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 .
Examiner Comments
The Examiner has cited particular columns and line numbers, paragraphs, or figures in the reference(s) as applied to the claims for the convenience of the Applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the Applicant, in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
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.
Claims 1-6, 8-11, 13-15, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nozaki et al. (JP 63-238706 A) in view of Sugano et al. (JP 07-240657 A).
Note: for reference, the Examiner is using the translation provide by the Applicant (filed 03/14/2023), which includes the cover sheet with the Purpose and Constitution as page 1, and the Patent translate section considered pages 2-4 and the last page Claims, which is considered as page 5, consecutively; also, see the Examiner enclosed JP reference to Nozaki et al. (JP 63-238706 A), which includes all the Figures).
As per claim 1, Nozaki et al. (JP 63-238706 A) discloses an acoustic wave device (e.g., see line 1, paragraph [0001] of translated document - "low-loss acoustic wave device"; see also page 3, line 4 of translation) comprising: a piezoelectric layer (e.g., 11 - see page 3, lines 16-17 of translation) including a first main surface (e.g., the upper surface of (11) as seen in the Figs.) and a second main surface (e.g., the lower surface of (11) as seen in the Figs.), the second main surface being opposed to the first main surface and located in a first direction from the first main surface (e.g., top-to-bottom direction as seen in the Figs. 2, 4, 6, 8); and a plurality of electrodes (e.g., 14, 15) including at least a pair of electrodes (14, 15) on the first main surface, facing each other in a second direction (e.g., left-to-right direction of Figs. 1, 2, 4-8) crossing the first direction (e.g., top-to-bottom direction as seen in the Figs. 2, 4, 6, 8), and adjacent to each other (e.g., see Figs. 4(c) , 6, 8); wherein at least three or more of the plurality of electrodes (14, 15) are arranged in the second direction (e.g., left-to-right direction of Figs. 1, 2, 4-8); the plurality of electrodes (14, 15) include at least two electrodes having different film thicknesses (e.g., see Figs. 4(c), 6, 8) from each other; and the plurality of electrodes include at least two electrodes having a same or substantially a same film thickness (e.g., see Figs. 4(c), 6, 8 with the thinnest layer electrode being adjacent to each other) and being adjacent to each other.
As per claim 2, wherein the at least two electrodes having different film thicknesses from each other have a same polarity - due to being connected to the same busbar - see, inter alia, Figs. 5-7.
As per claim 3, Nozaki et al. (JP 63-238706 A) discloses an acoustic wave device e.g., see line 1, paragraph [0001] of translated document - "low-loss acoustic wave device"; see also page 3, line 4 of translation) comprising: a piezoelectric layer (e.g., 11 - see page 3, lines 16-17 of translation) including a first main surface (e.g., the upper surface of (11) as seen in the Figs.) and a second main surface (e.g., the lower surface of (11) as seen in the Figs.) being opposed to the first main surface and located in a first direction (e.g., top-to-bottom direction as seen in the Figs. 2, 4, 6, 8) from the first main surface; and a plurality of electrodes (e.g., 14, 15) including at least a pair of electrodes (14, 15) on the first main surface, facing each other in a second direction (e.g., left-to-right direction of Figs. 1, 2, 4-8) crossing the first direction (e.g., top-to-bottom direction as seen in the Figs. 2, 4, 6, 8), and adjacent to each other (e.g., see Figs. 4(c) , 6, 8); wherein at least three or more of the plurality of electrodes are arranged in the second direction (e.g., see Figs. 1, 2, 4-8); and the plurality of electrodes (14, 15) include at least three electrodes having different film thicknesses from one another - see Figs. 4(c) and 6 and 8.
As per claim 4, wherein the at least three electrodes having different film thicknesses from one another have a same polarity - due to being connected to the same busbar - see, inter alia, Figs. 5-8.
As per claim 5, wherein the plurality of electrodes (14, 15) include at least two electrodes having a same or substantially a same film thickness and being adjacent to each other (e.g., see Figs. 4(c), 6, 8 with the thinnest layer electrode being adjacent to each other) and being adjacent to each other.
