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 § 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(s) 1, 4-7, 9, 12, 14-16, & 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Burak (US PGPub 20160079958), a reference of record.
As per claim 1:
Burak discloses in Figs. 1 & 2D:
An acoustic wave device comprising:
a support substrate (205 & 270);
a piezoelectric layer (230, 230’) overlapping the support substrate as seen in a first direction (as seen in Fig. 1); and
a first electrode (110) and a second electrode (120) that extend over at least a first major surface of the piezoelectric layer, the first electrode and the second electrode facing each other and being at mutually different potentials (signal and float, [0026]);
wherein a space (occupied by electrode 210, 210’) exists between a second major surface of the piezoelectric layer, and the support substrate, the second major surface being opposite to the first major surface;
the space is at least partially covered by the piezoelectric layer;
the first electrode and the second electrode each include an overlap portion (portions of fingers over ground 210, 210’) and a non-overlap portion (bus bar regions), the overlap portion overlapping the space in the first direction, the non-overlap portion not overlapping the space in the first direction (as seen in Fig. 1); and
at least part of the support substrate includes an attenuation layer (DBR 270), the at least part of the support substrate overlapping a region between the non-overlap portion of the first electrode and the non-overlap portion of the second electrode in plan view, the attenuation layer having a crystallinity different from a crystallinity of the support substrate (attenuation layer includes materials with a different crystallinity to that of substrate 205 ([0044]), such as SiOx and Tungsten [0043]).
As per claim 4:
Burak discloses in Figs. 1 & 2D:
the attenuation layer (270) is inside the support substrate (the support substrate including 270, thus 270 being inside).
As per claim 5:
Burak discloses in Figs. 1 & 2D:
the attenuation layer includes a first attenuation layer (273) and a second attenuation layer (272).
As per claim 6:
Burak discloses in Figs. 1 & 2D:
the second attenuation layer differs in material from the first attenuation layer ([0043]) that is closer to the piezoelectric layer than is the second attenuation layer (as seen in Fig. 2D).
As per claim 7:
Burak discloses in Figs. 1 & 2D:
the second attenuation layer differs in density from the first attenuation layer that is closer to the piezoelectric layer than is the second attenuation layer ([0043], wherein tungsten or molybdenum are inherently different in density from silicon oxide).
As per claim 9:
Burak discloses in Figs. 1 & 2D:
the second attenuation layer has a smaller acoustic impedance than the first attenuation layer that is closer to the piezoelectric layer than is the second attenuation layer ([0043]).
As per claim 12:
Burak discloses in Figs. 1 & 2D:
one of the first attenuation layer and the second attenuation layer is made of a material including SiOx or SiOC ([0043]).
As per claim 14:
Burak discloses in Figs. 1 & 2D:
the support substrate is made of a material including Si ([0044]).
As per claim 15:
Burak discloses in Figs. 1 & 2D:
the piezoelectric layer includes lithium niobate or lithium tantalate ([0045]).
As per claim 16:
Burak discloses in Figs. 1 & 2D:
the piezoelectric layer includes lithium niobate or lithium tantalate ([0045]); and d/p 0.5, where d is a thickness of the piezoelectric layer, and p is a center-to-center distance between the first electrode and the second electrode that are adjacent to each other (the center distance is given as multiples of λ/2 [0024], which includes multiples higher than 1, such as 2, and the piezoelectric thickness is shown as less than λ/2 in Fig. 2D, [0032]).
As per claim 18:
Burak discloses in Figs. 1 & 2D:
the first electrode and the second electrode are IDT electrodes.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4, 14-20, & 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Garcia (US PGPub 20200287521), a reference of record.
As per claim 1:
Garcia discloses in Figs. 1-3 & 13:
An acoustic wave device comprising:
a support substrate (320);
a piezoelectric layer (310) overlapping the support substrate as seen in a first direction (as seen in Fig. 1); and
a first electrode and a second electrode (IDT 130, comprising two interdigitated electrodes) that extend over at least a first major surface of the piezoelectric layer, the first electrode and the second electrode facing each other and being at mutually different potentials (resonators are positioned in shunt between series path and ground, or in series between input and output of a signal, as seen in Fig. 13, [0074]);
wherein a space (cavity 125/325) exists between a second major surface of the piezoelectric layer, and the support substrate, the second major surface being opposite to the first major surface;
the space is at least partially covered by the piezoelectric layer;
the first electrode and the second electrode each include an overlap portion (fingers 136) and a non-overlap portion (outer regions of busbars 132 & 134), the overlap portion overlapping the space in the first direction, the non-overlap portion not overlapping the space in the first direction (as seen in Fig. 1); and
at least part of the support substrate includes an attenuation layer (intermediate layer 324), the at least part of the support substrate overlapping a region between the non-overlap portion of the first electrode and the non-overlap portion (portion of busbars not overlapping cavity may be divided into outer and middle portions, with the outer portion being the non-overlap portion and the middle portion being the region between other portions) of the second electrode in plan view, the attenuation layer having a crystallinity different from a crystallinity of the support substrate (intermediate layer may be silicon dioxide and the base 322 may be silicon, [0051]).
