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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Specification
The specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant's cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 1, 2, 4-8 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Komatsu et al. (US20140001919, hereinafter Komatsu).
Regarding claim 1, Komatsu discloses an acoustic wave device (Figs. 22-27) comprising: a piezoelectric substrate including a piezoelectric layer (2); and an IDT electrode (3) which is provided on the piezoelectric layer and includes: a first busbar (421) and a second busbar (521) opposed to each other; and a plurality of electrode fingers (423, 523) each including one end connected to one of the first busbar and the second busbar; wherein a portion of the IDT electrode in which the electrode fingers overlap with each other in a propagation direction of an acoustic wave is an intersecting region (7, 8, 9), the electrode fingers being adjacent to each other; the intersecting region includes a central region (9, 11) located on a center side in an extending direction of the plurality of electrode fingers, and a first region (7, 8 on one side of 9) and a second region (7, 8, on the other side of 9) located on respective sides of the central region in the extending direction of the plurality of electrode fingers; the acoustic wave device further includes a dielectric film (12) located in the central region (11); and in the central region, the dielectric film is provided between the plurality of electrode fingers (the layer 12 extends continuously through the central region where the electrode fingers overlap with each other), and the dielectric film does not overlap with at least a portion of the plurality of electrode fingers when seen in plan view (in Figs. 22-25 the portions of the electrode fingers close to the bus bars are not covered by the dielectric layer, that is, regions 7 and 8 are not covered by the dielectric layer).
Regarding claim 2, a portion located between the intersecting region and the first busbar is a first gap region (7, 8), and a portion located between the intersecting region and the second busbar is a second gap region (7, 8); and an acoustic velocity in the first region and the second region is lower than an acoustic velocity in the central region, and an acoustic velocity in the first gap region and the second gap region is higher than the acoustic velocity in the central region. Fig. 22C shows the velocity of the wave in the first and second regions lower than the velocity of the wave in the central region (9).
Regarding claims 4 and 18-19, each of the plurality of electrode fingers includes a first surface and a second surface opposed to each other in a thickness direction, and a side surface connected to the first surface and the second surface; and the dielectric film is in contact with the side surfaces of the electrode fingers adjacent to each other. The dielectric layer is a continuous layer; therefore the side of the electrode finger is covered by the dielectric layer. Fig. 24B shows the dielectric layer 12 extending to the side surface.
Regarding claims 5 and 20, in paragraph [0115] Komatsu explicitly discloses the film thickness of the dielectric film is smaller than a film thickness of the plurality of electrode fingers.
Regarding claims 6 and 8, the examiner considers the limitation of an acoustic velocity of a bulk wave that propagates in the dielectric film is lower/higher than an acoustic velocity of a bulk wave that propagates in the piezoelectric layer anticipated by Komatsu since the same and materials claimed are disclosed.
Regarding claim 7, the dielectric film is made of tantalum pentoxide (paragraph [0115] discloses the film made of tantalum oxide, which is also known as tantalum pentoxide).
Claim 1, 4, 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Solal et al. (US20110068655, hereinafter Solal).
Regarding claim 1, Solal discloses an acoustic wave device (Figs. 18) comprising: a piezoelectric substrate including a piezoelectric layer (12, LN, paragraph [0050]); and an IDT electrode (22, 24)which is provided on the piezoelectric layer and includes: a first busbar (16) and a second busbar (18) opposed to each other; and a plurality of electrode fingers each including one end connected to one of the first busbar and the second busbar; wherein a portion of the IDT electrode in which the electrode fingers overlap with each other in a propagation direction of an acoustic wave is an intersecting region (50, 58), the electrode fingers being adjacent to each other; the intersecting region includes a central region (58) located on a center side in an extending direction of the plurality of electrode fingers, and a first region (50) and a second region (50) located on respective sides of the central region in the extending direction of the plurality of electrode fingers; the acoustic wave device further includes a dielectric film (88) located in the central region (58); and in the central region, the dielectric film (88) is provided between the plurality of electrode fingers (the layer 12 extends continuously through the central region where the electrode fingers overlap with each other), and the dielectric film does not overlap with at least a portion of the plurality of electrode fingers when seen in plan view (the gap regions and edges are not covered by the dielectric layer).