As per claim 6 (and analogously, as per claim 11), wherein the piezoelectric layer includes lithium niobate or lithium tantalate (e.g., see page 3, line 17 of translation); and a bulk wave in a thickness-shear primary mode is used - due to the configuration of the electrodes on an upper surface of the lithium niobate or lithium tantalate and the comb-like electrode finger structure, when the device is energized.
As per claim 8 (and analogously, as per claim 13), wherein film thicknesses of the electrodes (14, 15) arranged in the second direction have "regular" or "substantially regular" film thicknesses. See Figs. 2, 8.
As per claim 9 (and analogously, as per claim 14), wherein, in the second direction, each pair of electrodes (14, 15) having a same or substantially a same film thickness sandwich a same number of electrodes (e.g., another of (14, 15)) each of which has a film thickness different from the film thickness of the pair of electrodes. See Figs. 2, 4(c), 8.
As per claim 10 (and analogously, as per claim 15), wherein the electrodes arranged in the second direction have no "regular" or "substantially regular" film thickness. See, inter alia, Fig. 6.
As per claim 18 (and analogously, as per claim 19), wherein each of the plurality of electrodes (14, 15) has a rectangular or substantially rectangular shape. See Figs. 1, 2, 4-8 (in cross-section as well as in plan view).
As per amended claims 1 and 3, however, assuming arguendo that Nozaki et al. (JP 63-238706 A) does not fairly teach, show, or suggest wherein the amended limitation of "at least two electrodes having different film thicknesses from each other include first and second electrodes; at least a portion of the first electrode has a first film thickness that is the smallest film thickness of the plurality of electrodes, and at least a portion of the second electrode has a second film thickness that is greater than the film thickness of the portion of the first electrode; and a material of an entirety of the second electrode is the same as a material of the portion of the first electrode," such features are well-known and established in the art.
As just one example Sugano et al. (JP 07-240657 A) discloses an analogous acoustic wave device, in the same field of endeavor as Nozaki et al. (JP 63-238706 A), wherein Sugano et al. (JP 07-240657 A) discloses an identical IDT (interdigital transducer) electrode system, with alternating pairs of electrodes facing each other on a piezoelectric layer. Moreover, Sugano et al. (JP 07-240657 A) further provides evidence of wherein at least two electrodes of the plurality of electrodes (e.g., 2a, 2b, 3a, 3b; 4a, 4b, 5a, 5b, 4c, 5c - see, inter alia, Figs. 1, 2) have different film thicknesses from each other include first (e.g., 3b, 5b) and second electrodes (e.g., 2b, 4b); at least a portion of the first electrode has a first film thickness that is the smallest film thickness of the plurality of electrodes (e.g., 2a, 2b,3a, 3b; 4a, 4b, 5a, 5b, 4c, 5c - see, inter alia, Figs. 1, 2), and at least a portion of the second electrode has a second film thickness that is greater than the film thickness of the portion of the first electrode (Figs. 1, 2); and a material of an entirety of the second electrode is the same as a material of the portion of the first electrode (see, inter alia, p. 3, ll. 27-28; p. 4, ll. 3-5 of the English-machine translation of Sugano et al. (JP 07-240657 A)).
Given the well-known knowledge, and teachings and motivations, as espoused by Sugano et al. (JP 07-240657 A, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide to the acoustic wave device of Nozaki et al. (JP 63-238706) to provide the electrode structure as set forth in amended claims 1 and 3, including providing (if not already disclosed/suggested by Nozaki et al. (JP 63-238706 A)) "at least two electrodes having different film thicknesses from each other include first and second electrodes; at least a portion of the first electrode has a first film thickness that is the smallest film thickness of the plurality of electrodes, and at least a portion of the second electrode has a second film thickness that is greater than the film thickness of the portion of the first electrode; and a material of an entirety of the second electrode is the same as a material of the portion of the first electrode," as taught by Sugano et al. (JP 07-240657 A), in order to advantageously provide an IDT electrodes (in the standard paired-overlapping comb-like structure) formed on a single material of pure metal film including aluminum, copper, titanium, platinum, or gold to reduce manufacturing steps and associated costs by having one, pure metal film. See, inter alia, p. 3, ll. 27-28; p. 4, ll. 3-5 of the English-machine translation of Sugano et al. (JP 07-240657 A)).
