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 .
Specification
The specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant's cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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 1-4, 7-8, 12-13 and 17-18 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.
The metes and bounds of claims 1-4 are unclear. MPEP 2173.05(s) states that where possible, claims are to be complete in themselves. Incorporation by reference to a specific figure or table "is permitted only in exceptional circumstances where there is no practical way to define the invention in words and where it is more concise to incorporate by reference than duplicating a drawing or table into the claim. Incorporation by reference is a necessity doctrine, not for applicant’s convenience." Ex parte Fressola, 27 USPQ2d 1608, 1609 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1993) (citations omitted). It is the examiner’s position that Fig. 4 can be described in words, so it is not considered as an exceptional situation. Claims 1-4 and their relationship to the prior art cannot be made at this time. When they are made definite such a consideration may be made. However, references with relevance to the background of the invention have been cited.
Regarding claims 7, 8, 12, 13, 17 and 18: the claims recite the limitation “a longitudinal wave acoustic velocity of the Si…”. It is not clear if the applicants are referring to the velocity of the acoustic wave within the silicon substrate. For examination purposes, the limitation is interpreted as the velocity of the acoustic wave within the silicon substrate. Clarification is required.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite in that it fails to point out what is included or excluded by the claim language. This claim is an omnibus type claim.
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 –
(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 5, 7-10, 12-15 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yamamoto et al. (US20200287513, hereinafter Yamamoto).
Regarding claim 5, in Fig. 1B Yamamoto discloses a composite substrate (1), comprising: a support substrate made of Si (20, paragraph 33); and a piezoelectric layer (10, LT) laminated on the support substrate; wherein Euler angles of the Si are within any of ranges in the tables 1-3. Specifically, Yamamoto discloses the silicon substrate (20) comprising Euler angles (φ, θ, ψ) = (−45, −25.2, 0) which is a range presented in Table 2, line 16.
Regarding claim 9 and 14, in Fig. 2, Yamamoto discloses the acoustic wave device (30) comprising the composite substrate (20, 10) and an IDT electrode (31, 32) in contact with the piezoelectric layer (10).
Regarding claims 10 and 15, the IDT electrode (32, 32) is on a surface of the piezoelectric layer on an opposite side to the support substrate, as shown in Fig. 2.
Regarding claims 7-8, 12-13, 17 and 18 considering Yamamoto discloses the claimed structure and Euler angles as recited, the limitation of the longitudinal wave acoustic velocity is considered to be anticipated. Moreover, it should be noted that the acoustic velocity is not a structural limitation, and therefore has been given little patentable weight.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6, 11, 16 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The references of the Prior Art fail to teach or disclose, alone or in obvious combination, the claimed invention as described in claims 6, 11 and 16 wherein in the Euler angles (φ, θ, ψ) of the Si substrate, φ is in a range from about −25° to about −15°, and θ is in a range from about −22° to about −14°.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Kishino discloses an acoustic wave element comprising a composite substrate and low and high acoustic velocity layers interposed between the piezoelectric substrate and the silicon substrate.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jaydi San Martin whose telephone number is (571)272-2018. The examiner can normally be reached on M-Th 7:45-6:00pm.
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, Dedei Hammond can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/J. San Martin/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2837