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 § 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 1 and 15 recites the limitation "over the first recessed portion an edge region" in Line 7 of each respective claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The instant specification describes a single recessed portion #66 in para. 0142. Therefore a piezoelectric layer with a first recessed portion, a second recessed portion and a raised portion between the first and second recessed portions appears to be new matter, along with features dependent on their antecedent basis. Fig. 17a might show the feature(s), however, there is only one element labeled #66.
Claim 4 is 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. Claim 4 recites the acoustic wave device of claim 1 wherein the dielectric layer in the recessed portion of the piezoelectric layer is between a mini bus bar in the gap region and the edge region. The Examiner does not understand what the claim is trying to say – what elements are the dielectric layer “between”?
Claim 1 is 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "piezoelectric layer" in Line 18. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 is 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. The claim recites “a dielectric layer positioned in the first recessed portion …” and then goes on to state “the dielectric layer is positioned under the bus bar…”. It is not clear if the dielectric layer is positioned in all of these places or if these are different dielectric layers positioned in alternative places.
Claim 15 is 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.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "raised portion" in Line 19. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 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. The claim recites “a dielectric layer positioned in the first recessed portion …” and then goes on to state “the dielectric layer is positioned under the bus bar…”. It is not clear if the dielectric layer is positioned in all of these places or if these are different dielectric layers positioned in alternative places.
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 1-2 and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ruile (US 2014/0035436 A1), Zheng (US 2024/0039508 A1), and Daimon (US 2019/0123713 A1; ids).
Regarding claim 1, Ruile teaches an acoustic wave device comprising:
a piezoelectric layer [[fig. 1] shows piezoelectric substrate PSU] with a first recessed portion [[fig. 1] shows recessed portion between first dielectric DL and second dielectric DL], a second recessed portion [[fig. 1] shows second recessed portion between second dielectric DL and third dielectric DL] and a raised portion between the first and second recessed portions [[fig. 1] shows second dielectric DL (raised portion) between first and second recessed portions labeled with width We];
an interdigital transducer electrode over the first and second recessed portions and the raised portion of the piezoelectric layer [[fig. 4] shows an electrode finger over all of the raised dielectric layers and recessed portions which is a modification of fig. 1],
a dielectric layer positioned in the first recessed portion between the piezoelectric layer and the interdigital transducer electrode [[figs. 3b and 4] shows dielectric layers DL between electrode finger EF and piezoelectric substrate PSU].
Ruile does not explicitly teach and yet Zheng teaches the interdigital transducer electrode includes an active region that has a center region over the raised portion of the piezoelectric layer [[fig. 1a] shows central area Q1 with electrode #22 of interdigital transducer #2 which is over top of the recessed areas between recessed portions #11 as shown in fig. 2b], and over the first recessed portion an edge region, a bus bar, and a gap region between the active region and the bus bar [[figs. 1a and 2a] shows edge areas, gap areas, and bus areas], the interdigital transducer electrode having a plurality of fingers with first finger portions in the center region and second finger portions ending in the edge region [[figs. 1a and 2a] show electrode fingers which extend through the central area Q1 and end at edge areas Q2];
a temperature compensation layer over the interdigital transducer electrode [[0042] solution of this embodiment is also applicable to a surface acoustic wave resonator with a covering layer (such as a temperature compensation layer), so that the suppression of the transverse mode can be achieved without providing a deceleration structure on the covering layer]; and
It would have been obvious to combine the recessed region filling as taught by Ruile, with the temperature compensation as taught by Zheng so that the transverse mode can be suppressed (Zheng) [[0042]].