In an obviousness analysis, it is not necessary to find precise disclosure directed to the specific subject matter claimed because inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ can be taken into account. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). In this regard, "[a] person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton." Id. at 421.
As the U.S. Supreme Court has stated, obviousness requires an "expansive and flexible" approach that asks whether the claimed improvement is more than a "predictable variation" of "prior art elements according to their established functions." KSR, 550 U.S. at 415, 417.
Claims 7, 12, 16, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nozaki et al. (JP 63-238706 A) in view of Sugano et al. (JP 07-240657 A), as applied to claims 1 and 3, above, and further in view of Ogura et al. (US 6,310,424 B1).
See the description of Nozaki et al. (JP 63-238706 A) in view of Sugano et al. (JP 07-240657 A), supra.
As per claims 7 and 12, Nozaki et al. (JP 63-238706 A) in view of Sugano et al. (JP 07-240657 A), remains silent with regard to wherein d/p is about 0.5 or less (as per claims 7 and 12) or is about 0.24 or less (as per claims 16 and 17), where d is an average thickness of the piezoelectric layer and p is a center-to-center distance between adjacent electrodes.
Such features are known in the art.
As just one example, Ogura et al. (US 6,310,424 B1) discloses an analogous acoustic wave device (e.g. SAW), in the same field of endeavor as Nozaki et al. (JP 63-238706 A)/ Sugano et al. (JP 07-240657 A), wherein as per claims 7, 12, 16, and 17, Ogura et al. (US 6,310,424 B1) discloses a piezoelectric layer (e.g., 2), and d/p is about 0.5 or less (as per claims 7 and 12) or is about 0.24 or less (as per claims 16 and 17), where d is an average thickness (e.g., H) of the piezoelectric layer (2) and p (λ) is a center-to-center distance between adjacent electrodes (e.g., 3) - see col. 2, ll. 62-65, wherein "If an electrode pitch is λ, a thickness of the piezoelectric substrate is H, and K equals to 2π/ λ, then a product of K and H (KH) is at least 0.5 and at most 1.5." That is, KH (2π/ λ)(H) = "is at least 0.5 and at most 1.5"; thus H//λ = ("is at least 0.5 and at most 1.5")/2π, which equates to a range of H//λ (d/p) of 0.07958 to 0.23874, thus meeting the ranges set forth in claims 7, 12, 16 and 17.
Given the express teachings and motivations, as espoused by Ogura et al. (US 6,310,424 B1), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide to the acoustic wave device of Nozaki et al. (JP 63-238706 A) in view of Sugano et al. (JP 07-240657 A), a ratio of d/p is about 0.5 or less (as per claims 7 and 12) or is about 0.24 or less (as per claims 16 and 17), where d is an average thickness of the piezoelectric layer and p is a center-to-center distance between adjacent electrodes, as taught by Ogura et al. (US 6,310,424 B1), in order to advantageously provide an acoustic device that can be reduced in size, and have a good temperature characteristic. See col. 2, ll. 51-57 of Ogura et al. (US 6,310,424 B1).
In an obviousness analysis, it is not necessary to find precise disclosure directed to the specific subject matter claimed because inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ can be taken into account. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). In this regard, "[a] person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton." Id. at 421.
As the U.S. Supreme Court has stated, obviousness requires an "expansive and flexible" approach that asks whether the claimed improvement is more than a "predictable variation" of "prior art elements according to their established functions." KSR, 550 U.S. at 415, 417.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the pending claims (as rejected, supra) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection that includes the application of a new reference (Sugano et al. (JP 07-240657 A)) which was added in response to the amendments to claim 1 and 3. See the rejection, as articulated in detail, supra, for the application of Sugano et al. (JP 07-240657 A) to the amended claims 1 and 3, and the supporting rationale.
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 William J Klimowicz whose telephone number is (571)272-7577. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 8:00AM-6PM, ET.
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, Steven Lim can be reached at (571)270-1210. 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.
/WILLIAM J KLIMOWICZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2688
Prosecution Insights