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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 06/15/2026 has been entered.
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 (acoustic impedance layers 271, 272, 273), 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]);
the support substrate includes a front side surface (top of acoustic impedance layer 274) that is closest to the piezoelectric layer in the first direction;
and the attenuation layer is spaced-away from the front side surface of the support substrate in the first direction (acoustic impedance layers 271, 272, & 273 are spaced away from the top of acoustic impedance layer 274, as seen in Fig. 2D).
As per claim 4:
Burak discloses in Figs. 1 & 2D:
the attenuation layer (271-273) is inside the support substrate (the support substrate including 270, thus 271-273 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 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) 1-2, 4, 14-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Garcia (US PGPub 20200287521), a reference of record, in view of Kuypers et al. (US PGPub 20110284995).
As per claim 1:
Garcia discloses in Figs. 1-3 & 13:
An acoustic wave device comprising:
a support substrate (320, comprising silicon and silicon dioxide, [0051]);
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); the support substrate includes a front side surface (top) that is closest to the piezoelectric layer in the first direction.
Garcia 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; the support substrate includes a front side surface that is closest to the piezoelectric layer in the first direction; and the attenuation layer is spaced-away from the front side surface of the support substrate in the first direction.
Kuypers discloses in Fig. 2A:
A support substrate for lamb wave resonators ([0052]) comprising a multilayer-structure formed of silicon oxide layers (202, 206) formed on top and bottom surfaces of a silicon membrane ([0039]).
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form the substrate of Garcia with an attenuation layer of silicon oxide on the bottom surface of the silicon substrate base and a silicon oxide layer on the upper surface of the substrate base to provide the benefit of temperature compensation of a desired acoustic mode as taught by Kuypers et al. ([0039]
As a consequence of the combination, the combination discloses 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; the support substrate includes a front side surface that is closest to the piezoelectric layer in the first direction; and the attenuation layer is spaced-away from the front side surface of the support substrate in the first direction.
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 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).
Garcia 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; the support substrate includes a front side surface that is closest to the piezoelectric layer in the first direction; and the attenuation layer is spaced-away from the front side surface of the support substrate in the first direction.
Kuypers discloses in Fig. 2A:
A support substrate for lamb wave resonators ([0052]) comprising a multilayer-structure formed of silicon oxide layers (202, 206) formed on top and bottom surfaces of a silicon membrane ([0039]).
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form the substrate of Garcia with an attenuation layer of silicon oxide on the bottom surface of the silicon substrate base and a silicon oxide layer on the upper surface of the substrate base to provide the benefit of temperature compensation of a desired acoustic mode as taught by Kuypers et al. ([0039]
As a consequence of the combination, the combination discloses 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; the support substrate includes a front side surface that is closest to the piezoelectric layer in the first direction; and the attenuation layer is spaced-away from the front side surface of the support substrate in the first direction.
As per claim 4:
Garcia does not disclose:
the attenuation layer is inside the support substrate.
Kuypers discloses in Fig. 2A:
the attenuation layer is inside the support substrate (the substrate 200 is a multi-layer structure ([0039]) wherein the attenuation layer of 206 is within the confines and therefore inside the multi-layer support substrate).
As a consequence of the combination of claim 1, the attenuation layer is inside the support substrate.
As per claim 14:
Garcia discloses in Figs. 1-3 & 13:
the support substrate is made of a material including Si ([0051]).
Kuypers discloses in Fig. 2A:
the support substrate is made of a material including Si ([0039]).
As per the combination of claim 1, the support substrate is made of a material including Si.
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]).
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; the support substrate includes a front side surface that is closest to the piezoelectric layer in the first direction; and the attenuation layer is spaced-away from the front side surface of the support substrate in the first direction.
Gilbert discloses in Figs. 1 & 2:
A support substrate (108-109/ 208-209) comprising a silicon layer (108’/208’), an amorphous material (108’’/208’’, [0039]), and a silicon dioxide layer (109/209, [0050]) for an acoustic wave resonator (title), wherein the support substrate includes an attenuation layer (surface region 108’’/208’’), overlapping a piezoelectric substrate (layer 103/203) in a plan view, the attenuation layer having a crystallinity different from a crystallinity of the support substrate ([0039]);
the support substrate includes a front side surface (top surface of 109/209) that is closest to the piezoelectric layer in the first direction; and
the attenuation layer is spaced-away from the front side surface of the support substrate in the first direction (as seen in Fig. 1B & 2).
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 between silicon and silicon oxide layers 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’’/208’’) is inside the support substrate (108/208 & 109/209).
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 & 2:
the attenuation layer includes a first attenuation layer (108’’/208’’) and a second attenuation layer (upper portion of 108’/208’ 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) 1 & 3-4 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 1:
Garcia discloses in Figs. 1-3 & 13:
An acoustic wave device comprising:
a support substrate (320, comprising silicon and silicon dioxide, [0051]);
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); the support substrate includes a front side surface (top) that is closest to the piezoelectric layer in the first direction.
Garcia 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; the support substrate includes a front side surface that is closest to the piezoelectric layer in the first direction; and the attenuation layer is spaced-away from the front side surface of the support substrate in the first direction.
Gilbert discloses in Fig. 1B:
A support substrate (108-109) comprising a silicon layer (108’), an amorphous material (108’’, [0039]), and a silicon dioxide layer (109, [0050]) 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]);
the support substrate includes a front side surface (top surface of 109) that is closest to the piezoelectric layer in the first direction; and
the attenuation layer is spaced-away from the front side surface of the support substrate in the first direction (as seen in Fig. 1B).