Ruile does not explicitly teach and yet Daimon teaches the dielectric layer is positioned under the bus bar [[0003] electrode fingers … busbar … gaps; [fig. 4] shows equivalent of central region V1, edge regions V2, gap regions V3, and bus regions V4; [0016] first dielectric films are further laminated on the first and second busbars and over the first and second gaps], and under the gap region [[0016] dielectric films are further laminated on … first and second gaps], under the second finger portions, and under an area between the second finger portions, so as to suppress transverse leakage of acoustic energy generated by the acoustic wave device [[0068] acoustic wave in the main mode tending to leak in the depth direction is reflected by an inner edge of the first busbar 11, which is positioned closer to the tips of the electrode fingers, and that leakage in the thickness direction is reduced or prevented], the raised portion of piezoelectric layer [[0086] first dielectric films 54 are disposed in the first and second edge regions, the first dielectric films 54 are laminated, in the seventh preferred embodiment illustrated in FIG. 14, so as to cover not only the first and second edge regions, but also the gap regions and the first and second busbars ], and the first finger portions and an area between the first finger portions being free from the dielectric layer [[0017] second dielectric film that defines a frequency adjustment film is laminated on the IDT electrode, and the first dielectric films are laminated with the second dielectric film interposed between the IDT electrode and the first dielectric films; [0083] frequency adjustment is performed by adjusting a thickness and a material of the second dielectric film 72].
It would have been obvious to modify the dielectric layer as taught by Ruile, with the two dielectric layers which can have adjustable thickness and material as taught by Daimon so that a frequency adjustment may be performed (Daimon) [[0083]].
Regarding claim 2, Ruile does not explicitly teach and yet Daimon teaches the acoustic wave device of claim 1 wherein the first finger portions have a first finger width that is greater than a second finger width of the second finger portions [[fig. 4] shows ends of fingers that are wider than central portions].
It would have been obvious to modify the dielectric layer as taught by Ruile, with the varying widths of the fingers as taught by Daimon so that the mass/dimensions may be changed which results in a change to frequency (Daimon) [[0083]].
Regarding claim 8, Ruile does not explicitly teach and yet Zheng teaches the acoustic wave device of claim 1 wherein a material of the temperature compensation layer [[0056] first temperature compensation layer 3 and the second temperature compensation layer 4 are made of a material with a positive temperature coefficient (such as polysilicon or metal oxide or other materials with a positive temperature coefficient] and a material of the dielectric layer are the same [[0048] dielectric layer may be made of silicon dioxide, zinc oxide and other materials].
It would have been obvious to combine the recessed region filling as taught by Ruile, with the temperature compensation as taught by Zheng so that the transverse mode can be suppressed (Zheng) [[0042]].
Regarding claim 9, Ruile does not explicitly teach and yet Zheng teaches the acoustic wave device of claim 1 wherein the dielectric layer includes silicon dioxide [[0048] dielectric layer may be made of silicon dioxide].
It would have been obvious to combine the recessed region filling as taught by Ruile, with the temperature compensation as taught by Zheng so that the transverse mode can be suppressed (Zheng) [[0042]].
Claims 3-4 and 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ruile (US 2014/0035436 A1), Zheng (US 2024/0039508 A1), and Daimon (US 2019/0123713 A1; ids) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hiramatsu (US 2021/0126618 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Ruile does not explicitly teach and yet Hiramatsu teaches the acoustic wave device of claim 1 wherein the dielectric layer in the first recessed portion is between the bus bar and a mini bus bar in a second gap region [[0008] each of the gap regions may include a second bus bar electrode in parallel to a respective first bus bar electrode.; [0009] In some embodiments, the second dielectric film includes a trench having a portion corresponding to the gap region; [0080] the structures of trenches 13a, which may realize a greater thickness of the SiN film 13 in the center region 55, the structure of mini bus bar electrodes 22 within the mini bus bar electrode regions 57 within the gap regions 52 between tips of the electrode fingers 23 and the bus bar electrodes 21, and the structure of hammer head electrodes 24 allowing the width of the electrode fingers 23 to be partially enlarge].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to modify the surface acoustic wave resonator having a bus bar as taught by Ruile and Zheng, with the first and second (mini) bus bars as taught by Hiramatsu because the second bus bar has a width less than that of the first bus bar (Hiramatsu) [[0057]].
