. Koyanagi et al. discloses a filter including the surface acoustic wave resonator (Paragraphs 136-137).
With respect to claim 12, the combination of Koyanagi et al. and Yamamoto et al. discloses the filter of claim 11. Koyanagi et al. discloses a radio frequency device module including the filter (Paragraphs 136-137).
With respect to claim 13, the combination of Koyanagi et al. and Yamamoto et al. discloses the radio frequency device module of claim 12. Koyanagi et al. discloses a radio frequency device including the radio frequency device module (Paragraphs 136-137).
With respect to claims 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, and 20, the subject matter of the method claims corresponds to the subject matter of the apparatus claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 11, 12, and 13, respectively, and are rejected for the same reasons.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10 November 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the device of Koyanagi et al. is directed to a surface acoustic wave device and that the device of Yamamoto et al. is directed to a boundary acoustic wave device, and that this means that the teachings of Yamamoto are not applicable to Koyanagi, and that the cited motivation for combing their teachings is not relevant. However, Yamamoto et al. discusses both surface acoustic wave devices and boundary acoustic wave devices and states that both devices benefit from the elimination of spurious responses (Paragraphs 14-18 of Yamamoto et al). As surface acoustic wave devices and boundary acoustic wave devices are similar in structure, form, function, and utility, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize at least a reasonable expectation of success in attaining the same or similar benefits by applying the teachings related to the cut angle of the piezoelectric material of Yamamoto et al. to the surface acoustic wave device of Koyanagi et al.
Applicant argues that it would not be obvious to combine the cut angle of lithium niobate of Yamamoto with the lithium tantalate material of Koyanagi. However, the proposed combination replaces the piezoelectric material of Koyanagi with that of Yamamoto. Therefore, this argument is moot.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Derek John Rosenau whose telephone number is (571)272-8932. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7 am to 5:30 pm Central Time.
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, Dedei Hammond can be reached at (571) 270-7938. 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.
/DEREK J ROSENAU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2837