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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicants election of the invention of Group I, Species I.A, Claims 2 through 4, in the reply filed on February 4, 2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 5 through 10 and 15 through 20 have been withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on February 4, 2026.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the content does not appear to be directed to the claimed invention, manufacturing process, as recited in the steps of at least Claim 1. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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.
Claims 1, 3, 4 and 11 through 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication 2017/0250669 to Kuroyanagi et al (hereinafter “Kuroyanagi”) in view of the teachings of U.S. Patent 3,883,831 to Williamson et al (hereinafter “Williamson”) and U.S. Patent 8,857,563 to Chang et al (hereinafter “Chang”).
Claim 1: Kuroyanagi discloses a method for forming an acoustic wave device, said method comprising:
providing a first substrate (e.g. 60a, Fig. 14) having a plurality of resonator components (e.g. 62) of a first type formed thereon (e.g. ¶ [0062]), the first substrate formed of a non-piezoelectric material (e.g. ¶ [0029]);
providing a second substrate (e.g. 10b, Fig. 15) having a plurality of resonator components (e.g. 12) of a second type formed thereon (e.g. ¶ [0066]), the second substrate formed of a piezoelectric material (e.g. ¶ [0028]);
forming a plurality of indentations (e.g. 76, Fig. 18b) into the second substrate (e.g. ¶ [0071]); and
bonding the first and second substrates (e.g. ¶ [0043]).
Claim 3: Kuroyanagi discloses the method of claim 1 wherein at least one material (e.g. silicon, ¶ [0029]) including the first substrate and at least one material (e.g. lithium niobate, ¶ [0028]) including the second substrate have different coefficients of thermal expansion [because of different compositions].
Claim 4: Kuroyanagi discloses the method of claim 3 wherein at least one of the plurality of indentations is configured to accommodate stress and/or strain [from different frequencies] induced by the at least one material including the first substrate and the at least one material including the second substrate having different coefficients of thermal expansion [different material compositions](e.g. ¶ [0040]).
Claim 11: Kuroyanagi discloses the method of claim 1 wherein the resonator components of the first type includes a piezoelectric layer (e.g. 60b, ¶ [0067]).
Claim 12: Kuroyanagi discloses the method of claim 1 wherein the first substrate includes silicon (e.g. ¶ [0029]), and a metal layer on the first substrate includes copper (e.g. ¶ [0029]).
Claim 13: Kuroyanagi discloses the method of claim 1 wherein the resonator components of the second type includes a piezoelectric layer (e.g. 10b, Fig. 14, ¶ [0028]).
Claim 14: Kuroyanagi discloses the method of claim 1 wherein the second substrate includes at least one type of piezoelectric material, the at least one type of piezoelectric material of the second substrate is lithium niobate (e.g. ¶ [0028]).
Kuroyanagi does not state that the first substrate has an isotropic thermal expansion characteristic, the second substrate has an anisotropic thermal expansion characteristic; and that the indentations specifically reduce rigidity [as required in Claim 1].
Williamson teaches that it is well-known in the art of manufacturing surface acoustic wave (SAW) devices that substrates made of a non-piezoelectric material have isotropic thermal expansion characteristics (e.g. col. 1, lines 59-62) and substrates made of a piezoelectric material have anisotropic thermal expansion characteristics (e.g. col. 3, lines 39-42).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the first and second substrates of Kuroyanagi have isotropic and anisotropic thermal expansion characteristics, respectively, based on the properties of thermal expansion characteristics taught by Williamson between non-piezoelectric and piezoelectric materials.
Also in the manufacture of acoustic wave devices, Chang teaches that when material is removed (reduced) from a substrate (e.g. 900, Fig. 9A) to form indentations (e.g. slots 910), rigidity is reduced (i.e. flexibility/frequencies are increased) to the substrate thereby improving performance of the acoustic device (e.g. col. 10, line 58 to col. 11, line 11).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the indentations formed by Kuroyanagi reduce rigidity (i.e. increase flexibility/frequencies) based on the properties of forming indentations and/or removing material taught by Chang, thereby increasing performance of the SAW.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuroyanagi in view of Williamson and Chang, as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Publication 2011/0266917 to Metzger et al (hereinafter “Metzger”).
Kuroyanagi, as modified by Williamson and Chang, disclose a method of forming an acoustic wave device as relied upon above in Claim 1. Kuroyanagi further teaches that the resonator components of the second type formed on the second substate are SAW resonators (e.g. ¶ [0073]). While Kuroyanagi teaches that the resonator components of the first type formed on the first substrate are acoustic wave resonators, Kuroyanagi does not state that the acoustic wave resonators are “bulk” acoustic wave resonators (BAW).
Metzger teaches that when a BAW (e.g. RS2, Fig. 13) is formed with a SAW (e.g. RS1) by bonding, it provides additional applications for the acoustic wave device, e.g. mobile communication devices, RF devices, etc. (e.g. ¶ [0002]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed the first substate with the plurality of resonator components of the first type of Kuroyanagi as a BAW, in the manner taught by Metzger, to provide additional applications mentioned by Metzger as an acoustic wave device.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
a) Japanese Patent Publication, JP 2020-150214, discloses an acoustic wave device (e.g. Fig. 1) that includes a first substrate (e.g. 20) with resonators of a first type (e.g. 22) and a second substrate (e.g. 10) with resonators of a second type (e.g. 12).
b) Non-Patent Literature IEEE Publication to Lee et al, entitled "Development of the RF SAW filters based on PCB substrate," discloses bonding of an acoustic wave device (e.g. Fig. 2, see entire document).
c) The references cited on the applicants submission (page 8 of reply on February 4, 2026) under the heading of “OTHER APPLICATIONS OF ASSIGNEE” have been fully considered by the examiner and have been cited by applicants on their Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) filed on July 29, 2024.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to A. DEXTER TUGBANG whose telephone number is (571)272-4570. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:00 am to 5:00 pm.
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, JESSICA HAN can be reached at (571) 272-2078. 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.
/A. DEXTER TUGBANG/Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2896
Prosecution Insights