Regarding claim 4, Ruile does not explicitly teach and yet Hiramatsu teaches the surface acoustic wave device of claim 1 wherein the dielectric layer in the first recessed portion is between a mini bus bar in the gap region and the edge region [note: see the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112 above; the Examiner believes the intent is to recite the limitations here similarly to claim 17 and the rejection under Hiramatsu is then made with that interpretation; [0008] each of the gap regions may include a second bus bar electrode in parallel to a respective first bus bar electrode.; [0009] In some embodiments, the second dielectric film includes a trench having a portion corresponding to the gap region; [0080] the structures of trenches 13a, which may realize a greater thickness of the SiN film 13 in the center region 55, the structure of mini bus bar electrodes 22 within the mini bus bar electrode regions 57 within the gap regions 52 between tips of the electrode fingers 23 and the bus bar electrodes 21, and the structure of hammer head electrodes 24 allowing the width of the electrode fingers 23 to be partially enlarge].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to modify the surface acoustic wave resonator having a bus bar as taught by Ruille and Zheng, with the first and second (mini) bus bars as taught by Hiramatsu because the second bus bar has a width less than that of the first bus bar (Hiramatsu) [[0057]].
Regarding claim 6, Ruile does not explicitly teach and yet Hiramatsu teaches the acoustic wave device of claim 2 wherein the portion of the fingers with the second finger width have a hammer head shape [[0058] SAW resonator 101, the IDT electrodes 20 include hammer head electrode regions 56 corresponding to respective tips of the electrode fingers 23 within the overlapping region 51. Each of the hammer head electrode regions 56 includes hammer head electrodes 24, each of which is formed by extending the width of an electrode finger 23 to be shaped like a hammer head across a certain distance extending from the interface of the tip of the electrode finger 23 with a respective gap region 52 to the center region 55 in the transverse direction].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to combine the suppression layer as taught by Ruile and Zheng, with the hammer head electrodes as taught by Hiramatsu because changing a mass/shape at the end of the electrode allows the frequency to be changed as well.
Regarding claim 7, Ruille does not explicitly teach and yet Hiramatsu teaches the acoustic wave device of claim 2 further comprising a mini bus bar in the gap region [[0058]].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to combine the suppression layer as taught by Ruille and Zheng, with the hammer head electrodes as taught by Hiramatsu because changing a mass/shape at the end of the electrode allows the frequency to be changed as well.
Claims 5 and 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ruile (US 2014/0035436 A1), Zheng (US 2024/0039508 A1), and Daimon (US 2019/0123713 A1; ids) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Solal (US 2020/0252045 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Ruile does not explicitly teach and yet Solal teaches the acoustic wave device of claim 2 wherein an acoustic wave generated by the acoustic wave device has a wavelength of L, and the edge region is a region within 0.5L to 1.2L into the active region from the gap region [[0045] by using a gap larger than about one wavelength, the acoustic energy can be confined inside the acoustic aperture and improve the Q factor.].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to combine the suppression layer as taught by Ruile, with the suppressing of transverse modes using a gap in the dielectric layer as taught by Solal because exciting a piston mode of the transducer instead can make the acoustic waves stronger but with a lower Q which is solved with a fast region along with the gap (Solal) [[abstract]; [0004]; [0048]].
Regarding claim 11, Ruile does not explicitly teach and yet Solal teaches the acoustic wave device of claim 1 wherein a shear horizontal mode is a main mode of the acoustic wave device [[abstract] resonator operates through shear horizontal mode acoustic waves].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to combine the suppression layer as taught by Ruile, with the suppressing of transverse modes using a gap in the dielectric layer as taught by Solal because exciting a piston mode of the transducer instead can make the acoustic waves stronger but with a lower Q which is solved with a fast region along with the gap (Solal) [[abstract]; [0004]; [0048]].
Regarding claim 12, Ruile does not explicitly teach and yet Solal teaches the acoustic wave device of claim 1 wherein a Rayleigh mode is a main mode of the acoustic wave device [[0047-0048] oblique shear horizontal waves 34 and oblique Rayleigh waves 36 may also be generated].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to combine the suppression layer as taught by Ruile, with the suppressing of transverse modes using a gap in the dielectric layer as taught by Solal because exciting a piston mode of the transducer instead can make the acoustic waves stronger but with a lower Q which is solved with a fast region along with the gap (Solal) [[abstract]; [0004]; [0048]].
