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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the amended claim(s) 1-7,14-17 and 19-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6, 16 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (CN 110601674, English translation provided in the IDS by the applicant) in view of Chang (US 20180191322).
Regarding claim 1, Wang discloses an acoustic wave device, in figures 5 and 6, comprising:
a support substrate 10;
an intermediate layer 11 on the support substrate 10;
a piezoelectric film 12 on the intermediate layer 11; and
an interdigital transducer (IDT) electrode 13 on the piezoelectric film 12;
wherein a plurality of cavities 112 are provided at at least one of a location between the support substrate 10 and the intermediate layer 11 and a location in the intermediate layer 11; and
the plurality of cavities 112 are positioned to overlap the IDT electrode 13 in plan view.
Wang does not disclose at least one of the plurality of cavities does not extend to the piezoelectric film.
Chang discloses an acoustic wave device, in figure 1L, having at least one of the plurality of cavities 40 does not extend to the piezoelectric film 31.
Thus, Therefore, it would have been obvious to person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have at least one of the plurality of cavities does not extend to the piezoelectric film as disclosed by Chang in the device disclosed by Wang, for the purpose of preventing energy loss and enabling precise frequency tuning and mass adjustment.
Regarding claim 2, Wang discloses the plurality of cavities include cavities having different shapes (paragraph 17).
Regarding claim 3, Wang discloses the plurality of cavities 112 are provided between the support substrate 10 and the intermediate layer 11.
Regarding claim 4, Wang discloses the plurality of cavities 112 are provided in the intermediate layer 11.
Regarding claim 6, Wang discloses the intermediate layer 11 is a low-acoustic-velocity film made of a low-acoustic-velocity material through which a bulk wave propagates at an acoustic velocity lower than an acoustic velocity at which a bulk wave propagates through the piezoelectric film, and
the support substrate is a high- acoustic-velocity support substrate made of a high-acoustic- velocity material through which a bulk wave propagates at an acoustic velocity higher than an acoustic velocity at which an acoustic wave propagates through the piezoelectric film1.
Regarding claim 16, Wang discloses both of the intermediate layer 11 and the piezoelectric film 12 are provided between the IDT electrode 13 and the cavities 112 in the plan view.
Regarding claim 17, Wang discloses the plurality of cavities include cavities having different sizes (paragraph 17).
Claim(s) 5 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Chang, in further view of Takai (WO 2017013968, English translation provided in the IDS by the applicant).
Regarding claim 5, over Wang in view of Chang does not disclose the intermediate layer includes a high-acoustic-velocity film and a low-acoustic-velocity film, the high-acoustic-velocity film being made of a high-acoustic-velocity material through which a bulk wave propagates at an acoustic velocity higher than an acoustic velocity at which an acoustic wave propagates through the piezoelectric film, the low-acoustic-velocity film being provided between the high-acoustic-velocity film and the piezoelectric film and made of a low-acoustic-velocity material through which a bulk wave propagates at an acoustic velocity lower than an acoustic velocity at which a bulk wave propagates through the piezoelectric film.
Takai discloses an acoustic wave device, in figure 8, comprising
the intermediate layer 2B/3 includes a high-acoustic-velocity film 2B and a low-acoustic-velocity film 3,
the high-acoustic-velocity film 2B being made of a high-acoustic-velocity material through which a bulk wave propagates at an acoustic velocity higher than an acoustic velocity at which an acoustic wave propagates through the piezoelectric film 4 (page 9, lines 295-298),
the low-acoustic-velocity film being provided between the high-acoustic-velocity film and the piezoelectric film and made of a low-acoustic-velocity material through which a bulk wave propagates at an acoustic velocity lower than an acoustic velocity at which a bulk wave propagates through the piezoelectric film 4 (page 9, lines 295-298), for the purpose of reducing variations in characteristics of the device (page 2, lines 21-32).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the intermediate layer includes a high-acoustic-velocity film and a low-acoustic-velocity film, the high-acoustic-velocity film being made of a high-acoustic-velocity material through which a bulk wave propagates at an acoustic velocity higher than an acoustic velocity at which an acoustic wave propagates through the piezoelectric film, the low-acoustic-velocity film being provided between the high-acoustic-velocity film and the piezoelectric film and made of a low-acoustic-velocity material through which a bulk wave propagates at an acoustic velocity lower than an acoustic velocity at which a bulk wave propagates through the piezoelectric film disclosed by Takai in the device disclosed by over Wang in view of Chang, for the purpose of reducing variations in characteristics of the device.
