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 .
Responsive to correspondence
This office action is in response to correspondence filed on 12/12/2022.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements filed 05/30/2023 and 04/15/2026 were filed before the first action on the merits. This submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97.
Accordingly, these have been fully considered by the Office.
Abstract
The abstract filed 12/12/2022 appears to be acceptable.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of group I, claims 1-7, in the reply filed on 04/15/2026 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Claims 8-21 have been withdrawn by the Applicant from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected method of manufacture, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 02/05/2026.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S Publication number 2017/0331455 A1 to KUROYANAGI (KUROYANAGI) in view of U.S Publication number 2020/0106420 A1 to KODAMA et al. (KODAMA).
Re: Claim 1:
KUROYANAGI:
A packaged acoustic wave component comprising:
a support substrate (See Figs.1, 10, 13A: support substrate 10a);
a multi-layer piezoelectric substrate (See Figs.1, 10, 13A: multi-layer piezo electric substrate 10b, 17) disposed over a first side (See Figs.1, 10, 13A: ¶0028, ¶0058) of the support substrate (See Figs.1, 10, 13A: support substrate 10a);
one or more metal layers (See Figs.1, 10, 13A: metal layer 30c) disposed on a second side (See Fig. 10: bottom, as viewed) of the support substrate that is opposite the first side of the support substrate (See Figs. 10 and 14C: ¶0029, ¶0031 and ¶0063);
one or more surface acoustic wave resonators or filters (See Figs.1, 3-4, 10, 13A:¶0034, ¶0036: 12, 22, 60, 62) disposed over the multi-layer piezoelectric substrate, the one or more surface acoustic wave resonators or filters (See Figs.1, 3-4, 10, 13A: 60, 62; ¶0029-¶0032 and ¶0054¶0055) including a multi-mode surface acoustic wave resonator or filter; and
one or more vias (at 32a-32c, the vias when they are first formed by way of “irradiating the piezoelectric substrate 10b and the support substrate 10a with a laser beam”: ¶ 0060) that extend through the support substrate (Figs. 13B-13C; ¶0060) and electrically connect the multi-mode surface acoustic wave resonator or filter and the one or more metal layers to provide a ground connection for the multi-mode surface acoustic wave resonator or filter (Figs. 14C-15C; ¶0029, ¶0031 and ¶0054).
As regards multi-layer piezo electric substrate is not defined in the disclosure as explained below the disclosure, however it is well known in the art that multi-layer piezoelectric substrate is known in the art, such multi-layer piezoelectric substrate is explicitly taught by U.S Publication number 2020/0106420 A1 to KODAMA et al. (KODAMA: See Figs. 6A-6C: ¶¶0070, ¶0071, ¶0074, ¶0077-¶0079), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to configure KUROYANAGI to employ multi-layer piezoelectric substrate for providing good thermal dissipation characteristics and improved temperature coefficient multi-layer piezoelectric substrate.
Examiner’s Note
The term “multi-layer piezoelectric substrate” is not indefinite, though it is fairly broad. In fact, there is nothing in the original disclosure which defines the “multi-layer piezoelectric substrate” in any manner whatsoever (this purported multi-layer element is described as an “MPS” and multifariously referred to as element 102, 202 or 302 in the specification). There is no discussion of materials and more importantly, there is absolutely no discussion anywhere of the “multi-layer piezoelectric substrate” even having more than one layer (nor are there any instances in the drawing figures where more than one layer is clearly shown). There are no structures defined for the “multi-layer piezoelectric substrate” whatsoever in any form. As such, any piezoelectric layer or element is held to read on this limitation wherein the Applicant has apparently acted as their own lexicographer when using the term “multi-layer” to mean a single element/layer. The Applicant is strongly cautioned that any assertions to the contrary of this interpretation would likely lead to 112(a) scope of enablement rejections, as there is no support for the “multi-layer piezoelectric substrate” being a plurality of layers.
Re: Claim 2:
KUROYANAGI modified by KODAMA:
The packaged acoustic wave component of claim 1, modified KUROYANAGI discloses all the limitations of claim 1, and wherein the multi-mode surface acoustic wave resonator or filter is a dual mode surface acoustic wave resonator or filter (KUROYANAGI : ¶0038 and ¶0054-¶0055) .
Re: Claim 3:
KUROYANAGI modified by KODAMA:
The packaged acoustic wave component of claim 1 modified KUROYANAGI discloses all the limitations of claim 1, and further comprising a cap wafer disposed over the support substrate by one or more vias such that a cavity is defined between the cap wafer and the support substrate (KUROYANAGI : See Fig. 10: ¶0030, ¶0056-¶0057 and ¶0070).
Re: Claim 4:
KUROYANAGI modified by KODAMA:
The packaged acoustic wave component of claim 1 modified KUROYANAGI discloses all the limitations of claim 1, and wherein the one or more vias (KUROYANAGI : Figs. 10 and 14C-14D: ¶0029 and ¶0061) electrically connect to a second metal layer (KUROYANAGI : metal within 32c and/or 17 and/or 18 and/or 35) disposed over an electrical connection of the multi-mode surface acoustic wave resonator or filter.
Re: Claim 5:
KUROYANAGI modified by KODAMA:
The packaged acoustic wave component of claim 1 modified KUROYANAGI discloses all the limitations of claim 1, and wherein the one or more vias (KUROYANAGI : 32b and 32c) includes a pair of vias at each electrical connection location that provide a reduction in resistive loss (KUROYANAGI : See Fig. 10: ¶0029, ¶0040 and ¶0042).
Re: Claim 6:
KUROYANAGI modified by KODAMA:
The packaged acoustic wave component of claim 1 modified KUROYANAGI discloses all the limitations of claim 1, and further comprising a linear array (KUROYANAGI : 32a-32c) of vias configured to facilitate inter-filter isolation (KUROYANAGI : See Fig. 10; ¶0029, ¶0040 and ¶0042).
Re: Claim 7:
KUROYANAGI modified by KODAMA:
The packaged acoustic wave component of claim 1 modified KUROYANAGI discloses all the limitations of claim 1, and further comprising one or more solder connections (KUROYANAGI : 36) attached to the one or more metal layers (KUROYANAGI : See Fig. 10: ¶0030).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHAFIQ A MIAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4925. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 am to 6:30 pm (Monday thru Thursday).
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, MARK LAURENZI can be reached at (571) 270-7878. 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.
/SHAFIQ MIAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746
May 20, 2026
Prosecution Insights