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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 4/27/26 has been entered.
Response to Amendments/Arguments
Applicant’s amendments/arguments on “an interdigital transducer … spatially separated … by a portion of the temperature compensation layer” 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 Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.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 Michigami US 11,876,506, in addition to other references of record that remain relevant.
Additionally related to the argument about “high” base (Pages 7-8 of Remark), Michigami utilizes the vary in electrotechnical coupling coefficients as part of the setup for wider passband and wider low-side stop band (Col. 9 lines 18-25).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-4, 26, 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Michigami US 11,876,506 in view of Kadota US 8,384,268 of record.
1. Michigami discloses a temperature compensated surface acoustic wave device (Figs. 1, 4, 5, etc.; Col. 10 lines 18-23) comprising:
a piezoelectric substrate (101) formed of lithium niobate (Col. 9 line 57);
a temperature compensation layer (102, 103; Col. 10 lines 17-28; note that both can be made of the same material SiO2, thus readable together) disposed on the piezoelectric substrate;
an interdigital transducer (200) embedded within the temperature compensation layer and spatially separated from the piezoelectric substrate by a portion of the temperature compensation layer (102), the interdigital transducer including a pair of interdigital transducer electrodes (200a,b), each electrode having a bus bar and a plurality of fingers extending from the bus bar towards the bus bar of the other electrode (Fig. 4; Col. 10 lines 1-10), the interdigital transducer being configured to generate a main acoustic wave in response to an electrical signal (inherent structure of the interdigital transducer and wave excitation); and
a passivation layer (104; Col. 10 lines 17-23) disposed on the temperature compensation layer.
Michigami does not explicitly disclose the lithium niobate with Euler angles (φ,θ,ψ) within the ranges of 75° < θ <115°, -15° < φ <15°, -15° < ψ <15°.
Kadota exemplarily discloses a temperature compensated surface acoustic wave device (Fig. 1B, etc.; Col. 14 lines 5-8) comprising: a piezoelectric substrate (2); a temperature compensation layer (5); the piezoelectric substrate is formed of lithium niobate (LiNbO3) with Euler angles overlapping the claimed range (e.g., Col. 7 lines 15-23, (0°, 110°, 0°)).
At the time of the filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have used lithium niobate with Euler angle within the claimed range such as the examples of Kadota. The modification would have been obvious because any art-recognized Euler angle for the piezoelectric substrate would have been useable thereof (MPEP 2143(I)(B)) and desired acoustic velocity, electromechanical coefficient k2, etc. may be set as taught by Kadota (Col. 23 lines 24-52).
2. The combination discloses the temperature compensated surface acoustic wave device of claim 1 as discussed above, but does not explicitly disclose the separation between the interdigital transducer and the piezoelectric substrate is between about 0.002λ and 0.01λ, where λ is the wavelength of the main acoustic wave generated by the interdigital transducer during operation.
However, Michigami discloses the thickness of the portion of temperature compensation layer (102; which is the separation) is a result effect variable to affect the device characteristics (e.g., k2, TCF; Col. 10 lines 24-28, 52-59).
At the time of the filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have designed the thickness of the layer (and correspondingly the separation) to the desired claimed range. The modification would have been obvious as a result of optimization or routine experimentation to obtain the desired device characteristic (e.g., TCF; see also MPEP 2144.05(II)).
3. The combination discloses the temperature compensated surface acoustic wave device of claim 1 as discussed above, but does not explicitly disclose the separation between the interdigital transducer and a top surface of the temperature compensation layer is between about 0.3 λ, and 0.4 λ, where λ is the wavelength of the main acoustic wave generated by the interdigital transducer during operation.
However, Michigami discloses the thickness of layer 103 (i.e., the claimed separation) is a result effect variable to affect the device characteristics (e.g., k2, TCF; Col. 10 lines 17-23, 60-67); and similarly, Kadota discloses the thickness of temperature compensation layer (Kadota: Figs. 28-31) is a result effect variable to affect the device characteristics (e.g., acoustic velocity, k2, TCF) and in the claimed range (Col. 23 lines 44-47, Col. 24 lines 43-49, etc.).
