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 .
Examiner Comments
The Examiner has cited particular columns and line numbers, paragraphs, or figures in the reference(s) as applied to the claims for the convenience of the Applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the Applicant, in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
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.
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.
Claims 1, 3-5, 7, 8, 10, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kawaguchi et al. (WO-2018-079574 A1).
As per claim 1, Kawaguchi et al. (WO-2018-079574 A1) discloses an acoustic wave device comprising: a piezoelectric substrate (e.g., 2 - see p. 2, l. 19 of enclosed English machine translation); and an IDT electrode (e.g., 3) on the piezoelectric substrate (e.g., 2); wherein the IDT electrode (3) includes: a plurality of electrode fingers (e.g., 32a, 32b); and a busbar (e.g., 31) to which the plurality of electrode fingers (e.g., 32) are connected; at least one electrode finger (32a and/or 32b) of the plurality of electrode fingers (e.g., 32) includes: in an intersection region at which the plurality of electrode fingers (32a, 32b) overlap each other when viewed from a propagation direction (e.g., left-to-right direction, along the x-axis direction as depicted in Fig. 1) of an acoustic wave in the piezoelectric substrate (2); a first portion (e.g., the lowermost portion of 32a and/or 32b that is in direct contact with the substrate (2), at Ac/A1/A2) in direct contact with the piezoelectric substrate (2); and a second portion (e.g., thicker portion of 32a, 32b at ends of end regions A1/A2 on the first portion); the second portion is located on the first portion such that a space in at least a portion of a central portion (e.g., Ac) of the intersection region in the first portion is provided (e.g., the thinner portion of central region Ac, which is thinner than the ends portions A1/A2 - the thinner portions (Ac) having a space (effectively, an indentation) between the thicker portions regions A1/A2 of each electrode); a thickness of the first portion (Ac) is thinner than a thickness of the busbar (31); and a sum of a thickness of the first portion (thinner portion of electrodes (32) in region (Ac)) in a portion where the second portion is present (end regions A1/A2) and a thickness of the second portion is thicker than a thickness of the first portion (that thinner portion of (32) in region Ac) in a portion where the second portion is not present.
More concretely, Kawaguchi et al. (WO-2018-079574 A1) is considered to show that at least one electrode digit (e.g., 32a, 32b) has a plurality of second sections and that, in a plan view from the thickness direction of the piezoelectric substrate (2), the total area of the section between the plurality of second sections (portions) is larger than the total area of the plurality of second sections, as per clam 3 (and analogously, as per claim 13, rejected, infra).
In addition, Kawaguchi et al. (WO-2018-079574 A1) (at paragraph [0039], Fig. 3 of the original document, which corresponds to p. 5, ll. 22-35 of enclosed English machine translation) indicates that the end regions Al and A2 of the IDT electrode (3), are thicker than the central region Ac and that the busbar 31 is thicker than the electrode digits 32 of the central
region Ac. Kawaguchi et al. (WO-2018-079574 A1) is considered to indicate that at least one electrode digit (32a, 32b) of the plurality of electrode digits (32) has, in the intersection region where the plurality of electrode digits (32) overlap on the piezoelectric substrate (2) when viewed in a propagation direction (x-direction of Fig. 1) of an elastic (acoustic) wave, a first part that is in direct contact with the piezoelectric substrate (2) and a second part stacked on the first part, that the second part is stacked on the first part such that a space is formed in at least part of the central region Ac of the first part in the intersection region, that the thickness of the first part is thinner than the thickness of the busbar (31), that the sum of the thickness of the first part in the section where the second part is present and the thickness of the second part is thinner than the thickness of the first part in the section where the second part is not present, that the second part is provided in the end regions Al and A2 on the outside of the central region Ac in the intersection region and that the second part is stacked on a section of the first part that is different from the central region Ac. See, inter alia, Figs. 1, 3 and p. 5, ll. 22-35 of enclosed English machine translation.
As per claim 4 (and analogously, as per claim 14, rejected, infra), wherein the second portion (section(s)) is at an edge portion outside the central portion in the intersection region. That is, as depicted in Fig. 3, the edged portions are outside of region Ac.
