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 § 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, 9 – 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujimoto et al (US 2006/0076851) in view of Yamashita (JP 2011-71768; cited in IDS filed on 02/26/2026).
Fujimoto et al discloses, regarding,
Claim 1, An acoustic wave device comprising: a piezoelectric substrate 22; and an IDT electrode 23, 24 including a plurality of electrode fingers (see Fig. 1), a first layer 43 on the piezoelectric substrate 22, and a second layer 23a including Cu as a main component [0018, 0083, 0065, 0109] on the first layer 43; wherein the first layer 43 includes a first principal surface on a side closest to the piezoelectric substrate 22 (see Fig. 2) and a second principal surface in contact with the second layer 23a; the second layer 23a includes a third principal surface in contact with the first layer 43, a fourth principal surface opposite to the third principal surface, and a side surface (of outer layer 42) connected to the third principal surface and the fourth principal surface (see Fig. 2); the IDT electrode 23. 24 further includes an outer layer 42 on the side surface of the second layer 23a; and a boundary between the side surface of the second layer 23a and the outer layer 42 is on the second principal surface of the first layer 43, and the outer layer 42 does not reach the piezoelectric substrate 22 (see Fig. 2); and
the IDT electrode further includes a third layer 41 on the fourth principal surface of the second layer 23a.
The problem to be solve appears to use an acoustic device having layers with different thicknesses. Such implementation would have been easily achievable by someone having ordinary skill in the art.
For example, Yamashita (JP 2011-71768; cited in IDS filed on 02/26/2026) discloses an electrode on top of a piezoelectric layer 10 and the further disclosing a first, second, and third layer and a width of the third layer 20 is greater than a width of the second layer 18 (see annotated Fig. 4(d) below).
PNG
media_image1.png
519
788
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fujimoto further discloses, regarding,
Claim 2, the boundary between the side surface of the second layer 23a and the outer layer 42 is on an inner side spaced from an end of the second principal surface of the first layer 43 (see Fig. 2).
Claims 3, 4, a protective film 40 on the piezoelectric substrate 22 and covering the IDT electrode (see Fig. 2).
Claim 9, 10, 11, 12, the outer layer 42 is on the side surface and the fourth principal surface of the second layer 23a (see Fig. 2).
Claims 13, 14, a thickness of a portion of the outer layer 42 on the side surface of the second layer 23a, is greater than a thickness of the first layer 43 (see Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to design the device as disclose by Fujimoto et al and to modify the invention per the limitations disclosed by Yamashita for the purpose of improving the reliability of an acoustic device.
Claim(s) 16, 17, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujimoto et al and Yamashita and further in view of Takahashi (US 2010/0187493).
The combined device discloses all of the elements above. However, the combined device does not disclose the elements below.
On the other hand, Takahashi discloses, regarding,
Claim 16, the outer layer 31 is made of a metal oxide (see paragraph 0045; Fig. 1).
Claim 17, the outer layer 31 is made of an oxide of one metal selected from the group consisting of Mn, Al, Mg, and Sn (see paragraphs 0025, 0026, 0027, 0045).
Claim 18, the outer layer is made of the oxide of Mn (see paragraphs 0025, 0026, 0027, 0045).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to design the combined device as disclose above and to modify the invention per the limitations disclosed by Takahashi for the purpose of increasing the manufacturing performance of an electrode.
Claim(s) 15, 19, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujimoto et al and Yamashita and further in view of Kando (US 2005/0057323).
The combined device discloses all of the elements above. However, the combined does not disclose the elements below.
On the other hand, Kando discloses, regarding,
Claim 15, a thickness of the first layer 135 is greater than a thickness of a portion of the outer layer on the side surface of the second layer (side surface surrounding layer 132; see Fig. 20).
Claim 19, the piezoelectric substrate 32a includes a support substrate 31c, 31a and a piezoelectric layer 32a on the support substrate 31c, 31a (see Fig. 4).
Fujimoto et al discloses, regarding,
Claim 20, further comprising a dielectric film 40 between the piezoelectric substrate 22 and the IDT electrode 23, 24.
However, the Prior Art does not disclose the wavelength pitch relationship with the thickness (a wavelength specified by an electrode finger pitch of the IDT electrode is denoted by X, a thickness of the dielectric film is about 1% or less of the wavelength X). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to come with those optimum ranges that the applicant discloses with respect to the thickness of the finger pitch and the wavelength, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Moreover, it has been held that discovering the optimum value of result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F. 2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to design the combined device as disclose above and to modify the invention per the limitations disclosed by Kando for the purpose of reducing the cost of surface acoustic wave devices.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 – 4, 9 – 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.
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 Julio C. Gonzalez whose telephone number is (571)272-2024. The examiner can normally be reached M-F.
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, Abdullah Riyami can be reached at 5712703119. 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.
/Julio C. Gonzalez/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2831
May 6, 2026
Prosecution Insights