Regarding claim 13, Ruile does not explicitly teach and yet Solal teaches the acoustic wave device of claim 1 wherein the acoustic wave generated by the acoustic wave device has a wavelength of L, and the dielectric layer has a thickness in a range from 0.005L to 0.02L [note: corresponds to 0.5% to 2% and with the acoustic velocity of sound in silicon dioxide of 5800 m/s in the frequency ranges shown the wavelength will be about 5-10 micrometers; [0067] thickness of the additional layer is 1.9% of the wavelength. The slow region width in the transverse direction is 75% of the wavelength. Both the width of the slow region 76, 78 and its additional thicknesses are chosen to reduce the response of the transverse modes as much as possible.; [0069] first slow region 76 and the second slow region 78 can be made by adding a strip of metal or dielectric and the fast region by changing the dielectric thickness].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to combine the suppression layer as taught by Ruile, with the suppressing of transverse modes using a gap in the dielectric layer as taught by Solal because exciting a piston mode of the transducer instead can make the acoustic waves stronger but with a lower Q which is solved with a fast region along with the gap (Solal) [[abstract]; [0004]; [0048]].
Regarding claim 14, Ruile does not explicitly teach and yet Solal teaches the acoustic wave device of claim 1 further comprising a piston mode structure configured to suppress a transverse mode of the acoustic wave generated by the surface acoustic wave device [[0004] piston mode can be formed in the resonator to suppress transverse modes].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to reduce transverse mode waves with a suppression layer as taught by Ruile, or in the presence of a piston mode to introduce a fast region to suppress transverse modes as taught by Solal so that a higher Q is achieved (Solal) [[0004]].
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ruile (US 2014/0035436 A1), Zheng (US 2024/0039508 A1), and Daimon (US 2019/0123713 A1; ids) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Plessky (2020, Resonant Inc.).
Regarding claim 10, Ruile does not explicitly teach and yet Plessky teaches the acoustic wave device of claim 1 wherein the piezoelectric layer is a lithium niobate layer having a cut angle in a range of -20°YX to 25°YX [[abstract] lithium niobate membrane; [fig. 1] shows structure consists of interdigital transducer; [pg. 1; col. 1] Shear-wave FBARs on X-cut and rotated Y-cut membranes were described by Reinhardt and coworkers [7].; [pg. 1, col. 2] Using shear waves on -8.5° Y-cut, the YBAR achieves a theoretical resonance-antiresonance distance R-a-R ~22%; [sec. 2] rotated YX-cut; [fig. 2] shows experimental data for YX-cut from 0 to 360 degrees].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to implement the piezoelectric layer as taught by Ruile, with the lithium niobate layer having an YX-cut transducer with specific degrees as taught by Plessky so that a wideband filter may be achieved (Plessky) [abstract].
Claim 15-16 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ruile (US 2014/0035436 A1), Zheng (US 2024/0039508 A1), Daimon (US 2019/0123713 A1; ids), and Plessky (2020, Resonant Inc.).
Regarding claim 15, Ruile teaches an acoustic wave device comprising:
a piezoelectric layer [[fig. 1] shows piezoelectric substrate PSU] with a first recessed portion [[fig. 1] shows recessed portion between first dielectric DL and second dielectric DL], a second recessed portion [[fig. 1] shows second recessed portion between second dielectric DL and third dielectric DL] and a raised portion between the first and second recessed portions [[fig. 1] shows second dielectric DL (raised portion) between first and second recessed portions labeled with width We];
an interdigital transducer electrode over the first and second recessed portions and the raised portion of the piezoelectric layer [[fig. 4] shows an electrode finger over all of the raised dielectric layers and recessed portions which is a modification of fig. 1],
a dielectric layer positioned in the first recessed portion between the [piezoelectric] layer and a first region of the interdigital transducer electrode [[figs. 3b and 4] shows dielectric layers DL between electrode finger EF and piezoelectric substrate PSU].