At the time of the filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have designed the thickness of the layer (and correspondingly the separation) to the desired claimed range. The modification would have been obvious as a result of optimization or routine experimentation to obtain the desired device characteristic (e.g., TCF; see also MPEP 2144.05(II)), that the similar example range would have resulted in expected similar properties (see also MPEP 2144.05(I)), and/or desired characteristics obtained as taught by Kadota (Figs. 28-31, Col. 23 lines 44-47, Col. 24 lines 43-49, etc.).
4. The combination discloses the fingers of each interdigital transducer electrode interleave with one another in a first region of the interdigital transducer and form a gap region between the ends of the fingers of one of the electrodes and the bus bar of the other electrode, the first region including a central portion and two edge portions, each edge portion extending from the tips of the plurality of fingers of one of the electrodes towards the center of the central portion (Michigami: Fig. 4; basic structure of the IDT; essentially define the gap-edge-central-edge-gap regions/portions).
26. For brevity, the Michigami/Kadota combination discloses the claim limitation as similarly discussed for claim 1 above.
27. For brevity, the Michigami/Kadota combination discloses the claim limitation as similarly discussed for claim 1 above, including an electronics module comprising at least one radio frequency filter (Michigami: Fig. 1).
Claim(s) 5, 6, 14-22, 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Michigami US 11,876,506 in view of Kadota US 8,384,268 of record, as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Goto US 2020/0212876 of record.
5. The Michigami/Kadota combination discloses the invention as discussed above, but does not disclose a duty factor of the interdigital transducer electrodes in the edge portions of the first region is greater than the duty factor of the interdigital transducer electrodes in the central portion of the first region.
Goto ‘876 discloses an acoustic wave device (Figs. 7A,B, etc.) comprising: piezoelectric layer (10), IDT (12’) with edge portions (22b’) having hammer head shape ([0115], Fig. 7B) so that a duty factor in the edge portions is greater than the duty factor in the central portion (22’) of the IDT in the first region.
At the time of the filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have made the edge portions with hammer head shape thus resulting in greater duty ratio. The modification would have been obvious because the hammer head shape provides velocity difference to facilitate piston mode operation as taught by Goto ([0115]).
6. The Michigami/Kadota combination discloses the invention as discussed above, but does not disclose a suppression element configured to suppress a transverse mode of the IDT.
Goto ‘876 exemplarily discloses an acoustic wave device (Figs. 1A-H, 7A,B, 8A,B etc.) comprising: piezoelectric layer (10), IDT (12), suppression element (mass strips 16; hammer head shape of edge portion of Figs. 7B, 8B) to suppress transverse mode of the IDT ([0112], [0115], [0117]), and a temperature compensation layer (14).
At the time of the filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have added suppression element (mass strips and/or hammer head shape) to the acoustic wave device. The modification would have been obvious because the suppression element can facilitate piston mode operation to suppress transverse mode efficiently as taught by Goto ([0081], [0112]).
14. The combination discloses the suppression element is a pair of mass loading strips (Goto ‘876: Fig. 1A-H, item 16) embedded within the temperature compensation layer (14).
15. The combination discloses the pair of mass loading strips (Goto ‘876: Fig. 1A-H item 16) each overlap a respective one of the edge portions of the first region of the interdigital transducer (Goto: Fig. 1A,B).
16. The combination discloses the pair of mass loading strips (Goto ‘876: Figs. 1A-H item 16) each extend in a direction parallel to the bus bars (24) of the interdigital transducer along the length of the interdigital transducer (Fig. 1B).
17. The combination discloses the pair of mass loading strips (Goto ‘876: Figs. 1A-H item 16) each have a width in a direction parallel to the fingers of the interdigital transducer electrodes, but is silent on the range of between about 0.5 λ and 1.5 λ, where λ is the wavelength of the main acoustic wave generated by the interdigital transducer during operation. However, the values of the width are design parameter for the design of the device to obtain desired device characteristics, thus at the time of the filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have made the width in the claimed range. The modification is obvious as a routine experimentation to obtain desired device characteristics.
18. The combination discloses the pair of mass loading strips (Goto ‘876: Figs. 1A-H item 16) each have a thickness (t3) of between about 0.005 λ, and 0.04 λ, where λ is the wavelength of the main acoustic wave generated by the interdigital transducer during operation (Goto ‘876: [0090], [0095], Fig. 1C, e.g., t4 = 0.01λ to 0.03λ, t5 = 10 nm to 50 nm; t3 is well overlap on the claimed range; no criticality on difference across the range for anticipation and overlap for obviousness, see MPEP 2131.03 and MPEP 2144.05(I)).