As per claim 2:
Garcia discloses in Figs. 1-3 & 13:
An acoustic wave device comprising:
a support substrate (320);
a piezoelectric layer (310) overlapping the support substrate as seen in a first direction (as seen in Fig. 1);
a first resonator (Fig. 13 discloses a plurality of resonators, of which one may be the first resonator) extending over at least a first major surface of the piezoelectric layer (Fig. 13 discloses the filter being formed of a single piezoelectric on a single substrate, [0075]); and
a second resonator (Fig. 13 discloses a plurality of resonators, of which one may be the first resonator) extending over at least the first major surface of the piezoelectric layer, the second resonator being at a location different from a location of the first resonator (as seen in Fig. 13);
wherein the first resonator includes:
a first space (respective cavity 125/325 of the first resonator) opposite to the first major surface and at or adjacent to a second major surface of the piezoelectric layer; and
a first electrode (respective IDT 130) including a first overlap portion (fingers 136) and a first non-overlap portion (outer regions of busbars 132 & 134), the first overlap portion overlapping the first space in the first direction, the first non-overlap portion not overlapping the first space in the first direction (as seen in Fig. 1);
the second resonator includes:
a second space (respective cavity 125/325 of the second resonator) opposite to the first major surface and at or adjacent to the second major surface of the piezoelectric layer; and
a second electrode (respective IDT 130) including a second overlap portion (fingers 136) and a second non-overlap portion (outer regions of busbars 132 & 134), the second overlap portion overlapping the second space in the first direction, the second non-overlap portion not overlapping the second space in the first direction (as seen in Fig. 1);
the second space is at a location different from a location of the first space (as per Fig. 13);
the first electrode and the second electrode face each other (each resonator is oriented in a direction with a side facing other resonators, such that the electrodes are considered to “face each other”), and are at mutually different potentials (each resonator is connected in series in a signal path between the input and output, or connected to ground from the signal path, with no two resonators sharing the same input and output nodes, Fig. 13, [0074]); and
at least part of the support substrate includes an attenuation layer (intermediate layer 324), the at least part of the support substrate overlapping a region between the first non-overlap portion and the second non-overlap portion in plan view (cavities are formed in intermediate layer 324, such that the space between cavities between resonators overlaps with intermediate layer 324, the attenuation layer), the attenuation layer having a crystallinity different from a crystallinity of the support substrate (intermediate layer may be silicon dioxide and the base 322 may be silicon, [0051]).
As per claim 4:
Garcia discloses in Figs. 1-3 & 13:
the attenuation layer (324) is inside the support substrate (the support substrate being 320, and including 324, thus 324 being inside).
As per claim 14:
Garcia discloses in Figs. 1-3 & 13:
the support substrate is made of a material including Si ([0051]).
As per claim 15:
Garcia discloses in Figs. 1-3 & 13:
the piezoelectric layer includes lithium niobate or lithium tantalate ([0057]).
As per claim 16:
Garcia discloses in Figs. 1-3 & 13:
the piezoelectric layer includes lithium niobate or lithium tantalate ([0057]); and d/p ≤ 0.5, where d is a thickness of the piezoelectric layer, and p is a center-to-center distance between the first electrode and the second electrode that are adjacent to each other (pitch is 2-20 times thickness of the piezoelectric layer [0049]).
As per claim 17:
Garcia discloses in Figs. 1-3 & 13:
the piezoelectric layer includes lithium niobate or lithium tantalate ([0057]);
the first resonator includes the first electrode of the first resonator and a second electrode of the first resonator that are adjacent to each other (as seen in Fig. 1 with IDT 130 comprising two interdigitated electrodes); and
d/p ≤ 0.5, where d is a thickness of the piezoelectric layer, and p is a center-to-center distance between the first electrode and the second electrode that are adjacent to each other (pitch is 2-20 times thickness of the piezoelectric layer [0049]).
As per claim 18:
Garcia discloses in Figs. 1-3 & 13:
the first electrode and the second electrode are IDT electrodes (IDT 130).
As per claim 19:
Garcia discloses in Figs. 1-3 & 13:
a metallization ratio MR satisfies MR ≤ 1.75(d/p) + 0.075, the metallization ratio MR being a ratio of an area of the first electrode and the second electrode within an excitation region to the excitation region, the excitation region being a region where the first electrode and the second electrode overlap each other as seen in a direction in which the first electrode and the second electrode face each other (pitch is 2-20 times thickness of the piezoelectric layer, and metallization ratio (given as mark to pitch ratio) is the same [0049]).
As per claim 20:
Garcia discloses in Figs. 1-3 & 13:
the piezoelectric layer includes lithium niobate or lithium tantalate; and the lithium niobate or lithium tantalate has Euler angles (φ, θ,ψ) within a range represented by Expression (4), Expression (5), or Expression (6) ([0057]).
As per claim 24:
Garcia discloses in Figs. 1-3 & 13:
An acoustic wave device comprising:
a support substrate (320);
a piezoelectric layer (310) overlapping the support substrate as seen in a first direction (as seen in Fig. 1); and
a first electrode and a second electrode (IDT 130, comprising two interdigitated electrodes) extending over at least a first major surface of the piezoelectric layer, the first electrode and the second electrode facing each other and being at mutually different potentials (resonators are positioned in shunt between series path and ground, or in series between input and output of a signal, as seen in Fig. 13, [0074]);
wherein a space (area of and over cavity 125/325) exists between a second major surface of the piezoelectric layer, and the support substrate, the second major surface being opposite to the first major surface;
the space is at least partially covered by the piezoelectric layer;
the first electrode and the second electrode each include an overlap portion (fingers 136) and a non-overlap portion (outer regions of busbars 132 & 134), the overlap portion overlapping the space in the first direction, the non-overlap portion not overlapping the space in the first direction (as seen in Fig. 1); and
at least part of the support substrate includes a void (cavity 325), the at least part of the support substrate overlapping a region (portion of busbars 132 and 134 overlapping cavity 125, as seen in Fig. 1) between the non-overlap portion of the first electrode and the non-overlap portion of the second electrode in plan view, the void being defined by a partially hollowed out portion of the support substrate.