Ruile does not explicitly teach and yet Zheng teaches the interdigital transducer electrode includes an active region that has a center region over the raised portion of the piezoelectric layer [[fig. 1a] shows central area Q1 with electrode #22 of interdigital transducer #2 which is over top of the recessed areas between recessed portions #11 as shown in fig. 2b], and over the first recessed portion an edge region, a bus bar, and a gap region between the active region and the bus bar [[figs. 1a and 2a] shows edge areas, gap areas, and bus areas], the interdigital transducer electrode having a plurality of fingers with first finger portions in the center region and second finger portions ending in the edge region [[figs. 1a and 2a] show electrode fingers which extend through the central area Q1 and end at edge areas Q2];
a temperature compensation layer over the interdigital transducer electrode [[0042] solution of this embodiment is also applicable to a surface acoustic wave resonator with a covering layer (such as a temperature compensation layer), so that the suppression of the transverse mode can be achieved without providing a deceleration structure on the covering layer]; and
It would have been obvious to combine the recessed region filling as taught by Ruile, with the temperature compensation as taught by Zheng so that the transverse mode can be suppressed (Zheng) [[0042]].
Ruile does not explicitly teach and yet Daimon teaches the dielectric layer is positioned under the bus bar [[0003] electrode fingers … busbar … gaps; [fig. 4] shows equivalent of central region V1, edge regions V2, gap regions V3, and bus regions V4; [0016] first dielectric films are further laminated on the first and second busbars and over the first and second gaps], and under the gap region [[0016] dielectric films are further laminated on … first and second gaps], under the second finger portions, and under an area between the second finger portions, so as to suppress transverse leakage of acoustic energy generated by the acoustic wave device [[0068] acoustic wave in the main mode tending to leak in the depth direction is reflected by an inner edge of the first busbar 11, which is positioned closer to the tips of the electrode fingers, and that leakage in the thickness direction is reduced or prevented], the first finger portions being in direct contact with raised portion of the [piezoelectric layer] [[0086] first dielectric films 54 are disposed in the first and second edge regions, the first dielectric films 54 are laminated, in the seventh preferred embodiment illustrated in FIG. 14, so as to cover not only the first and second edge regions, but also the gap regions and the first and second busbars ] and an area between the first finger portions in the center region being free from the dielectric layer [[0017] second dielectric film that defines a frequency adjustment film is laminated on the IDT electrode, and the first dielectric films are laminated with the second dielectric film interposed between the IDT electrode and the first dielectric films; [0083] frequency adjustment is performed by adjusting a thickness and a material of the second dielectric film 72] and maintaining a coupling factor of an acoustic wave generated by the surface acoustic wave device [[0038-0039] figs. 19-20 coupling coefficient; [0067]; [0091]].
It would have been obvious to modify the dielectric layer as taught by Ruile, with the two dielectric layers which can have adjustable thickness and material as taught by Daimon so that a frequency adjustment may be performed (Daimon) [[0083]].
Zheng does not explicitly teach and yet Plessky teaches a lithium niobate layer having a cut angle in a range of -20°YX to 25°YX [[abstract] lithium niobate membrane; [fig. 1] shows structure consists of interdigital transducer; [pg. 1; col. 1] Shear-wave FBARs on X-cut and rotated Y-cut membranes were described by Reinhardt and coworkers [7].; [pg. 1, col. 2] Using shear waves on -8.5° Y-cut, the YBAR achieves a theoretical resonance-antiresonance distance R-a-R ~22%; [sec. 2] rotated YX-cut; [fig. 2] shows experimental data for YX-cut from 0 to 360 degrees].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to modify the piezoelectric transducer as taught by Ruile, with the YX-cut transducer with specific cut as taught by Plessky so that a wideband filter may be achieved (Plessky) [abstract].
Regarding claim 16, Ruile does not explicitly teach and yet Daimon teaches the acoustic wave device of claim 1 wherein the first finger portions have a first finger width that is greater than a second finger width of the second finger portions [[fig. 4] shows ends of fingers that are wider than central portions].
It would have been obvious to modify the dielectric layer as taught by Ruile, with the varying widths of the fingers as taught by Daimon so that the mass/dimensions may be changed which results in a change to frequency (Daimon) [[0083]].
Regarding claim 19, Ruile does not explicitly teach and yet Zheng teaches the surface acoustic wave device of claim 15 further comprising a piston mode structure to suppress a transverse mode of the acoustic wave generated by the surface acoustic wave device [[0034] FIGS. 1A and 1B illustrate a piston structure in the related art, in which a layer of weighted structure is arranged above an edge area of an electrode 22; [0058] interdigital transducer 2 are covered with the temperature compensation layer with the high sound velocity, so that the transverse mode can be suppressed without specially providing the weighted structure or the piston structure ].
