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 Objections
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: “density that surpresses” is a typographical error and should instead recite “density that suppresses”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 4 and 14 are objected to because of the following informalities: “the strips that are offset from a distal edge” (emphasis added) lacks antecedent basis and should instead recite “the strips . Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, because the specification, while being enabling for “etching the third layer to form a pair of strips extending over end portions of a respective finger of the interdigital transducer electrode”, does not reasonably provide enablement for “etching the third layer to remove the third layer from regions between fingers of the interdigital transducer electrode to form a pair of strips extending over end portions of a respective finger of the interdigital transducer electrode” (claims 1 and 11). The specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to “remove the third layer from regions between fingers” to perform the method of the invention commensurate in scope with these claims. The drawing figures and the specification provide very little information about the purported method of the claims in the first place and certainly do not discuss or show etching third layer material from between fingers. This is a significantly more specific embodiment than that which was originally disclosed, and rather than being an attempt to properly claim the instant inventive concept, instead appears to be an attempt to amend around a prior art rejection.
Claims 2-10 and 12-20 are also rejected under 112(a), so rendered by virtue of their dependency upon the unsupported new matter of claims 1 and 11.
Claims 5 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claims 5 and 15 each remain rejected as indefinite, because the claims both disclose “strips have a width of between 0.5L and 1.5L and a thickness of between 0.001L and 0.005L” (emphasis added). The claimed measurement unit “L” do not have a standard meaning or definition and therefore are ambiguous as disclosed in the claims. There is no standardized distance measurement of “L”, except for “leagues” or “light years” which are both immensely too large to be applicable in the manufacture of piezoelectric elements. Further, the specification alternates between “L” and “λ”, which is also not a unit of distance, though it may be the wavelength of the device vibrations(?). Even assuming, ad arguendo, that the “L” of the claim is intended to refer to the “Length” of the strips (though this is apparently not the case and finds no support in the original disclosure), the limitation would still be indefinite as there is no referential length measurement in the claims. Put simply, if the reader does not know a value of “L”, then any modification of “L” does not have any discernable value. The Applicant is encouraged to cancel these indefinite claims as there is no understandable support for any reasonable interpretations of the claims in the original disclosure.
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 of this title, 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, 6-14 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abbott et al. (US 12,009,795 B2), in view of Fujimoto et al. (US 7,504,760 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Abbott discloses a method of manufacturing an acoustic wave device (Title) comprising: layering a piezoelectric layer (10) over a support substrate (14) (figs. 5 and 7B-7D; col. 8, lines 42-52; col. 13, lines 51-59); layering a first layer (24) of an interdigital transducer electrode (12/12’) over the piezoelectric layer, layering a second layer (26) of the interdigital transducer electrode over the first layer, the second layer being of a less dense material (first layer is molybdenum, second layer is aluminum, same materials as disclosed by Applicant, naturally have same material properties, i.e. densities as those disclosed in instant Application) than the first layer (fig. 5; col. 9, lines 25-33; cols. 13-14, lines 65-67 and 1-6), and layering a third layer (col. 12, lines 56-57: “multi-layer IDT electrode 12’ can include three or more layers”) of the interdigital transducer electrode over the second layer; and formed as a pair of strips (third/top layer of each of 12 are in strip form) extending over end portions (extending over the entirety of each finger, including end portions) of a respective finger of the interdigital transducer electrode, the end portions having a density *that suppresses a transverse mode of the acoustic wave device (col. 12, lines 43-57). Abbott, however, does not explicitly disclose etching the third layer to remove the third layer from regions between fingers of the interdigital transducer electrode to form the pair of strips.
*NOTE: regarding the intended functionality of the third layer, claimed as: “having a density that suppresses a transverse mode of the acoustic wave device/resonator”, this purported limitation is not understood to limit the claimed manufacturing method in any discernable manner. The Applicant is respectfully reminded that the claims are directed to a method of manufacturing an acoustic wave device product; the claims are not directed to a method of using the product. Moreover, the instant disclosed material(s) of the third layer is/are aluminum or tungsten, and Abbott explicitly discloses that the additional layer(s) can be either or both of aluminum or tungsten. As such, due to the fact that the prior art discloses the same materials as the instant third layer, the product of Abbott is held to possess the same materials properties as that of the instant third layer and thus would be capable of performing the same intended function as that of the instant claims.