19. The combination discloses the pair of mass loading strips are formed from a conductive material (Goto ‘876: [0093]).
20. The combination discloses the pair of mass loading strips are formed from a material with a higher density than a density of the temperature compensation layer (Goto ‘876: [0093], well-known values of materials, e.g., Mo: 10g/cm3, while temperature compensation layer of SiO2 is around 2.6g/cm3).
21. The combination discloses the suppression element is formed from a pair of hammer portions (Goto: Figs. 7B, 8B, [0115], [0117]) in each of the plurality of fingers, each of the hammer portions being located in a respective one of the edge portions of the first region of the interdigital transducer, and each having a width larger than the width of each finger in the central portion of the first region of the interdigital transducer.
22. The combination discloses a duty factor of the interdigital transducer electrodes in the edge portions of the first region is greater than the duty factor of the interdigital transducer electrodes in the central portion of the first region (Goto: Figs. 7B, 8B, hammer head shape at the edge portions provided the greater duty ratio).
25. The combination discloses the suppression element includes at least one of a mass loading strip embedded within the temperature compensation layer, a cut out portion in the passivation layer, or hammer portions in each of the plurality of fingers, the hammer portions having a width larger than the width of each finger away from the hammer portion (Goto: Figs. 1A-H, 7A,B, 8A,B; mass loading strip 16, hammer head shape).
Claim(s) 6-9, 11-13, 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Michigami US 11,876,506 in view of Kadota US 8,384,268 of record, as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Nakanishi US 9,640,750 of record.
6. The Michigami/Kadota combination discloses the invention as discussed above, but does not disclose a suppression element configured to suppress a transverse mode of the IDT.
Nakanishi discloses an acoustic wave device (Figs. 8, 12, 25c, etc.) comprising: piezoelectric layer (101), IDT (102), a temperature compensation layer (104, 404; SiO2; Col. 8 lines 44-45), and passivation layer (405, 408; Col. 8 lines 45-51, Col. 9 lines 40-46; both items 405, 408 have greater acoustic velocity than item 404 and can be the same material, e.g., SiN; 108), and a suppression element (“recesses”, or area that is lack of item 405, 108) to suppress transverse mode of the IDT (Col. 8 lines 52-60, Col. 13 lines 21-33).
At the time of the filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have added suppression element (recesses to passivation layer) to the acoustic wave device. The modification would have been obvious because the suppression element can facilitate suppression transverse mode efficiently as taught by Nakanishi (Col. 8 lines 52-60, Col. 13 lines 21-33).
7. The combination discloses the suppression element is a pair of cut out portions in the passivation layer (Nakanishi: Figs. 8, 12, 25c, “recesses” or area lack of item 405, 108).
8. The combination discloses the pair of cut out portions each overlap a respective one of the edge portions of the first region of the interdigital transducer (Nakanishi: Figs. 8, 12, 25c, overlap the edge area).
9. The combination discloses the pair of cut out portions each extend in a direction parallel to the bus bars of the interdigital transducer along the length of the interdigital transducer (Nakanishi: Figs. 8, 12, 25c).
11. The combination discloses the pair of cut out portions extend in a direction parallel to the fingers of the interdigital transducer electrodes up to an outer edge of the acoustic wave device (Nakanishi: Figs. 8, 12, 25c; “recesses” or area lack of item 405 and/or 108 up to an outer edge of the device as shown).
12. The acoustic wave device of claim 7 wherein the pair of cut out portions each have depth of between about 0.005 λ, and 0.04 λ, where λ is the wavelength of the main acoustic wave generated by the interdigital transducer during operation (Nakanishi: Col. 9 lines 1-19; e.g., λ = 4 µm, item 405 has a thickness of 30 nm or 0.0075 λ, hence the cut-out “recesses” depth is 0.0075 λ).
13. The combination discloses the thickness of the passivation layer is largest in the region overlapping the central portion of the first region of the interdigital transducer (Nakanishi: Figs. 8, 12, 25c, central portion or intersection area has the largest thickness of the passivation layer 405, 108).