As per claim 25:
Garcia discloses in Figs. 1-3 & 13:
An acoustic wave device comprising:
a support substrate (320);
a piezoelectric layer (310) overlapping the support substrate as seen in a first direction (as seen in Fig. 1);
a first resonator (Fig. 13 discloses a plurality of resonators, of which one may be the first resonator, specifically 1310A) extending over at least a first major surface of the piezoelectric layer; and
a second resonator (Fig. 13 discloses a plurality of resonators, of which one may be the first resonator, specifically 1310C) extending over at least the first major surface of the piezoelectric layer, the second resonator being at a location different from a location of the first resonator (as seen in Fig. 13);
a first space (respective area of back-side dielectric layer 216 overlapping cavity 125/325 of the first resonator) opposite to the first major surface and at or adjacent to a second major surface of the piezoelectric layer; and
a first electrode (respective IDT 130) including a first overlap portion (fingers 136) and a first non-overlap portion (outer regions of busbars 132 & 134), the first overlap portion overlapping the first space in the first direction, the first non-overlap portion not overlapping the first space in the first direction (as seen in Fig. 1);
the second resonator includes:
a second space (respective area of back-side dielectric layer 216 overlapping cavity 125/325 cavity 125/325 of the second resonator) opposite to the first major surface and at or adjacent to the second major surface of the piezoelectric layer; and
a second electrode (respective IDT 130) including a second overlap portion (fingers 136) and a second non-overlap portion (outer regions of busbars 132 & 134), the second overlap portion overlapping the second space in the first direction, the second non-overlap portion not overlapping the second space in the first direction (as seen in Fig. 1);
the second space is at a location different from a location of the first space (as per Fig. 13);
the first electrode and the second electrode face each other (each resonator is oriented in a direction with a side facing other resonators, such that the electrodes are considered to “face each other”), and are at mutually different potentials (cited first and second resonator 1310A and 1310C are connected at different locations along the signal line between the input and output in series, [0074]);
at least part of the support substrate includes a void (respective cavity 125/325 of resonator 1310B, shown as being between the first and second resonators), the at least part of the support substrate overlapping a region between the first non-overlap portion and the second non-overlap portion in plan view (resonator 1310B is shown to overlap a region between each of the portions of the first resonator 1310A and 1310C, as seen in Fig. 13), the void being defined by a partially hollowed out portion of the support substrate (as seen in Fig. 3B), and
at least one of the first and second spaces is separated from the void in the first direction (the space of dielectric layer 215 overlapping cavity 125/325 is separate from the cavity 125/325 by having separate locations in the vertical direction of Figs. 2 & 3B).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1 & 3-5 (in an alternative interpretation) is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burak (US PGPub 20160079958) in view of Gilbert et al. (US PGPub 20170063332), all references of record.
As per claim 1:
Burak discloses in Figs. 1-2A-D:
An acoustic wave device comprising:
a support substrate (205);
a piezoelectric layer (230, 230’) overlapping the support substrate as seen in a first direction (as seen in Fig. 1); and
a first electrode (110) and a second electrode (120) that extend over at least a first major surface of the piezoelectric layer, the first electrode and the second electrode facing each other and being at mutually different potentials (signal and float, [0026]);
wherein a space (occupied by electrode 210, 210’) exists between a second major surface of the piezoelectric layer, and the support substrate, the second major surface being opposite to the first major surface;
the space is at least partially covered by the piezoelectric layer;
the first electrode and the second electrode each include an overlap portion (portions of fingers over ground 210, 210’) and a non-overlap portion (bus bar regions), the overlap portion overlapping the space in the first direction, the non-overlap portion not overlapping the space in the first direction (as seen in Fig. 1);
Burak does not disclose:
at least part of the support substrate includes an attenuation layer, the at least part of the support substrate overlapping a region between the non-overlap portion of the first electrode and the non-overlap portion of the second electrode in plan view, the attenuation layer having a crystallinity different from a crystallinity of the support substrate.
Gilbert discloses in Fig. 1B:
A support substrate (108) for an acoustic wave resonator (title), wherein the support substrate includes an attenuation layer (surface region 108’’), overlapping a piezoelectric substrate (layer 103) in a plan view, the attenuation layer having a crystallinity different from a crystallinity of the support substrate ([0039]).
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the materials including the attenuation layer of the support substrate of Gilbert for the support substrate Burak to provide the benefit of increasing the bandgap, reducing carrier mobility of the carrier substrate as taught by Gilbert et al. ([0041])
As per claim 3:
Burak discloses in Figs. 1-2A-D:
The support substrate is formed of silicon ([0044]).
Burak does not disclose:
the attenuation layer includes an amorphous silicon layer or a polysilicon layer.
Gilbert discloses in Fig. 1B:
the attenuation layer includes an amorphous silicon layer or a polysilicon layer ([0052]).
As a consequence of the combination of claim 1, the attenuation layer includes an amorphous silicon layer or a polysilicon layer.
As per claim 4:
Burak does not disclose:
the attenuation layer is inside the support substrate.
Gilbert discloses in Fig. 1B:
the attenuation layer (108’’) is inside the support substrate (108).
As a consequence of the combination of claim 1, the attenuation layer is inside the support substrate.
As per claim 5:
Burak does not disclose:
the attenuation layer includes a first attenuation layer and a second attenuation layer.
Gilbert discloses in Fig. 1B:
the attenuation layer includes a first attenuation layer (108’’) and a second attenuation layer (upper portion of 108’ is interpreted to be the second attenuation layer).
As a consequence of the combination of claim 1, the attenuation layer includes a first attenuation layer and a second attenuation layer.
Claim(s) 2, 17, & 25 (in an alternative interpretation) is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Garcia (US PGPub 20200287521), a reference of record.
