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 § 102
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 –
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Daimon (US 2023/0327641).
With respect to claim 1, Daimon discloses an acoustic wave device (Fig 1) configured to generate a surface acoustic wave having a wavelength L, the acoustic wave device comprising: a piezoelectric layer (item 7), the piezoelectric layer having a thickness in a range of 0.1L to 0.3L (Paragraph 42); an interdigital transducer electrode (items 18-19) over the piezoelectric layer (Fig 1); and a support substrate (item 2) bonded to the piezoelectric layer such that the piezoelectric layer is positioned between the interdigital transducer electrode and the support substrate (Fig 1), the support substrate having a cut angle (Paragraph 68) configured to provide a velocity of the surface acoustic wave calculated by multiplying the wavelength L by a particular frequency to be greater than 4800 m/s (this is merely a statement of an inherent material property, and as Daimon discloses the same material as in claims 2-3, the properties are presumed to be inherent).
With respect to claim 2, Daimon discloses the acoustic wave device of claim 1 wherein the piezoelectric layer is a lithium tantalate layer (Paragraph 68).
With respect to claim 3, Daimon discloses the acoustic wave device of claim 2 wherein the lithium tantalate layer is a 42±10° Y-X lithium tantalate layer (Paragraph 68).
With respect to claim 4, Daimon discloses the acoustic wave device of claim 1 wherein the cut angle of the support substrate is configured to provide the velocity of the surface acoustic wave to be greater than 5000 m/s (this is merely a statement of an inherent material property, and as Daimon discloses the use of the same materials as in the claims, the properties are presumed to be inherent).
With respect to claim 5, Daimon discloses the acoustic wave device of claim 4 wherein the cut angle of the support substrate is configured to provide the velocity of the surface acoustic wave to be between 5060 m/s and 5800 m/s (this is merely a statement of an inherent material property, and as Daimon discloses the use of the same materials as in the claims, the properties are presumed to be inherent).
With respect to claim 6, Daimon discloses the acoustic wave device of claim 1 wherein the cut angle of the support substrate is in a range of, in Euler angle (Φ,θ,Ψ), (90±15°, 90±15°, 90±15°) (Paragraph 67).
With respect to claim 7, Daimon discloses the acoustic wave device of claim 1 wherein the cut angle of the support substrate is in a range of, in Euler angle (Φ,θ,Ψ), (45±15°, 90±15°, 90±15°) (Paragraph 67).
With respect to claim 8, Daimon discloses the acoustic wave device of claim 1 wherein the cut angle of the support substrate is in a range of, in Euler angle (Φ,θ,Ψ), (45±15°, 54.74±15°, 60±15°) (Paragraph 67).
With respect to claim 9. Daimon discloses the acoustic wave device of claim 1 further comprising an adhesion layer (item 3) between the piezoelectric layer and the support substrate (Fig 1, paragraph 35).
With respect to claim 10, Daimon discloses the acoustic wave device of claim 1 further comprising a polycrystalline silicon layer or an amorphous silicon layer between the piezoelectric layer and the support substrate (Paragraph 35).
With respect to claim 11, Daimon discloses the acoustic wave device of claim 1 further comprising a silicon nitride layer or an aluminum nitride layer (item 26) between the piezoelectric layer and the support substrate (Fig 17).
With respect to claim 12, Daimon discloses the acoustic wave device of claim 1 further comprising a polycrystalline silicon layer or an amorphous silicon layer (item 3), and a silicon nitride layer or an aluminum nitride layer (item 26) between the piezoelectric layer and the support substrate (Fig 17).
With respect to claim 13, Daimon discloses the acoustic wave device (Fig 1) comprising: a piezoelectric layer (item 7); an interdigital transducer electrode (items 18, 19) over the piezoelectric layer (Fig 1); and a support substrate (item 2) bonded to the piezoelectric layer such that the piezoelectric layer is positioned between the interdigital transducer electrode and the support substrate (Fig 1), the support substrate having a cut angle in a range of, in Euler angle (Φ,θ,Ψ), (45±15°, 90±15°, 90±15°),(45±15°, 90±15°, 90±15°), (45±15°, 54.74±15°, 60±15°) (Paragraph 67, wherein the (100), (110), and (111) orientations correspond to the three claimed Euler angles).
With respect to claim 14, Daimon discloses the acoustic wave device of claim 13 wherein the piezoelectric layer is a lithium tantalate layer (Paragraph 68).
With respect to claim 15, Daimon discloses the acoustic wave device of claim 14 wherein the lithium tantalate layer is a 42±10° Y-X lithium tantalate layer (Paragraph 68).
With respect to claim 16, Daimon discloses the acoustic wave device of claim 13 wherein the acoustic wave device configured to generate a surface acoustic wave having a wavelength L, and the piezoelectric layer has a thickness in a range of 0.1L to 0.3L. (Paragraph 42).
With respect to claim 17, Daimon discloses the acoustic wave device of claim 13 wherein the cut angle of the support substrate is configured to provide the velocity of the surface acoustic wave to be between 5060 m/s and 5800 m/s (this is merely a statement of an inherent material property, and as Daimon discloses the use of the same materials as in the claims, the properties are presumed to be inherent).
With respect to claim 18, Daimon discloses the acoustic wave device of claim 13 further comprising a polycrystalline silicon layer or an amorphous silicon layer between the piezoelectric layer and the support substrate (Paragraph 35).
With respect to claim 19, Daimon discloses the acoustic wave device of claim 13 further comprising a silicon nitride layer or an aluminum nitride layer (item 26) between the piezoelectric layer and the support substrate (Fig 17).
With respect to claim 20, Daimon discloses the acoustic wave device of claim 13 further comprising a polycrystalline silicon layer or an amorphous silicon layer (item 3), and a silicon nitride layer or an aluminum nitride layer (item 26) between the piezoelectric layer and the support substrate (Fig 17).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 20 January 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Daimon does not disclose a support substrate having a cut angle configure to provide a velocity of the surface acoustic wave greater than 4800 m/s. However, this is merely an inherent property of the materials selected. As Daimon discloses the same materials as claimed by applicant for both the piezoelectric layer and the support layer, including cut angles of those materials, the claimed properties are presumed to be inherent.
Applicant argues that the (100), (110), and (111) silicon disclosed by Daimon does not correspond to the claimed Euler angles of (90, 90, 90), (45, 90, 90), or (45, 54.74, 60). However, based on applicant’s own disclosure, these Euler angles correspond exactly to the (100), (110), and (111) silicon cut angles (Figs 6A, 6C, and 6G of applicant’s drawings).
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
Prosecution Insights