Regarding claim 4, the dielectric layer is continuous and therefore in contact with the side surfaces of the idt fingers.
Regarding claim 10, Figs. 9, 1018 shows the electrode fingers having wide portions.
Regarding claim 11, in Fig. 8, Solal discloses mass adding film at the edge portions of the finger.
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 10-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Komatsu in view of Daimon (US20190123713, hereinafter Daimon).
Regarding claim 10, Komatsu discloses the invention as explained above, but fails to explicitly disclose at least one finger of the plurality of first electrode fingers and the plurality of second electrode fingers having a wide portion in at least one of the first region and the second region, and a width of the electrode finger at the wide portion is larger than a width of the electrode finger in the central region. Daimon discloses the electrode fingers (13, 14) having wide portions (13a, 14a). The wider portions slow the velocity of the propagating wave, allowing the central region to have a faster wave velocity than the velocity on the gap regions C2 and C3. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the before the effective filing date of the instant application to provide wider portion on the electrode fingers to control the velocity of the wave and improve the vibration characteristics of the acoustic wave device.
Regarding claim 11, Komatsu discloses the invention as explained above, but fails to explicitly disclose at least one finger of the plurality of first electrode fingers and the plurality of second electrode fingers is provided with a mass adding film in at least one of the first region and the second region. Daimon discloses a metal film (62) defining and functioning as mass adding films laminated on portions of the electrode fingers. (See Fig. 12, paragraph [0082]) for the purpose of reducing the acoustic velocity of the wave in the specific regions. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the before the effective filing date of the instant application to provide mass adding films in an area where the acoustic wave velocity wants to be reduced.
Regarding claim 12, Komatsu discloses the invention as explained above, but fails to explicitly disclose the piezoelectric substrate including a high acoustic velocity material layer and a low acoustic velocity film provided on the high acoustic velocity material layer, and the piezoelectric layer is provided on the low acoustic velocity film; an acoustic velocity of a bulk wave that propagates in the high acoustic velocity material layer is higher than an acoustic velocity of an acoustic wave that propagates in the piezoelectric layer; and an acoustic velocity of a bulk wave that propagates in the low acoustic velocity film is lower than an acoustic velocity of a bulk wave that propagates in the piezoelectric layer. In Fig. 21, Daimon discloses the piezoelectric substrate (5) formed on multilayer structure comprising a low acoustic velocity film (4), a high acoustic velocity film (3B) and a high acoustic velocity substrate (3A). The multilayer structure reduces the propagation loss, thereby improving the vibration characteristics of the device.
Regarding claim 13, the high acoustic velocity material layer is a high acoustic velocity support substrate. (paragraph [0092])
Regarding claim 14, the piezoelectric substrate (5) includes a support substrate (3A); and the high acoustic velocity material layer (3B) is a high acoustic velocity film provided on the support substrate.
Regarding claims 15 and 16, the piezoelectric substrate is made of LT (paragraph [0094]), the first intermediate layer is made of silicon oxide (paragraph [0096]), the second intermediate layer and substrate can be made of aluminum oxide, silicon nitride and silicon (paragraph [0095]).
Claims 3 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Komatsu in view of Hada et al. (WO-2010100967, hereinafter Hada).
Regarding claim 3, Hada discloses the invention as explained above, but fails to disclose the dielectric film not in contact with the first surface and the second surface in the central region. Hada discloses in Fig. 1 an acoustic device with idt electrode fingers (6) and a dielectric layer (10) formed in the gap between the fingers and the dielectric layer (10) is not formed on the upper surface of the electrode fingers. The dielectric layer is provided between the electrode fingers to increase the acoustic velocity of the acoustic wave. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the before the effective filing date of the instant application to provide the dielectric layer between the electrode fingers to increase the acoustic velocity of the acoustic wave and reduce the propagation loss.
Regarding claim 9, Hada discloses a second dielectric layer (11) formed on the first dielectric layer (10) for the purpose of protecting the electrode fingers from moisture. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the before the effective filing date of the instant application to provide a second dielectric film covering at least a portion of the IDT electrodes and the dielectric film to protect the device and improve moisture resistance characteristics of the device.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jaydi San Martin whose telephone number is (571)272-2018. The examiner can normally be reached on M-Th 7:45-6:00pm.
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 on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/J. San Martin/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2837