Fujimoto teaches that it is well known to perform a similar method of manufacturing an acoustic wave device (Title; Abstract) comprising: layering a piezoelectric layer (22) (fig. 3; col. 6, lines 30-32); layering a first layer (31) of an interdigital transducer electrode (23, 24), layering a second layer (41) of the interdigital transducer electrode over the first layer (figs. 3-4; col. 9, lines 5-16), and layering a third layer (32) disposed over the second layer, and etching the third layer to remove the third layer from regions between fingers of the interdigital transducer electrode to form a pair of strips (any two of 32 as shown in fig. 6) extending over one or more fingers of the interdigital transducer electrode (figs. 5-6; cols. 9-10, lines 57-67 and 1-47).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the current invention of Abbott to incorporate the etching of the third layer from Fujimoto to remove the third layer from regions between the fingers. POSITA would have realized that etching is old and well-known in the art and can be easily and readily employed in selective removal of electrode or metal layers to achieve the desired precise and accurately patterned layers and to control which layer are etched and how much they are etched based upon known etching rates of different materials. Moreover, there is no indication in the instant disclosure that any special etching step or technique was devised or that any surprising results were derived from simply using the old method of Abbott with the well-known etching of the third layer of Fujimoto. This combination would have been easily performed with knowledge of the commonly understood advantages and with reasonable expectations of success.
Regarding claim 11, Abbott discloses a method of manufacturing a radio frequency module (Title) comprising: forming an acoustic wave resonator with a multilayer piezoelectric substrate (10, 14, 12/12’, 22, 24, 26)by layering a piezoelectric layer (10) over a support substrate (14) (figs. 5 and 7B-7D; col. 8, lines 42-52; col. 13, lines 51-59), and layering a first layer (24) of an interdigital transducer electrode (12/12’) over the piezoelectric layer, layering a second layer (26) over the first layer, the second layer being of a less dense material (first layer is molybdenum, second layer is aluminum, same materials as disclosed by Applicant, naturally have same material properties, i.e. densities as those disclosed in instant Application) than the first layer (fig. 5; col. 9, lines 25-33; cols. 13-14, lines 65-67 and 1-6), layering a third layer (col. 12, lines 56-57: “multi-layer IDT electrode 12’ can include three or more layers”) over the second layer, to form a pair of strips (third/top layer of each of 12 are in strip form) extending over end portions (extending over the entirety of each finger, including end portions) of a respective finger of the interdigital transducer electrode, the end portions having a density *that surpresses [sic] a transverse mode of the acoustic wave device/resonator (col. 12, lines 43-57); and attaching additional circuitry (177) and the acoustic wave resonator to a package substrate (16) (figs. 1, 5, 7A-7E and 9; col. 8, lines 42-52; col. 13, lines 51-59; col. 15, lines 1-9). Abbott, however, does not explicitly disclose etching the third layer to remove the third layer from regions between fingers of the interdigital transducer electrode to form the pair of strips.
Fujimoto teaches that it is well known to perform a similar method of manufacturing an acoustic wave device (Title; Abstract) comprising: layering a piezoelectric layer (22) (fig. 3; col. 6, lines 30-32); layering a first layer (31) of an interdigital transducer electrode (23, 24), layering a second layer (41) of the interdigital transducer electrode over the first layer (figs. 3-4; col. 9, lines 5-16), and layering a third layer (32) disposed over the second layer, and etching the third layer to remove the third layer from regions between fingers of the interdigital transducer electrode to form a pair of strips (any two of 32 as shown in fig. 6) extending over one or more fingers of the interdigital transducer electrode (figs. 5-6; cols. 9-10, lines 57-67 and 1-47).
Please refer to claim 1, above, regarding the rationale for combination of references.
Regarding claim 2/12, Abbott in view of Fujimoto teaches the method of claims 1/11 as detailed above, and Abbott further discloses layering a functional layer (18) positioned between the support substrate and the piezoelectric layer (col. 11, lines 27-31).
Regarding claim 3/13, Abbott in view of Fujimoto teaches the method of claims 1/11 as detailed above, and Abbott further discloses that each strip is over an edge region of a respective finger of the interdigital transducer electrode (fig. 5).
Regarding claim 4/14, Abbott in view of Fujimoto teaches the method of claims 1/11 as detailed above, and Fujimoto further teaches that it is well known that the strips (32 as shown in fig. 6) that [sic] are offset from a distal edge (bottom left/right edge) of the fingers and toward a central region of the fingers (fig. 6).