As per claim 2:
Garcia discloses in Figs. 1-3 & 13:
An acoustic wave device comprising:
a support substrate (320);
a piezoelectric layer (310) overlapping the support substrate as seen in a first direction (as seen in Fig. 1);
a first resonator (Fig. 13 discloses a plurality of resonators, of which one may be the first resonator) extending over at least a first major surface of the piezoelectric layer (Fig. 13 discloses the filter being formed of a single piezoelectric on a single substrate, [0075]); and
a second resonator (Fig. 13 discloses a plurality of resonators, of which one may be the first resonator) extending over at least the first major surface of the piezoelectric layer, the second resonator being at a location different from a location of the first resonator (as seen in Fig. 13);
wherein the first resonator includes:
a first space (respective cavity 125/325 of the first resonator) opposite to the first major surface and at or adjacent to a second major surface of the piezoelectric layer; and
a first electrode (respective IDT 130) including a first overlap portion (fingers 136) and a first non-overlap portion (outer regions of busbars 132 & 134), the first overlap portion overlapping the first space in the first direction, the first non-overlap portion not overlapping the first space in the first direction (as seen in Fig. 1);
the second resonator includes:
a second space (respective cavity 125/325 of the second resonator) opposite to the first major surface and at or adjacent to the second major surface of the piezoelectric layer; and
a second electrode (respective IDT 130) including a second overlap portion (fingers 136) and a second non-overlap portion (outer regions of busbars 132 & 134), the second overlap portion overlapping the second space in the first direction, the second non-overlap portion not overlapping the second space in the first direction (as seen in Fig. 1);
the second space is at a location different from a location of the first space (as per Fig. 13);
the first electrode and the second electrode are at mutually different potentials (each resonator is connected in series in a signal path between the input and output, or connected to ground from the signal path, with no two resonators sharing the same input and output nodes, Fig. 13, [0074]); and
at least part of the support substrate includes an attenuation layer (intermediate layer 324), the at least part of the support substrate overlapping a region between the first non-overlap portion and the second non-overlap portion in plan view (portion of busbars not overlapping cavity may be divided into outer and middle portions, with the outer portion being the non-overlap portion and the middle portion being the region between other portions), the attenuation layer having a crystallinity different from a crystallinity of the support substrate (intermediate layer may be silicon dioxide and the base 322 may be silicon, [0051]).
Garcia discloses the resonators of Fig. 13 may be oriented at the same or different angles and may be rotated independently as a design parameter ([0075])
Garcia is silent (in the alternative interpretation) regarding:
the first electrode and the second electrode face each other.
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the resonators of Garcia to be oriented such that the first electrode and the second electrode face each other as one of a limited number of possibilities provided for the rotation of the resonators that is disclosed as a design parameter by Garcia that can further provide the benefit of minimizing spurious effects, as taught by Garcia [0074].
As per claim 17:
Garcia discloses in Figs. 1-3 & 13:
the piezoelectric layer includes lithium niobate or lithium tantalate ([0057]);
the first resonator includes the first electrode of the first resonator and a second electrode of the first resonator that are adjacent to each other (as seen in Fig. 1 with IDT 130 comprising two interdigitated electrodes); and
d/p ≤ 0.5, where d is a thickness of the piezoelectric layer, and p is a center-to-center distance between the first electrode and the second electrode that are adjacent to each other (pitch is 2-20 times thickness of the piezoelectric layer [0049]).
As per claim 25:
Garcia discloses in Figs. 1-3 & 13:
An acoustic wave device comprising:
a support substrate (320);
a piezoelectric layer (310) overlapping the support substrate as seen in a first direction (as seen in Fig. 1);
a first resonator (Fig. 13 discloses a plurality of resonators, of which one may be the first resonator, specifically 1310A) extending over at least a first major surface of the piezoelectric layer; and
a second resonator (Fig. 13 discloses a plurality of resonators, of which one may be the first resonator, specifically 1310C) extending over at least the first major surface of the piezoelectric layer, the second resonator being at a location different from a location of the first resonator (as seen in Fig. 13);
a first space (respective cavity 125/325 of the first resonator) opposite to the first major surface and at or adjacent to a second major surface of the piezoelectric layer; and
a first electrode (respective IDT 130) including a first overlap portion (fingers 136) and a first non-overlap portion (outer regions of busbars 132 & 134), the first overlap portion overlapping the first space in the first direction, the first non-overlap portion not overlapping the first space in the first direction (as seen in Fig. 1);
the second resonator includes:
a second space (respective cavity 125/325 of the second resonator) opposite to the first major surface and at or adjacent to the second major surface of the piezoelectric layer; and
a second electrode (respective IDT 130) including a second overlap portion (fingers 136) and a second non-overlap portion (outer regions of busbars 132 & 134), the second overlap portion overlapping the second space in the first direction, the second non-overlap portion not overlapping the second space in the first direction (as seen in Fig. 1);
the second space is at a location different from a location of the first space (as per Fig. 13);
the first electrode and the second electrode are at mutually different potentials (cited first and second resonator 1310A and 1310C are connected at different locations along the signal line between the input and output in series, [0074]); and
at least part of the support substrate includes a void (respective cavity 125/325 of resonator 1310B, shown as being between the first and second resonators), the at least part of the support substrate overlapping a region between the first non-overlap portion and the second non-overlap portion in plan view (resonator 1310B is shown to overlap a region between each of the portions of the first resonator 1310A and 1310C, as seen in Fig. 13), the void being defined by a partially hollowed out portion of the support substrate (as seen in Fig. 3B).