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the materials attenuation layer of Gilbert between the silicon and silicon oxide layers of 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 combination discloses 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; the support substrate includes a front side surface that is closest to the piezoelectric layer in the first direction; and the attenuation layer is spaced-away from the front side surface of the support substrate in the first direction.
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:
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]).
As a consequence of the combination of claim 1, the attenuation layer is inside the support substrate.
Claim(s) 2 & 17 (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, in view of Kuypers et al. (US PGPub 20110284995).
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 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).
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.
Garcia 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; the support substrate includes a front side surface that is closest to the piezoelectric layer in the first direction; and the attenuation layer is spaced-away from the front side surface of the support substrate in the first direction.
Kuypers discloses in Fig. 2A:
A support substrate for lamb wave resonators ([0052]) comprising a multilayer-structure formed of silicon oxide layers (202, 206) formed on top and bottom surfaces of a silicon membrane ([0039]).
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form the substrate of Garcia with an attenuation layer of silicon oxide on the bottom surface of the silicon substrate base and a silicon oxide layer on the upper surface of the substrate base to provide the benefit of temperature compensation of a desired acoustic mode as taught by Kuypers et al. ([0039]
As a consequence of the combination, the combination discloses 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; the support substrate includes a front side surface that is closest to the piezoelectric layer in the first direction; and the attenuation layer is spaced-away from the front side surface of the support substrate in the first direction.
It would have been further 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]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8, 10-11, & 13 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, & 13 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, Gilbert, and Kuypers 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, Gilbert, and Kuypers 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.
The references of Burak, Garcia, Gilbert, and Kuypers do not disclose or render obvious the limitations of claims 13, wherein on of the first and second attenuation layers is made of a material including a polymer.
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.
Claims 24 & 25 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: the combination of limitations provided in amended claims 24 & 25 overcome the references of record and were not disclosed or rendered obvious over a further search of the prior art.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/15/2026 with respect to claims 1, 3-7, 9, 12, 14-16-18 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In pages 11-12 of the applicant’s remarks, the applicant argues:
With the unique combination and arrangement of features recited in each of Applicant's amended Claims 1 and 2, including the features of "the support substrate includes a front side surface that is closest to the piezoelectric layer in the first direction" and "the attenuation layer is spaced-away from the front side surface of the support substrate 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).
The applied prior art fails to teach or suggest the features of "the support substrate includes a front side surface that is closest to the piezoelectric layer in the first direction" and "the attenuation layer is spaced-away from the front side surface of the support substrate in the first direction" as recited in each of Applicant's amended Claims 1 and 2.
See, for example, the Examiner's allegations regarding the alleged support substrate 205 (and 270) (Burak), 320 (Garcia), 108 (Gilbert) and the alleged attenuation layer 270 (Burak), 324 (Garcia), 108" (Gilbert) in the rejections of Applicant's original Claims 1 and 2.
As is readily apparent from each of Burak, Garcia, and Gilbert, the alleged attenuation layer is not spaced-away from the front side surface of the alleged support substrate in the first direction, as required by each of Applicant's amended Claims 1 and 2.
Burak, Garcia, and Gilbert, applied alone or in combination, fail to teach, suggest, or even contemplate the features of "the support substrate includes a front side surface that is closest to the piezoelectric layer in the first direction" and "the attenuation layer is spaced- away from the front side surface of the support substrate in the first direction" as recited in each of Applicant's amended 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 features of "the support substrate includes a front side surface that is closest to the piezoelectric layer in the first direction" and "the attenuation layer is spaced-away from the front side surface of the support substrate in the first direction."
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 amended 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 features of "the support substrate includes a front side surface that is closest to the piezoelectric layer in the first direction" and "the attenuation layer is spaced-away from the front side surface of the support substrate in the first direction" as recited in each of Applicant's amended 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.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. As per the 102 rejection over Burak, the examiner had previously cited that the claimed substrate includes 205 & 270, wherein 270 includes a plurality of layers 271-274. The examiner has amended the rejection to specify the attenuation layer as including layers 271-273, which are spaced away from an upper surface of the substrate in the first direction by layer 274. Applicant’s arguments are purely based on treating DBR 270 as a monolithic feature and as being the attenuation layer, whereas Burak may be fairly interpreted wherein the lower layers of the DBR 270 excluding the top layer are the attenuation layer, thus meeting the limitations of claim 1. The applicant’s arguments are therefore not persuasive. Claims 4-7, 9, 12, 14-16, & 18 are not independently argued, and thus the rejection of claims 1, 4-7, 9, 12, 14-16, & 18 over Burak are sustained.
As per the 103 rejection of claims 1 & 3-5 over Burak in view of Gilbert, applicant’s arguments are based on an interpretation of Gilbert that does not explicitly discuss layer 109/209. The examiner has amended the rejection such that the substrate of Gilbert is interpreted to include both 108/208 & 109/209 as a multi-layer substrate wherein the attenuation layer (108’’/208’’) is spaced away from an upper surface of the substrate in the first direction by the layer 109/209. Claims 3-5 are not independently argued, and thus the rejection of claims 1 & 3-5 over Burak in view of Gilbert are sustained.
Applicant’s arguments, see applicant’s remarks, filed 06/15/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-4 & 14-20 under Garcia have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Garcia in view of Kuypers or Garcia in view of Gilbert.
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights