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 –
(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 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Matsuda et al. (US 2008/0061657).
With respect to claim 1, Matsuda et al. discloses an acoustic wave device (Fig 3) comprising: a piezoelectric substrate (item 12); an interdigital transducer electrode (item 14) on the piezoelectric substrate (Fig 3); reflector electrodes (items 16) on both sides of the IDT electrode in an acoustic wave propagation direction and including a plurality of electrode fingers with gaps therebetween (Figs 1A and 3); and a first dielectric film (item 22a) between the reflector electrodes and the piezoelectric substrate in regions where the plurality of electrode fingers and the gaps of the reflector electrodes are provided (Fig 3).
With respect to claim 5, Matsuda et al. discloses the acoustic wave device according to Claim 1, wherein the piezoelectric substrate is made of a piezoelectric material including LiNbO3 or LiTaO3 (Paragraph 30).
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.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuda et al. in view of Taniguchi et al. (US 2016/0359468).
With respect to claim 4, Matsuda et al. discloses the acoustic wave device according to claim 1.
Matsuda et al. does not disclose that the first dielectric film is made of tantalum oxide, niobium oxide, tungsten oxide, hafnium oxide, or cerium oxide.
Taniguchi et al. teaches a piezoelectric acoustic wave device in which the first dielectric film is made of tantalum oxide, niobium oxide, tungsten oxide, hafnium oxide, or cerium oxide (Paragraph 26).
Before the effective filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the dielectric film material of Taniguchi et al. with the acoustic wave device of Matsuda et al. for the benefit of providing a simplified manufacturing process (Paragraph 26 of Taniguchi et al.).
Claims 6-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuda et al. in view of Kai (US 2016/0380611).
With respect to claim 6, Matsuda et al. discloses the acoustic wave device according to claim 1, wherein the piezoelectric film is made of LiNbO3 or LiTaO3 (Paragraph 30).
Matsuda et al. does not disclose that the piezoelectric substrate includes a support substrate and a piezoelectric film directly or indirectly stacked on the support substrate.
Kai teaches a piezoelectric acoustic wave device in which the piezoelectric substrate includes a support substrate (item 2) and a piezoelectric film (item 4) directly or indirectly stacked on the support substrate (Fig 1).
Before the effective filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the support substrate of Kai with the acoustic wave device of Matsuda et al. for the benefit of providing improved structural support (Paragraph 37 and figure 1 of Kai).
With respect to claim 7, the combination of Matsuda et al. and Kai discloses the acoustic wave device according to claim 6. Kai discloses that the piezoelectric substrate further includes a high acoustic velocity material layer (item 3a) between the piezoelectric film (item 4) and the support substrate and made of a high acoustic velocity material in which an acoustic velocity of a bulk wave propagating therein is higher than an acoustic velocity of an acoustic wave propagating in the piezoelectric film (Fig1 and paragraph 37).
With respect to claim 8, the combination of Matsuda et al. and Kai discloses the acoustic wave device according to claim 7. Kai discloses a low acoustic velocity film (item 3b) between the high acoustic velocity material layer (item 3a) and the piezoelectric film (item 4), and made of a low acoustic velocity material in which an acoustic velocity of a bulk wave propagating therein is lower than an acoustic velocity of a bulk wave propagating in the piezoelectric film (Fig 1 and paragraph 37).
With respect to claim 9, the combination of Matsuda et al. and Kai discloses the acoustic wave device according to claim 7. Kaio discloses that the high acoustic velocity material layer is integrated with the support substrate (Fig 1).
With respect to claim 10, the combination of Matsuda et al. and Kai discloses the acoustic wave device according to claim 6. Kai discloses that the piezoelectric substrate further includes an acoustic reflective film (item 3) between the piezoelectric film and the support substrate (Fig 1, wherein the high and low acoustic impedance films are a commonly-used arrangement in piezoelectric acoustic wave devices as an acoustic reflector).
With respect to claim 11, the combination of Matsuda et al. and Kai discloses the acoustic wave device according to claim 10. Kai discloses that the acoustic reflective film includes a low acoustic impedance layer (item 3b) having a relatively low acoustic impedance and a high acoustic impedance layer (item 3a) having a relatively high acoustic impedance (Paragraph 37).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 3 is 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 prior art does not disclose or suggest “a second dielectric film is provided between the IDT electrode and the piezoelectric substrate in the first and second edge regions” in combination with the remaining elements of claim 3.
Claims 2 and 12-20 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: the prior art does not disclose or suggest “a first dielectric film between the plurality of electrode fingers of the reflector electrodes and the piezoelectric substrate and not provided in any portion of a region between the piezoelectric substrate and regions where the gaps of the reflector electrodes are provided” in combination with the remaining elements of claim 2.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
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