Garcia discloses the resonators of Fig. 13 may be oriented at the same or different angles and may be rotated independently as a design parameter ([0075])
Garcia is silent (in the alternative interpretation) regarding:
the first electrode and the second electrode face each other.
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the resonators of Garcia to be oriented such that the first electrode and the second electrode face each other as one of a limited number of possibilities provided for the rotation of the resonators that is disclosed as a design parameter by Garcia that can further provide the benefit of minimizing spurious effects, as taught by Garcia [0074].
Claim(s) 3-7, 9, & 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Garcia (US PGPub 20200287521) in view of Gilbert et al. (US PGPub 20170063332), all references of record.
As per claim 3:
Garcia discloses in Figs. 1-2A-D:
The support substrate comprises a layer of silicon (322 [0051]) and a layer of silicon dioxide (intermediate layer 324 [0051]).
Garcia does not disclose:
the attenuation layer includes an amorphous silicon layer or a polysilicon layer.
Gilbert discloses in Fig. 1B:
an attenuation layer comprising an amorphous silicon layer or a polysilicon layer ([0052]) between a layer of silicon dioxide (109, [0050]) and silicon (108’ [0036]).
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the attenuation layer of the support substrate of Gilbert between the layers of silicon and silicon dioxide in the support substrate of Garcia to provide the benefit of increasing the bandgap, reducing carrier mobility of the carrier substrate as taught by Gilbert et al. ([0041])
As per claim 4 (in an alternative interpretation):
Garcia does not disclose:
the attenuation layer is inside the support substrate.
Gilbert discloses in Fig. 1B:
an attenuation layer comprising an amorphous silicon layer or a polysilicon layer ([0052]) between a layer of silicon dioxide (109, [0050]) and silicon (108’ [0036]).
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the attenuation layer of the support substrate of Gilbert between the layers of silicon and silicon dioxide in the support substrate of Garcia to provide the benefit of increasing the bandgap, reducing carrier mobility of the carrier substrate as taught by Gilbert et al. ([0041])
As a consequence of the combination, the attenuation layer is inside the support substrate.
As per claim 5:
Garcia does not disclose:
the attenuation layer includes a first attenuation layer and a second attenuation layer.
Gilbert discloses in Fig. 1B & Fig. 3:
an attenuation layer comprising an amorphous silicon layer or a polysilicon layer ([0052]) between a layer of silicon dioxide (109, [0050]) and silicon (108’ [0036]) and in a similar embodiment, an additional layer of polycrystalline silicon (330, [0084]) is provided between the silicon dioxide (309) and the silicon (308’).
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the attenuation layers of the support substrate of Gilbert between the layers of silicon and silicon dioxide in the support substrate of Garcia to provide the benefit of increasing the bandgap, reducing carrier mobility of the carrier substrate as taught by Gilbert et al. ([0041])
As a consequence of the combination, the attenuation layer includes a first attenuation layer and a second attenuation layer (silicon dioxide as per Garcia and amorphous silicon as per Gilbert) or, in the alternative, (poly-crystalline silicon as a first attenuation layer, and the silicon dioxide layer or the amorphous silicon layer as the second attenuation layer).
As per claim 6:
Garcia does not disclose:
the second attenuation layer differs in material from the first attenuation layer that is closer to the piezoelectric layer than is the second attenuation layer.
Gilbert discloses in Fig. 1B:
an attenuation layer comprising an amorphous silicon layer or a polysilicon layer ([0052]) between a layer of silicon dioxide (109, [0050]) and silicon (108’ [0036]).
As a consequence of the combination of claim 5, the second attenuation layer differs in material from the first attenuation layer that is closer to the piezoelectric layer than is the second attenuation layer (amorphous silicon vs silicon oxide).
As per claim 7:
Garcia does not disclose:
the second attenuation layer differs in density from the first attenuation layer that is closer to the piezoelectric layer than is the second attenuation layer.
Gilbert discloses in Fig. 1B:
an attenuation layer comprising an amorphous silicon layer or a polysilicon layer ([0052]) between a layer of silicon dioxide (109, [0050]) and silicon (108’ [0036]).
As a consequence of the combination of claim 5, the second attenuation layer differs in density from the first attenuation layer that is closer to the piezoelectric layer than is the second attenuation layer (amorphous silicon vs silicon oxide).
As per claim 9:
Garcia does not disclose:
the second attenuation layer has a smaller acoustic impedance than the first attenuation layer that is closer to the piezoelectric layer than is the second attenuation layer.
Gilbert discloses in Fig. 1B & Fig. 3:
an attenuation layer comprising an amorphous silicon layer or a polysilicon layer ([0052]) between a layer of silicon dioxide (109, [0050]) and silicon (108’ [0036]) and in a similar embodiment, an additional layer of polycrystalline silicon (330, [0084]) is provided between the silicon dioxide (309) and the silicon (308’).
As a consequence of the combination of claim 5 in the alternative, the second attenuation layer has a smaller acoustic impedance than the first attenuation layer that is closer to the piezoelectric layer than is the second attenuation layer (first attenuation layer is the silicon layer 330 of Gilbert vs the second attenution layer of silicon dioxide, with acoustic impedances disclosed in Fig. 27 of the current application).
As per claim 12:
Garcia discloses in Figs. 1-2A-D:
one of the first attenuation layer and the second attenuation layer is made of a material including SiOx or SiOC ([0051]).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the resultant combination of Garcia (US PGPub 20200287521) in view of Gilbert et al. (US PGPub 20170063332) as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Takahashi (US PGPub 20130234805), all references of record.
The resultant combination discloses the acoustic wave device of claim 5, as rejected above.
As per claim 13:
The resultant combination does not disclose:
one of the first attenuation layer and the second attenuation layer is made of a material including a polymer.