Regarding claim 6/16, Abbott in view of Fujimoto teaches the method of claims 1/11 as detailed above, and Abbott further discloses that the first layer is made of molybdenum and the second layer is made of aluminum (col. 9, lines 25-33; col. 12, lines 48-57).
Regarding claim 7/17, Abbott in view of Fujimoto teaches the method of claims 1/11 as detailed above, and Abbott further discloses the third layer is made of molybdenum, aluminum or tungsten (col. 12, lines 48-57).
Regarding claim 8/18, Abbott in view of Fujimoto teaches the method of claims 1/11 as detailed above, and Abbott further discloses layering a fourth layer (“three or more layers”) of the interdigital transducer electrode between the second layer and the third layer col. 12, lines 48-57).
Regarding claim 9/19, Abbott in view of Fujimoto teaches the method of claims 1/11 as detailed above, and Fujimoto further teaches that it is well known to provide tapering side edges (42) of the second layer of the interdigital transducer electrode (fig. 6; col. 10, lines 4-29).
Regarding claim 10/20, Abbott in view of Fujimoto teaches the method of claims 1/11 as detailed above, and Abbott further discloses layering a passivation layer (22) over the interdigital transducer electrode (fig. 3; col. 11, lines 61-66).
Claims 5 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abbott in view of Fujimoto, further in view of Lu et al. (CN-111277241-A).
Regarding claims 5/15, Abbott in view of Fujimoto teaches all of the elements of the current invention as detailed above with respect to claims 1/11. The modified Abbott, however, does not appear to teach forming the strips so that they have a width of between 0.5L (or 0.5λ?) and 1.5L (or 1.5λ?) and a thickness of between 0.001L (or 0.001λ?)and 0.005L (or 0.005λ?).
Lu teaches that it is well known to perform a similar method (Title; Abstract; pp. 3-4, lines 20-37 and 1-2), comprising forming the strips (5) so that they have a width of between 0.5L (or 0.5λ?) and 1.5L (or 1.5λ?) and a thickness of between 0.001L (or 0.001λ?)and 0.005L (or 0.005λ?) (fig. 1; pg. 3, lines 5-14; pg. 5, lines 18-21; pg. 6, lines 16-17).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have further modified the invention of Abbott to incorporate the preferred line width and thickness of the strips of Lu. Initially it is noted that there is no indication of how the intended dimensions of the product would affect the method of manufacture in any way. Further, there is no apparent criticality to this limitation, especially as it does not clearly modify the claimed method of manufacture in any understandable manner. POSITA would have realized that any desired dimensions of the strips can be easily and readily formed in the old and well-known methods to achieve the desired transducer capabilities and product footprint. Moreover, there is no indication in the instant disclosure that any special thickness or width was devised or that any surprising results were derived from simply using the old method of Abbott with the well-known preferred dimensions of the product of Lu. This combination would have been easily performed with knowledge of the commonly understood advantages and with reasonable expectations of success.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the references as they are currently being used in the instant rejection. Specifically, the newly added limitations of claims 1 and 11 are not rejected as being taught by Honal (CN 112005493 A), but instead are newly rejected as taught by Fujimoto. Moreover, the Applicant did not provide any actual evidentiary arguments on the merits, but instead merely alleged that the prior art did not disclose/teach the limitations of the currently presented claims. Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
According to the prior art rejections above, and the response herein, each of the currently disclosed limitations in the claims is held to be properly rejected, and each argument on the merits has been answered and rebutted.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please refer to the concurrently mailed PTO-892, as all of those cited references are considered to be pertinent to the claimed invention. For example, Hayashi (US 2022/0247377 A1) is held to be of particular relevance to the claimed invention. Hayashi teaches a similar method to the claimed invention (Title; Abstract; figs. 6A-6F; pars. 0071-0080), including the newly added limitation of etching the third layer (632) to remove the third layer from regions between fingers (60) of the interdigital transducer electrode to form the pair of strips (figs. 6C-6F; pars. 0075-0078 and 0127).
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 Jeffrey T Carley whose telephone number is (571)270-5609. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00 am - 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, Sunil Singh can be reached at (571)272-3460. 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.
/JEFFREY T CARLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3729
Prosecution Insights