As per claim 5 (and analogously, as per claim 15, rejected, infra), wherein the second portion includes aluminum. See, p. 4, ll. 28-33 of the enclosed English machine translation.
As per claim 7 (and analogously, as per claim 16, rejected, infra), wherein the piezoelectric substrate includes: a piezoelectric layer (e.g., 2); and a support substrate (e.g., 7) on the piezoelectric layer (2) - see Fig. 7.
As per claim 8 (and analogously, as per claim 17, rejected, infra), Kawaguchi et al. (WO-2018-079574 A1) indicates that the piezoelectric substrate 2 and the support substrate 7 are attached to each other with an adhesive layer constituted of SiO2 interposed therebetween. See, p. 9, ll. 3-8 of the enclosed English machine translation. In Kawaguchi et al. (WO-2018-079574 A1), the element substrate is thus considered to include an adhesive layer which is interposed between the piezoelectric substrate (2) and the support substrate (7) and in which a bulk wave propagates at acoustic velocity slower than the acoustic velocity of a bulk wave propagating in the piezoelectric substrate (2).
As per claim 10, Kawaguchi et al. (WO-2018-079574 A1) indicates that a pitch Ptl is the interval between centers of a plurality of electrode digits 32, that a wavelength λ (2 x Pt1) is 1.5-6 µm inclusive (see p. 3, ll. 33-39 of the enclosed English machine translation) and that the thickness of the piezoelectric substrate (2) is set to 0.5-30 µm (see p. 8, l. 31 of the enclosed English machine translation). The invention in document 1 includes a configuration where the thickness of the piezoelectric substrate (2) is less than 2λ when λ is a wavelength determined by the pitch Ptl of the plurality of electrode digits (32) of the IDT electrode (3).
As per claim 11, wherein the second portion (e.g. portions of (32a, 32b) located outside of thinner region Ac, as depicted in Fig. 3) is located on a portion of the first portion (portion of 32a, 32b located closest to and in direct contact with substrate (2)) that is different from the central portion, proximate region Ac.
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 2, 6, 9 and 13-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawaguchi et al. (WO-2018-079574 A1) in view of Okunaga (US 2019/0296715 A1).
See the discussion of Kawaguchi et al. (WO-2018-079574 A1), supra.
As per claim 2, Kawaguchi et al. (WO-2018-079574 A1) remains silent with regard to wherein the at least one electrode finger further includes a third portion extending from the second portion over at least a portion of the central portion of the intersection region in a plan view from a thickness direction of the piezoelectric substrate.
As per claim 6, Kawaguchi et al. (WO-2018-079574 A1) remains silent with regard to wherein such third portion includes aluminum.
As per claim 9 (and analogously, as per claim 18), Kawaguchi et al. (WO-2018-079574 A1) remains silent with regard to wherein the piezoelectric substrate further includes a high acoustic velocity film between the low acoustic velocity film and the support substrate, an acoustic velocity of a bulk wave propagating through the high acoustic velocity film being higher than an acoustic velocity of an acoustic wave propagating through the piezoelectric layer.
However, such structure is known in the art.
As just one example, Okunaga (US 2019/0296715 A1) discloses an analogous acoustic wave device, in the same field of endeavor as Kawaguchi et al. (WO-2018-079574 A1), wherein
Okunaga (US 2019/0296715 A1) discloses that an IDT electrode (e.g., 3) has a central section (e.g., 6a) that extends from a protruding section (e.g. 7) to at least part of the central region (Al) of a crossing region (A) in a plan view from the thickness direction of a piezoelectric substrate (e.g., 2), as per claim 2.
Moreover, Kawaguchi et al. (WO-2018-079574 A1) (p. 4, ll. 28-33) indicates that the IDT electrode (3) is constituted of the conductive layer (15) made of Al, as per claim 6.
