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
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 1-4 and 6-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsumoto et al. (US 2007/0267942) in view of Goto et al. (US 2011/0109196).
With respect to claim 1. Matsumoto et al. discloses a boundary acoustic wave device (Fig 18) comprising: two low acoustic impedance layers (items 14 and 15); an interdigital transducer electrode (item 4); piezoelectric material (items 3 and 5) on opposing sides of the interdigital transducer electrode such that the piezoelectric material is positioned between the interdigital transducer electrode and each of the two low acoustic impedance layers (Fig 18); and the boundary acoustic wave device being configured to generate a boundary acoustic wave (Fig 18, wherein the position of the IDTs between the piezoelectric layers generates boundary acoustic waves at the boundary between piezoelectric layers).
Matsumoto et al. does not disclose two high acoustic impedance substrates, the two low acoustic impedance layers being positioned between the two high acoustic impedance substrates, the two low acoustic impedance layers each having a lower acoustic impedance than each of the two high acoustic impedance substrates, the two high acoustic impedance substrates each having a higher acoustic impedance than the piezoelectric material.
Goto et al. teaches a piezoelectric acoustic wave device (Fig 10) having two high acoustic impedance substrates (items 210 and 260), the two low acoustic impedance layers (items 208 and 209) being positioned between the two high acoustic impedance substrates (Fig 10), the two low acoustic impedance layers each having a lower acoustic impedance than each of the two high acoustic impedance substrates, the two high acoustic impedance substrates each having a higher acoustic impedance than the piezoelectric material (Paragraphs 52, 54, 65, wherein the acoustic impedances and their relationships are inherent material properties).
Before the effective filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the high acoustic impedance layers of Goto et al. with the acoustic wave device of Matsumoto et al. for the benefit of reducing undesired modes (Paragraph 65 of Goto et al.).
With respect to claim 2, the combination of Matsumoto et al. and Goto et al. discloses the boundary acoustic wave device of claim 1. Matsumoto et al. discloses that the interdigital transducer electrode is embedded in the piezoelectric material (Figs 6 and 18).
With respect to claim 3, the combination of Matsumoto et al. and Goto et al. discloses the boundary acoustic wave device of claim 1. Matsumoto et al. discloses that the interdigital transducer electrode is bonded to a layer of the piezoelectric material (Fig 18).
With respect to claim 4, the combination of Matsumoto et al. and Goto et al. discloses the boundary acoustic wave device of claim 1. Matsumoto et al. discloses dielectric material located between interdigital transducer electrode fingers of the interdigital transducer electrode (Fig 18, wherein the piezoelectric layers 3 and 5 are disposed between the IDT fingers).
With respect to claim 9, the combination of Matsumoto et al. and Goto et al. discloses the boundary acoustic wave device of claim 1. The language “wherein the boundary acoustic wave device has an electromechanical coupling coefficient in a range from 10% to 25%” does not include specific structural features that would further limit the structural features of the device, and it has been held that the discovery of an optimum range by routine experimentation is obvious (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233).
With respect to claim 10, the combination of Matsumoto et al. and Goto et al. discloses the boundary acoustic wave device of claim 1. The language “wherein the boundary acoustic wave device has a static capacitance in a range from 2.5 picofarads to 4 picofarads” does not include specific structural features that would further limit the structural features of the device, and it has been held that the discovery of an optimum range by routine experimentation is obvious (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233).
With respect to claim 11, the combination of Matsumoto et al. and Goto et al. discloses the boundary acoustic wave device of claim 1. Matsumoto et al. discloses that the two low acoustic impedance layers include silicon dioxide (Paragraph 91).
With respect to claim 12, the combination of Matsumoto et al. and Goto et al. discloses the boundary acoustic wave device of claim 1. Goto et al. discloses that the piezoelectric material includes lithium niobate (Paragraph 52).
With respect to claim 13, the combination of Matsumoto et al. and Goto et al. discloses the boundary acoustic wave device of claim 1. Goto et al. discloses that the piezoelectric material includes lithium tantalate (Paragraph 52).
Claims 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsumoto et al. in view of Goto et al. (US 2011/0109196) and Goto et al. (US 2020/0366268).
With respect to claim 16, Matsumoto et al. discloses a radio frequency module (Paragraph 2) comprising: an acoustic wave filter configured to filter a radio frequency signal (Paragraph 2), the acoustic wave filter including a boundary acoustic wave device (Fig 18), the boundary acoustic wave device including two low acoustic impedance layers (items 14 and 15), an interdigital transducer electrode (item 4), piezoelectric material (items 3 and 5) positioned between the interdigital transducer electrode and each of the two low acoustic impedance layers (Fig 18).
Matsumoto et al. does not disclose two high acoustic impedance substrates, the two low acoustic impedance layers having higher acoustic impedance than the two low acoustic impedance layers, the two low acoustic impedance layers being positioned between the two high acoustic impedance substrates; a radio frequency circuit element coupled to the acoustic wave filter; and a packaging structure enclosing the acoustic wave filter and the radio frequency circuit element.