Takahashi discloses the use of a polymer material ([0076]) for the formation of a cavity (105) in an intermediate layer (102) between a piezoelectric layer (103) and a silicon substrate (101, [0075]).
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to replace the intermediate layer of silicon oxide of the resultant combination with the intermediate layer of Takahashi as an art-recognized alternative/equivalent intermediate layer for forming a cavity below a resonator that is able to provide the same function.
As a consequence of the combination, the combination discloses one of the first attenuation layer and the second attenuation layer is made of a material including a polymer.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/10/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In pages 11-12 of the applicant’s remarks, the applicant argues:
On pages 2-3, 6-7, and 16-17 of the outstanding Office Action, respectively, the Examiner alleged that each of Burak (alone), Garcia (alone), and the combination of Burak and Gilbert teaches all of the features recited in Applicant's Claim 1.
On pages 7-9 and 19-21 of the outstanding Office Action, the Examiner alleged that Garcia (alone) teaches or renders obvious all of the features recited in Applicant's Claim 2.
Applicant respectfully disagrees with the Examiner's allegations for the following reasons.
The applied prior art fails to teach or suggest the feature of "at least part of the support substrate [8A] includes an attenuation layer [10A]" (exemplary reference characters and bolded and underlined emphasis added) as recited in each of Applicant's Claims 1 and 2. See, for example, Fig. 13 of Applicant's drawings (reproduced below) and paragraphs [0098]-[0100] of Applicant's specification.
FIG. 13 [Image redacted for brevity]
For example, as shown in Fig. 2D of Burak, referred to by the Examiner, Burak discloses that the DBR 270 (the alleged attenuation layer) of Burak is disposed on the substrate 205 of Burak (e.g., paragraph [0042] of Burak).
As shown in Fig. 3B of Garcia, referred to by the Examiner, Garcia discloses that the intermediate layer 324 (the alleged attenuation layer) of Garcia is disposed between the piezoelectric plate 310 and the base 322 of Garcia (e.g., paragraph [0051] of Garcia). Thus, Garcia teaches that the intermediate layer 324 of Garcia is disposed on the base 322 of Garcia.
As shown in Fig. 1B of Gilbert, referred to by the Examiner, the surface region 108" (the alleged attenuation layer) of Gilbert is provided over the bulk region 108' of Gilbert (e.g., paragraphs [0040] and [0041] of Gilbert). Thus, Gilbert teaches that the surface region 108" of Gilbert is disposed on the bulk region 108' of Gilbert.
Accordingly, none of Burak, Garcia, and Gilbert teaches or suggests the feature of "at least part of the support substrate includes an attenuation layer" (bolded and underlined emphasis added) as recited in each of Applicant's Claims 1 and 2.
Contrary to the Examiner's allegations, Burak, Garcia, and Gilbert, applied alone or in combination, fail to teach, suggest, or even contemplate the feature of "at least part of the support substrate includes an attenuation layer" as recited in each of Applicant's Claims 1 and 2, that there would have been any reason or motivation whatsoever to have included this feature in any one of the device(s) of Burak, Garcia, and/or Gilbert, or that any advantages or benefits would or could have been obtained thereby.
For at least the reasons described above, Burak, Garcia, and Gilbert, applied alone or in combination, clearly fail to anticipate, teach, suggest, or render obvious the unique combination and arrangement of features recited in each of Applicant's Claims 1 and 2, including the feature of "at least part of the support substrate includes an attenuation layer."
Accordingly, Applicant respectfully requests reconsideration and withdrawal of each of the rejection of Claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Burak, the rejection of Claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Garcia, the rejection of Claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Burak in view of Gilbert, the rejection of Claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Garcia, and the rejection of Claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Garcia.
In anticipation of the Examiner considering rejecting Applicant's Claims 1 and/or 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as allegedly being obvious over Burak and/or Garcia, Applicant notes that one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing Applicant's invention would not have had any reason or motivation to modify Burak and/or Garcia so as to include the feature of "at least part of the support substrate includes an attenuation layer" as recited in each of Applicant's Claims 1 and 2 because neither Burak and Garcia nor any other evidence of record provides any teaching or suggestion of any reason or motivation to explain why providing such an arrangement would have been beneficial or otherwise desirable.
As the Examiner is aware, MPEP §§ 2141(111), 2142, and 2143 state, "[R]ejections on obviousness cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness." (In re Kahn, 441 F. 3d 977, 988 (CA Fed. 2006), cited with approval in KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1741 (2007)).
Accordingly, Applicant respectfully submits that any rejection of Claim 1 and/or Claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Burak and/or Garcia would be improper for at least the reasons discussed above.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. As per the rejection of claim 1 under Burak alone, the rejection interpreted the substrate to be “205 & 270,” thus consisting of both substrate 205 and DBR 270 as a composite substrate. As per the limitation of claim 1, the (composite) substrate of Burak “includes an attenuation layer,” noted in the rejection as DBR 270. The applicant argues that DBR 270 is disposed on substrate 205 and not included in substrate 205, but this ignores the examiner’s interpretation of the substrate as a composite structure as noted above and as provided in the rejection. The examiner further notes that applicant’s Fig. 22 provides a composite substrate wherein two attenuation layers, 10A & 11A are provided on a support member 8A forming a composite substrate, such that the examiner’s interpretation of 205 & 270 of Burak as a composite structure forming the support substrate is within the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification. As per Garcia alone, a similar case to that of Burak is provided, wherein the examiner cited the substrate to be 320, shown in Fig. 3B to comprise both intermediate layer 324 and base 322, whereas applicant’s arguments appear to interpret the substrate of Garcia to only include base 322, explicitly conflicting with the interpretation of the rejection, such that Garcia discloses “at least part of the support substrate includes an attenuation layer” as per claims 1 & 2. As per Gilbert, the situation is similar that the support substrate is indicated in the rejection to be substrate 108 that includes both bulk region 108’ and surface region 108’’, wherein 108’’, which is shown to be included in substrate 108 in Fig. 1B, is interpreted to be the attenuation layer. As such the alternative interpretation wherein Gilbert the attenuation layer of Gilbert is provided to Burak meets the limitations requiring “at least part of the support substrate includes an attenuation layer” as per claim 1. It should be noted that no argument is provided against the interpretation of “substrate” in regards to the rejections of claims 1 & 2, wherein multiple layers were included as maintained in the current rejection, and that the applicant’s argument depends on a separate interpretation of “substrate” than that provided by the examiner in the rejections. Applicant’s argument is thus not persuasive, and the rejections of claims 1 & 2 are sustained.