As per claims 9 and 18, Okunaga (US 2019/0296715 A1) further discloses wherein the piezoelectric substrate further includes a high acoustic velocity film (e.g., 24), that, when combined with the support substrate (7) of Kawaguchi et al. (WO-2018-079574 A1), would lie between the low acoustic velocity film (e.g., 23) of Okunaga (US 2019/0296715 A1), and the support substrate (7) (of Kawaguchi et al. (WO-2018-079574 A1)), an acoustic velocity of a bulk wave propagating through the high acoustic velocity film (24) being higher than an acoustic velocity of an acoustic wave propagating through the piezoelectric layer (e.g., 22). See paragraphs [0076-0079] and Fig. 6 of Okunaga (US 2019/0296715 A1).
As such, given the express teachings and motivations, as espoused by Okunaga (US 2019/0296715 A1), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide the features of claims 2 and 6 and 9 and 18, as taught by Okunaga (US 2019/0296715 A1), with the analogous electrode fingers of Kawaguchi et al. (WO-2018-079574 A1), in order to advantageously provide that "the acoustic velocity of acoustic waves in the first edge area A2a and the second edge area A2b is slower than the acoustic velocity of acoustic waves in the central area A1." See paragraph [0054] of Okunaga (US 2019/0296715 A1).
In an obviousness analysis, it is not necessary to find precise disclosure directed to the specific subject matter claimed because inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ can be taken into account. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). In this regard, "[a] person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton." Id. at 421.
As the U.S. Supreme Court has stated, obviousness requires an "expansive and flexible" approach that asks whether the claimed improvement is more than a "predictable variation" of "prior art elements according to their established functions." KSR, 550 U.S. at 415, 417.
Regarding the rejection of claim 13, see the discussion and rejection of analogous claim 3, supra.
Regarding the rejection of claim 14, see the discussion and rejection of analogous claim 4, supra.
Regarding the rejection of claim 15, see the discussion and rejection of analogous claim 5, supra.
Regarding the rejection of claim 16, see the discussion and rejection of analogous claim 7, supra.
Regarding the rejection of claim 17, see the discussion and rejection of analogous claim 8, supra.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawaguchi et al. (WO-2018-079574 A1) in view of Takigawa (US 2020/0076404 A1) or Nakazawa et al. (US 2017/0264262 A1).
See the discussion of Kawaguchi et al. (WO-2018-079574 A1), supra.
As per claim 12, Kawaguchi et al. (WO-2018-079574 A1) remains silent with regard to wherein the at least one electrode finger includes a plurality of the second portions; at least one of the plurality of second portions is on a portion of the first portion different from the central portion; and at least one of a remainder of the plurality of second portions on the central portion of the first portion.
However, such structure is known in the art.
As just one example, Takigawa (US 2020/0076404 A1) discloses an analogous acoustic wave device, in the same field of endeavor as Kawaguchi et al. (WO-2018-079574 A1), wherein
at least one electrode finger (e.g., 4b, 5b) includes a plurality of the second portions (e.g., corresponding to addition films (7, 8)); at least one of the plurality of second portions (e.g., 8) is on a portion of the first portion different from the central portion (e.g. at the proximal and/or distal ends of each electrode finger - range of V3 as depicted in Fig. 1); and at least one of a remainder of the plurality of second portions (e.g., 7) on the central portion of the first portion (e.g., at the middle portion of each electrode finger in the range of V2 as depicted in Fig. 1).
As another example, Nakazawa et al. (US 2017/0264262 A1) discloses an analogous acoustic wave device, in the same field of endeavor as Kawaguchi et al. (WO-2018-079574 A1), wherein at least one electrode finger (e.g., 14) includes a plurality of the second portions (e.g., corresponding to additional film (16)); at least one of the plurality of second portions (e.g., 16) is on a portion of the first portion (lower level of finger electrode (14), as depicted in profile of Fig. 3B) different from the central portion (e.g. at the proximal and/or distal ends of each electrode finger - as depicted in Fig. 3A, 3B); and at least one of a remainder of the plurality of second portions (e.g., 16) on the central portion of the first portion (e.g., the centrally located additional films (16) as depicted in Figs. 3A, 3B).