25. The combination discloses the suppression element includes at least one of a mass loading strip embedded within the temperature compensation layer, a cut out portion in the passivation layer, or hammer portions in each of the plurality of fingers, the hammer portions having a width larger than the width of each finger away from the hammer portion (Nakanishi: Figs. 8, 12, 25c; “recesses” or area lack of item 405, 108 for cut out).
Claim(s) 6-10, 13, 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Michigami US 11,876,506 in view of Kadota US 8,384,268 of record, as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Komatsu US 9,035,725 of record.
6. The Michigami/Kadota combination discloses the invention as discussed above, but does not disclose a suppression element configured to suppress a transverse mode of the IDT.
Komatsu exemplarily discloses an acoustic wave device (Figs. 1-2C, etc.) comprising: piezoelectric layer (11), IDT (12), a temperature compensation layer (13; SiO2; Col. 5 lines 62-64), passivation layer (14; Col. 6 line 15), and suppression element (recesses 28A,B) to suppress transverse mode of the IDT (Col. 5 line 53 – Col. 6 line 45; recesses provided different heights for different portions so that velocity difference in the portions can suppress transverse mode),
At the time of the filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have added suppression element (recesses to passivation layer) to the acoustic wave device. The modification would have been obvious because the suppression element can facilitate suppression transverse mode efficiently as taught by Komatsu (Col. 6 lines 40-45).
7. The combination discloses the suppression element is a pair of cut out portions in the passivation layer (Komatsu: Figs. 1-2C, recesses 28A,B in layer 14).
8. The combination discloses the pair of cut out portions each overlap a respective one of the edge portions of the first region of the interdigital transducer (Komatsu: Figs. 1-2C, overlap the edge portions 22A,B).
9. The combination discloses the pair of cut out portions each extend in a direction parallel to the bus bars of the interdigital transducer along the length of the interdigital transducer (Komatsu: Fig. 1).
10. The combination discloses the pair of cut out portions each have a width in a direction parallel to the fingers of the interdigital transducer electrodes (Komatsu: Figs. 1, 2B) including a range of 0.5 λ to 3 λ (Col. 6 lines 39-48), which overlap, but not disclose the claimed range of between about 0.5 λ, and 1.5 λ, where λ is the wavelength of the main acoustic wave generated by the interdigital transducer during operation. However, the values of the width are design parameter for the design of the device to obtain desired device characteristics, thus at the time of the filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have made the width in the claimed range. The modification is obvious as a routine experimentation to obtain desired device characteristics and that overlapping range also provided obviousness (see MPEP 2144.05(I), 2144.05(II)).
13. The combination discloses the thickness of the passivation layer is largest in the region overlapping the central portion of the first region of the interdigital transducer (Komatsu: Fig. 2B, central portion 23 has the largest thickness of layer 14).
25. The combination discloses the suppression element includes at least one of a mass loading strip embedded within the temperature compensation layer, a cut out portion in the passivation layer, or hammer portions in each of the plurality of fingers, the hammer portions having a width larger than the width of each finger away from the hammer portion (Komatsu: Figs. 1, 2B; “recesses” or area lack of item 14 for cut out).
Claim(s) 23, 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the resultant combination of Michigami US 11,876,506 in view of Kadota US 8,384,268 of record, and Goto US 2020/0212876 as applied to claims 21 above, and further in view of Ruile US 9,257,960.
23, 24. The resultant combination discloses the invention as discussed above but does not disclose for claim 23: each of the interdigital transducer electrodes includes a second bus bar that is located within the gap region; for claim 24: each of the second bus bars includes one or more gaps positioned along the length of the second bus bars.
Ruile exemplarily discloses an acoustic wave device (Figs. 18a-e) having IDT including a second bus bar located within the gap region (i.e., in ARB1 region) and each of the second bus bars including one or more gap positioned along the length of the second bus bars (Figs. 18a,d).
At the time of the filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have added the second bus bars in the gap region. The modification would have been obvious as a variation of the IDT configured for piston mode useable therewith as taught by Ruile (abstract; Col. 13 lines 44-45, Col. 17 lines 30-55, Col. 19 lines 23-35; Fig. 23).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALAN WONG whose telephone number is (571)272-3238. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 10am - 7:00pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Andrea Lindgren Baltzell can be reached at 571-272-5918. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/A.W/Examiner, Art Unit 2843
/ANDREA LINDGREN BALTZELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2843
Prosecution Insights