In pages 14-16 of the applicant’s remarks, the applicant argues:
The Examiner alleged that Garcia teaches all of the features recited in Applicant's Claim 24.
Applicant respectfully disagrees with the Examiner's allegations for the following reasons.
Applicant's Claim 24 recites the features of "a space exists between a second major surface of the piezoelectric layer, and the support substrate, the second major surface being opposite to the first major surface" and "at least part of the support substrate includes a void, ... the void being defined by a partially hollowed out portion of the support substrate."
The Examiner alleged that Garcia discloses "a space (area of and over cavity 125,325)" and "a void (cavity 325)." That is, the Examiner alleged that the cavity 325 of Garcia corresponds to bothof the "space"and the "void" recited in Applicant's Claim 24. Thus, Applicant respectfully submits that the prior art rejection of Applicant's Claim 24 over Garcia is improper and inconsistent with the requirements of binding legal precedent, because it is legally erroneous for the Examiner to rely on the same prior art structural element as disclosing two separate claimed elements.
The USPTO Board and the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) have repeatedly held that it is improper for an Examiner to rely on the same prior art structural element as disclosing two separate claimed elements. See, for example, Becton, Dickinson & Co. v. Tyco Healthcare Group, LP, 616 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (citing Gaus v. Conair Corp., 363 F.3d 1284, 1288 (Fed. Cir. 2004) and holding, "Where a claim lists elements separately, 'the clear implication of the claim language' is that those elements are 'distinct component[s]' of the patented invention." . .. There is nothing in the asserted claims to suggest that the hinged arm and the spring means can be the same structure."); Engel Indus.,Inc. v. Lockformer Co., 96 F.3d 1398, 1404-05 (Fed. Cir. 1996); Lantech Inc. v. Keip Machine Co., 32 F.3d 542, 547 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
Contrary to the Examiner's allegations, Garcia fails to teach, suggest, or even contemplate the features of "a space exists between a second major surface of the piezoelectric layer, and the support substrate, the second major surface being opposite to the first major surface" and "at least part of the support substrate includes a void, the at least part of the support substrate overlapping a region between the non-overlap portion of the first electrode and the non-overlap portion of the second electrode in plan view, the void being defined by a partially hollowed out portion of the support substrate" as recited in Applicant's Claim 24, that there would have been any reason or motivation whatsoever to have modified the device of Garcia to include this feature, or that any advantages or benefits would or could have been obtained thereby.
For at least the reasons described above, Garcia clearly fails to teach or suggest the unique combination and arrangement of features recited in Applicant's Claim 24, including the features of "a space exists between a second major surface of the piezoelectric layer, and the support substrate, the second major surface being opposite to the first major surface" and "at least part of the support substrate includes a void, the at least part of the support substrate overlapping a region between the non-overlap portion of the first electrode and the non-overlap portion of the second electrode in plan view, the void being defined by a partially hollowed out portion of the support substrate."
Accordingly, Applicant respectfully requests reconsideration and withdrawal of the rejection of Claim 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Garcia.
In anticipation of the Examiner considering rejecting Applicant's Claim 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as allegedly being obvious over Garcia, Applicant notes that one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing Applicant's invention would not have had any reason or motivation to modify Garcia so as to include the features of "a space exists between a second major surface of the piezoelectric layer, and the support substrate, the second major surface being opposite to the first major surface" and "at least part of the support substrate includes a void, the at least part of the support substrate overlapping a region between the non-overlap portion of the first electrode and the non-overlap portion of the second electrode in plan view, the void being defined by a partially hollowed out portion of the support substrate" as recited in Applicant's Claim 24 because neither Garcia nor any other evidence of record provides any teaching or suggestion of any reason or motivation to explain why providing such an arrangement would have been beneficial or otherwise desirable.
As the Examiner is aware, MPEP §§ 2141(111), 2142, and 2143 state, "[R]ejections on obviousness cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness." (In re Kahn, 441 F. 3d 977, 988 (CA Fed. 2006), cited with approval in KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1741 (2007)).