Given the express teachings and motivations, as espoused by Takigawa (US 2020/0076404 A1)/ Nakazawa et al. (US 2017/0264262 A1), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide the features of claim 12, as taught by Takigawa (US 2020/0076404 A1) and/or Nakazawa et al. (US 2017/0264262 A1), with the analogous electrode fingers of Kawaguchi et al. (WO-2018-079574 A1), in order to advantageously provide that the acoustic velocity of the acoustic wave is reduced (e.g., see paragraph [0029] of Nakazawa et al. (US 2017/0264262 A1)) and/or "provide acoustic wave devices that are each able to significantly reduce or prevent ripples due to lower-order transverse modes." See paragraph [0007] of Takigawa (US 2020/0076404 A1)..
In an obviousness analysis, it is not necessary to find precise disclosure directed to the specific subject matter claimed because inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ can be taken into account. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). In this regard, "[a] person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton." Id. at 421.
As the U.S. Supreme Court has stated, obviousness requires an "expansive and flexible" approach that asks whether the claimed improvement is more than a "predictable variation" of "prior art elements according to their established functions." KSR, 550 U.S. at 415, 417.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments ("response") filed November 7, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant states "Contrary to the Examiner's allegations, Kawaguchi does not teach or suggest the feature of 'the second portion is located on the first portion such that a space in at least a portion of a central portion of the intersection region in the first portion is provided' as recited in Applicant's Claim 1." Page 8 of Applicant's response.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees, based on a reading of the English translation of Kawaguchi et al. (WO-2018-079574 A1) (including the citations/passages/line numbers/pages highlighted by the Examiner of such translation, as cited in the Non-Final office action), in conjunction with the Examiner's Non-Final office action, discussing all the elements of claim 1 that are anticipated by Kawaguchi et al. (WO-2018-079574 A1).
At page 11 of Applicant's response, the Applicant has presented a depiction of FIG. 1 of Applicant's Drawing and of FIG. 3 of Kawaguchi et al. (WO-2018-079574 A1) (replicated, infra, for convenience).
Turning now to the claim language the Applicant opines is not disclosed by Kawaguchi et al. (WO-2018-079574 A1), the Applicant's FIG. 1 shows "the second portion (35) is located on the first portion (34) such that a space ("hollow portion (37)) in at least a portion of a central portion (333) of the intersection region (33) in the first portion (34) is provided."
PNG
media_image1.png
392
589
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
484
406
media_image2.png
Greyscale
FIG. 3 of Kawaguchi et al. (WO-2018-079574 A1)
Comparing the disclosure of Kawaguchi et al. (WO-2018-079574 A1), with the Applicants depiction of FIG. 1, supra, would probably best highlight how the claim language cited by the Applicant as purportedly not shown by Kawaguchi et al. (WO-2018-079574 A1), is in fact, readily provided for in Kawaguchi et al. (WO-2018-079574 A1).
As discussed in the Non-Final office action, and reiterated here, "the second portion (which corresponds to the thicker portion of 32a, 32b at ends of the first portion of Kawaguchi et al. (WO-2018-079574 A1) - which corresponds to (35) of Applicant's FIG. 1) is located on the first portion (e.g., the lowermost portion of 32a and/or 32b that is in direct contact with the substrate (2) of Kawaguchi et al. (WO-2018-079574 A1) - which corresponds to (34) of Applicant's FIG. 1) such that a space (simply, the space Ac of the thinner portion of each electrode (32) between the thicker end portions A1/A2 of Kawaguchi et al. (WO-2018-079574 A1) - which corresponds to the space (37) of Applicant's FIG. 1, without the overlying third portion (36)) in at least a portion of a central portion (Ac of Kawaguchi et al. (WO-2018-079574 A1) - which corresponds to (333) of Applicant's FIG. 1) of the intersection region (portion where the electrodes overlap in the elastic wave propagation direction - which corresponds to (33) of Applicant's FIG. 1) in the first portion (e.g., the lowermost portion of 32a and/or 32b that is in direct contact with the substrate (2) of Kawaguchi et al. (WO-2018-079574 A1) - which corresponds to (34) of Applicant's FIG. 1) is provided."