It would have been obvious to combine the recessed region filling as taught by Ruile, with the piston mass or temperature compensation as taught by Zheng so that the transverse mode can be suppressed (Zheng) [[0042]].
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ruile (US 2014/0035436 A1), Zheng (US 2024/0039508 A1), Daimon (US 2019/0123713 A1; ids), and Plessky (2020, Resonant Inc.) as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Hiramatsu (US 2021/0126618 A1).
Regarding claim 17, Ruile does not explicitly teach and yet Hiramatsu teaches the surface acoustic wave device of claim 16 wherein the dielectric layer in the first recessed portion is between the bus bar and a mini bus bar in a second gap region [[0008] each of the gap regions may include a second bus bar electrode in parallel to a respective first bus bar electrode.; [0009] In some embodiments, the second dielectric film includes a trench having a portion corresponding to the gap region; [0080] the structures of trenches 13a, which may realize a greater thickness of the SiN film 13 in the center region 55, the structure of mini bus bar electrodes 22 within the mini bus bar electrode regions 57 within the gap regions 52 between tips of the electrode fingers 23 and the bus bar electrodes 21, and the structure of hammer head electrodes 24 allowing the width of the electrode fingers 23 to be partially enlarge].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to modify the surface acoustic wave resonator having a bus bar as taught by Ruille and Zheng, with the first and second (mini) bus bars as taught by Hiramatsu because the second bus bar has a width less than that of the first bus bar (Hiramatsu) [[0057]].
Claims 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ruile (US 2014/0035436 A1), Zheng (US 2024/0039508 A1), Daimon (US 2019/0123713 A1), and Plessky (2020, Resonant Inc.) as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Solal (US 2020/0252045 A1).
Regarding claim 18, Ruile does not explicitly teach and yet Solal teaches the surface acoustic wave device of claim 15 wherein the surface acoustic wave has a wavelength of L, and the dielectric layer has a thickness in a range from 0.005L to 0.02L [note: corresponds to 0.5% to 2% and with the acoustic velocity of sound in silicon dioxide of 5800 m/s in the frequency ranges shown the wavelength will be about 5-10 micrometers; [0067] thickness of the additional layer is 1.9% of the wavelength. The slow region width in the transverse direction is 75% of the wavelength. Both the width of the slow region 76, 78 and its additional thicknesses are chosen to reduce the response of the transverse modes as much as possible.; [0069] first slow region 76 and the second slow region 78 can be made by adding a strip of metal or dielectric and the fast region by changing the dielectric thickness].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to combine the suppression layer as taught by Ruile, with the suppressing of transverse modes using a gap in the dielectric layer as taught by Solal because exciting a piston mode of the transducer instead can make the acoustic waves stronger but with a lower Q which is solved with a fast region along with the gap (Solal) [[abstract]; [0004]; [0048]].
Regarding claim 20, Ruile does not explicitly teach and yet Solal teaches a packaged module including a substrate supporting at least one filter [[0003] SAW resonators and SAW filters, are used in many applications such as radio frequency (RF) filters], the at least one filter including at least one acoustic wave device of claim 15, the packaged module is a radio frequency front end module or a diversity receive module [[0003] For example, SAW filters are commonly used in second generation (2G), third generation (3G), fourth generation (4G), and fifth generation (5G) wireless receiver front ends, duplexers, and receive filters].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention that the SAW resonator as taught by Ruile, would be used as a radio filter in a receiver front end as taught by Solal because SAW filters in modern radio communication systems improve quality factor and reduce energy leakage (Solal) [0003].
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 7, filed 10, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 10 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made in view of Daimon (US 2019/0123713 A1) which was cited on the IDS dated 10/27/2025. The objection to claim 4 has also been withdrawn. However, several rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112 have been added in response to the most recent amendments.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 JONATHAN D ARMSTRONG whose telephone number is (571)270-7339. The examiner can normally be reached M - F 9am-5pm.
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, Isam Alsomiri can be reached on 571-272-6970. 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.
/JONATHAN D ARMSTRONG/ Examiner, Art Unit 3645