Accordingly, Applicant respectfully submits that any rejection of Claim 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Garcia would be improper for at least the reasons discussed above.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. The broadest reasonable interpretation of the word “space” is “a limited extent in one, two, or three dimensions” (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/space), such that the term “space” without further limitation may refer to a region (in contrast to limitations such as “empty space”). Claim 24 provides the limitation of “a space exists between a second major surface of the piezoelectric layer, and the support substrate, the second major surface being opposite to the first major surface; the space is at least partially covered by the piezoelectric layer; the first electrode and the second electrode each include an overlap portion and a non- overlap portion, the overlap portion overlapping the space in the first direction, the non- overlap portion not overlapping the space in the first direction;” such that the term “space” in regards to claim 24 may include the region overlapping the upper surface of base 322, forming a portion of the claimed support substrate, upwards and including the region of dielectric layer 216, shown in Fig. 2, that overlaps with the cavity 125. In contrast with the applicant’s argument, these are separate elements as the claimed void, which comprises cavity 125, and does not include the region, or space, of the dielectric layer 216 between the second major surface of the piezoelectric layer (bottom) and the substrate. No limitations in claim 24 require the space and the void to be exclusive of each other, such that overlap may occur, in that if the cavity is 125 is included in the space, then the claimed void is within the claimed space. The space may further be interpreted to only consist of the area of dielectric layer 216 overlapping the cavity 125, such that the cavity and the space may further be separate, but this is not required by the limitations of claim 24. Applicant’s amendment of claim 25 appears to recognize this distinction, in that it requires the explicit separation of a space and the void in the first direction. As such, applicant’s argument is not persuasive, and the rejection of claim 24 is sustained.
In pages 17-20 of the applicant’s remarks, the applicant argues:
The Examiner alleged that Garcia teaches or renders obvious all of the features recited in Applicant's original Claim 25.
Although Applicant respectfully disagrees with the Examiner's allegations, in order to expedite prosecution of the present application and to more clearly distinguish Applicant's claimed invention over the applied prior art, Applicant has amended Claim 25 to recite the feature of "at least one of the first and second spaces [9] is separated from the void [10C1 in the first direction" (exemplary reference characters and underlined emphasis added). Support for this feature is found, for example, in paragraph [0125] of Applicant's specification and Fig. 18 of Applicant's drawings (reproduced below).
[Figure redacted for brevity]
With the unique combination and arrangement of features recited in Applicant's amended Claim 25, including the feature of "at least one of the first and second spaces is separated from the void in the first direction," Applicant has been able to provide acoustic wave devices that each reduce ripples in frequency characteristics (see, for example, paragraph [0005] of Applicant's specification).
Garcia fails to teach or suggest the feature of "at least one of the first and second spaces is separated from the void in the first direction" as recited in Applicant's amended Claim 25. For example, as shown in Figs. 3A-3C and 13 of Garcia (annotated in accordance with the Examiner's allegations and reproduced below), the cavity 125/325 of the resonator 1310B of Garcia is not separated from the cavities 125/325 of the resonators 1310A and 1310C of Garcia in the first direction, as required by Applicant's amended Claim 25, because each of the cavities 125/325 is provided by the layer 324 of Garcia.
[Figures redacted for brevity]
Garcia fails to teach, suggest, or even contemplate the feature of "at least one of the first and second spaces is separated from the void in the first direction" as recited in Applicant's amended Claim 25, that there would have been any reason or motivation whatsoever to have modified the device of Garcia to include this feature, or that any advantages or benefits would or could have been obtained thereby.
For at least the reasons described above, Garcia clearly fails to anticipate, teach, suggest, or render obvious the unique combination and arrangement of features recited in Applicant's amended Claim 25, including the feature of "at least one of the first and second spaces is separated from the void in the first direction."
Accordingly, Applicant respectfully requests reconsideration and withdrawal of each of the rejection of Claim 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Garcia and the rejection of Claim 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Garcia.
The Examiner relied upon Takahashi to allegedly cure deficiencies of Garcia and Gilbert. However, Takahashi clearly fails to teach or suggest the feature of "at least part of the support substrate includes an attenuation layer" as recited in each of Applicant's Claims 1 and 2, the features of "a space exists between a second major surface of the piezoelectric layer, and the support substrate, the second major surface being opposite to the first major surface" and "at least part of the support substrate includes a void, the at least part of the support substrate overlapping a region between the non-overlap portion of the first electrode and the non- overlap portion of the second electrode in plan view, the void being defined by a partially hollowed out portion of the support substrate" as recited in Applicant's Claim 24, and/or the feature of "at least one of the first and second spaces is separated from the void in the first direction" as recited in Applicant's amended Claim 25. Thus, Applicant respectfully submits that Takahashi fails to cure the deficiencies of Burak, Garcia, and Gilbert described above.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. While the examiner notes that the interpretation of Garcia provided as per claim 25 in the previous rejection appears to be overcome by the amended limitation of “at least one of the first and second spaces is separated from the void in the first direction,” the examiner has amended the rejection such that the first and second spaces are interpreted to be the regions of back-side dielectric 216, which are separated from the voids of the cavities of the respective resonator in the first direction (vertically in Figs. 2 & 3B), thereby meeting the limitations of claim 25 similar to the manner discussed as per claim 24 above. As Takahashi is not used in the rejection of claim 25, arguments pertaining to Takahashi are not relevant with regard to claim 25.
Arguments pertaining to Claims 3-7, 9, & 12-20 are based on their dependency upon claim 1 or 2, as argued above, and as such are not persuasive. The rejections of claims 3-7, 9, & 12-20 are sustained.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8, 10, & 11 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 subject matter of claims 8, 10, & 11 combined with the limitations of claims 1 & 5 upon which they depend was not disclosed or rendered obvious over the prior art. The references of Burak, Garcia, and Gilbert do not disclose or render obvious the limitations of claims 10 & 11, wherein ratio ki is between 0.8 and 1.2 inclusive.
The references of Burak, Garcia, and Gilbert do not disclose or render obvious the limitations of claim 8, wherein each of the first attenuation layer and the second attenuation layer is an oxide film that is an oxide of a material of the support substrate.
Claims 8, 10, & 11 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.
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 SAMUEL S OUTTEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7123. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:30AM-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, Andrea Lindgren Baltzell can be reached at (571) 272-1988. 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.
/Samuel S Outten/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2843