A key point to note here, is the Applicant appears to equate the term "space" in the claim language "the second portion is located on the first portion such that a space in at least a portion of a central portion of the intersection region in the first portion is provided," with the term "hollow portion."
The Examiner notes that the claim language at (lines 13-14) of claim 1, "the second portion is located on the first portion such that a space in at least a portion of a central portion of the intersection region in the first portion is provided" (emphasis added) does not require that such a "space" is a "hollow portion." See Applicant's specification at, inter alia, paragraphs [0062, 0068] regarding support and terminology of "hollow portion." That is, the space can be a "hollow portion" defined as being between the first portion (34) and a third portion (36) that extends from the second portion (35) over at least a portion of the central portion (333) of the intersection region 33 in a plan view from the thickness direction (first direction D1) of the piezoelectric substrate 2, as described in the Applicant's specification.
However, the current claim terminology of merely a "space", could simply be an "open space" of the first thinner portion of the electrode (at region (34) between thicker regions (35) on top of (34)) defined between two thicker end portions of the IDT electrode (32) ends at A1/A2, with the thinner portion Ac (of each IDT electrode (32)) being the "open" space formed therebetween.
This effectively means that there is no third portion (36), or roof, that is required by the term "space." The Applicant is not claiming such structure that equates the term "space" with a term "hollow portion" of an electrode finger. That is, the term "space" as set forth in currently drafted claim 1, is not recited as being a "hollow portion" defined as being between the first portion (34) and a third portion (36) that extends from the second portion (35) over at least a portion of the central portion (333) of the intersection region 33 in a plan view from the thickness direction (first direction D1) of the piezoelectric substrate 2, as described in the Applicant's specification, but simply a "space."
As noted by the rejection, such a space (simply, the space Ac between the thicker ends portions A1/A2 of Kawaguchi et al. (WO-2018-079574 A1) - which corresponds to the space (37) of Applicant's FIG. 1, without the overlying third portion) is shown by Kawaguchi et al. (WO-2018-079574 A1).
A commonly accepted definition of the term "space" is "a limited extent in one, two, or three dimensions : distance, area, volume." See https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/space. Thus, the "space" (as set forth within the context of claim 1) is shown by Kawaguchi et al. (WO-2018-079574 A1) to be simply, the space Ac (thinner regions of electrode fingers) of the electrodes (32) - a limited extent in at least two dimensions - between the thicker ends portions A1/A2 of the electrodes (32) of Kawaguchi et al. (WO-2018-079574 A1) - which corresponds to the space (37) of Applicant's FIG. 1, without the overlying third portion (36)).
Regarding the 35 USC 103 rejections, Applicant furthermore states, "The Examiner relied upon Okunaga, Takigawa, and Nakazawa et al. to allegedly cure deficiencies of Kawaguchi. However, Okunaga, Takigawa, and Nakazawa et al. clearly fail to teach or suggest the feature of "the second portion is located on the first portion such that a space in at least a portion of a central portion of the intersection region in the first portion is provided" as recited in Applicant's Claim 1. Thus, Applicant respectfully submits that Okunaga, Takigawa, and Nakazawa et al. fail to cure the deficiencies of Kawaguchi described above." See pp. 12-13 of Applicants response.
The Examiner maintains the rejection of claim 1, as well as claims 3-5, 7, 8, 10, and 11 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1), as being anticipated by Kawaguchi et al. (WO-2018-079574 A1) for the reasons noted, supra. Additionally, the Examiner maintains the rejections of claims 2, 6, 9 and 13-18 as being rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawaguchi et al. (WO-2018-079574 A1) in view of Okunaga (US 2019/0296715 A1), and claim 12 as being rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawaguchi et al. (WO-2018-079574 A1) in view of Takigawa (US 2020/0076404 A1) or Nakazawa et al. (US 2017/0264262 A1).
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 William J Klimowicz whose telephone number is (571)272-7577. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 8:00AM-6PM, ET.
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, Steven Lim can be reached at (571)270-1210. 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.
/WILLIAM J KLIMOWICZ/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2688
Prosecution Insights