Regarding claim 7, Wang discloses the plurality of cavities are provided in the high-acoustic- velocity film (figures 5 and 6, cavities are in the intermediate layer).
Claim(s) 14 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Chang, in further view of Daimon (US 2019/0123713).
Regarding claim 14, Wang in view of Chang does not disclose reflectors provided on two sides of the IDT electrode in a direction in which an acoustic wave propagates.
Daimon discloses an acoustic wave device, in figures 2 and 3, having reflectors 7/8 provided on two sides of the IDT electrode 6 in a direction in which an acoustic wave propagates, for the purpose of confining waves, increasing quality factor, and improving ability to pass desired frequency.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have reflectors provided on two sides of the IDT electrode in a direction in which an acoustic wave propagates disclosed by Daimon in the device disclosed by Wang in view of Chang, for the purpose of confining waves, increasing quality factor, and improving ability to pass desired frequency.
Regarding claim 15, Daimon discloses the reflectors and the IDT electrode are defined by a multilayer body including metal films (figures 2 and 3, paragraph 62). The reason for combining is same as above.
Claim(s) 19 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Chang, in further view of Takai, in further view of Iwamoto (US 2017/0222619).
Regarding claim 19, Wang in view of Takai does not disclose the plurality of cavities are linear and extend in different directions.
Iwamoto discloses an acoustic wave device, in figure 14, having the plurality of cavities 15 are linear and extend in different directions, for the purpose of effectively reducing variations in characteristics of the device.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the plurality of cavities are linear and extend in different directions as disclosed by Iwamoto in the device disclosed by Wang in view of Chang, in further view of Takai, for the purpose of effectively reducing variations in characteristics of the device.
Regarding claim 20, Wang in view of Takai does not disclose the plurality of cavities are linear and at least some of the cavities extend in directions which are parallel.
Iwamoto discloses an acoustic wave device, in figure 14, having the plurality of cavities 15 are linear and at least some of the cavities extend in directions which are parallel, for the purpose of effectively reducing variations in characteristics of the device.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the plurality of cavities are linear and at least some of the cavities extend in directions which are parallel as disclosed by Iwamoto in the device disclosed by Wang in view of Chang, in further view of Takai, for the purpose of effectively reducing variations in characteristics of the device.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-13 and 18 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.
Regarding claim 8, the prior art does not disclose or suggest an acoustic wave device having he plurality of cavities extend to at least one of a boundary between the low-acoustic-velocity film and the high-acoustic- velocity film and a boundary between the high-acoustic-velocity film and the support substrate, along with other claim limitations. Claims 9-13 are objected to due to dependency.
Regarding claim 18, the prior art does not disclose or suggest an acoustic wave device having no portion of the plurality of cavities is provided in the low- acoustic-velocity film, along with other claim limitations.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 BUMSUK WON whose telephone number is (571)272-2713. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 7 AM - 5 PM EST.
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, Allana L Bidder can be reached at (571) 272-5560. 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.
/BUMSUK WON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872
1 Wang discloses the piezoelectric film 12 is made of lithium niobate (paragraph 95), the intermediate layer 11 is made of SiO2 (paragraph 105), and the support substrate is made of Si (paragraph 105). As to transverse acoustic wave velocity, Si is higher than lithium niobate, and lithium niobate is higher than SiO2 through which a bulk wave propagates.