Goto et al. (‘196) teaches a piezoelectric acoustic wave device (Fig 10) having two high acoustic impedance substrates (items 210 and 260), the two low acoustic impedance layers having higher acoustic impedance than the two low acoustic impedance layers (items 208 and 209; Paragraphs 52, 54, 65, wherein the acoustic impedances and their relationships are inherent material properties), the two low acoustic impedance layers being positioned between the two high acoustic impedance substrates (Fig 10).
Before the effective filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the high acoustic impedance layers of Goto et al. with the acoustic wave device of Matsumoto et al. for the benefit of reducing undesired modes (Paragraph 65 of Goto et al.).
Goto et al. (‘268) teaches a piezoelectric acoustic wave device including a radio frequency circuit element coupled to the acoustic wave filter; and a packaging structure enclosing the acoustic wave filter and the radio frequency circuit element (Paragraph 63).
Before the effective filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine RF circuit elements and packaging of Goto et al. with the acoustic wave device of Matsumoto et al. for the benefit of providing an fully-enclosed device including its associated circuitry (Paragraph 63 of Goto et al.).
With respect to claim 17, the combination of Matsumoto et al., Goto et al. (‘196) and Goto et al. (‘268) discloses the radio frequency module of claim 16. Goto et al. (‘268) discloses that the radio frequency circuit element is a radio frequency amplifier (Paragraph 63).
With respect to claim 18, the combination of Matsumoto et al., Goto et al. (‘196) and Goto et al. (‘268) discloses the radio frequency module of claim 16. Goto et al. (‘268) discloses that the radio frequency circuit element is a switch (Paragraph 63).
With respect to claim 19, Matsumoto et al. discloses a wireless communication device (Paragraph 6) comprising: an acoustic wave filter (Paragraph 2) configured to filter a radio frequency signal, the acoustic wave filter including a boundary acoustic wave device (Fig 18), the boundary acoustic wave device including two low acoustic impedance layers (items 14 and 15), an interdigital transducer electrode (item 4), piezoelectric material (items 3 and 5) positioned between the interdigital transducer electrode and each of the two low acoustic impedance layers (Fig 18).
Matsumoto et al. does not disclose two high acoustic impedance substrates, the two low acoustic impedance layers having higher acoustic impedance than the two low acoustic impedance layers, the two low acoustic impedance layers being positioned between the two high acoustic impedance substrates; and an antenna operatively coupled to the acoustic wave filter.
Goto et al. (‘196) teaches a piezoelectric acoustic wave device (Fig 10) having two high acoustic impedance substrates (items 210 and 260), the two low acoustic impedance layers (items 208 and 209) having higher acoustic impedance than the two low acoustic impedance layers (Paragraphs 52, 54, 65, wherein the acoustic impedances and their relationships are inherent material properties), the two low acoustic impedance layers being positioned between the two high acoustic impedance substrates (Fig 10).
Before the effective filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the high acoustic impedance layers of Goto et al. with the acoustic wave device of Matsumoto et al. for the benefit of reducing undesired modes (Paragraph 65 of Goto et al.).
Goto et al. (‘268) teaches a piezoelectric acoustic wave device including an antenna operatively coupled to the acoustic wave filter (Paragraph 63).
Before the effective filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine RF circuit elements including the antenna of Goto et al. with the acoustic wave device of Matsumoto et al. for the benefit of providing an fully-enclosed device including its associated circuitry (Paragraph 63 of Goto et al.).
With respect to claim 20, he combination of Matsumoto et al., Goto et al. (‘196) and Goto et al. (‘268) discloses the wireless communication device of claim 19. Matsumoto et al. discloses that the wireless communication device is a mobile phone (Paragraph 6).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-8, 14, and 15 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 prior art does not disclose or suggest “wherein the interdigital transducer electrode is in contact with the piezoelectric material on only one of the opposing sides of the interdigital transducer electrode” in combination with the remaining elements of claim 5.
The prior art does not disclose or suggest “a thermally conductive layer positioned between the interdigital transducer electrode and the piezoelectric material on one of the opposing sides of the interdigital transducer electrode.” In combination with the remaining elements of claim 6.
The prior art does not disclose or suggest “a dielectric layer positioned between the interdigital transducer electrode and the piezoelectric material on one of the opposing sides of the interdigital transducer electrode” in combination with the remaining elements of claim 7.
The prior art does not disclose or suggest “a second interdigital transducer electrode and a thermally conductive layer. the thermally conductive layer positioned between the interdigital transducer electrode and the second interdigital transducer electrode” in combination with the remaining elements of claim 8.
The prior art does not disclose or suggest “wherein at least one of the two high acoustic impedance substrates is a silicon substrate” in combination with the remaining elements of claim 14.
The prior art does not disclose or suggest “wherein at least one of the two high acoustic impedance substrates is a substrate that includes at least one of synthetic diamond, quartz, or spinel” in combination with the remaining elements of claim 15.
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