DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Specification
The specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant's cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-3, 5-13 and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takemura (US20140320234, hereinafter Takemura).
Regarding claim 1, Takemura discloses an acoustic wave device (Fig. 2) with a predetermined pass band, the acoustic wave device comprising: an acoustic wave element substrate (10); a comb-shaped filter electrode (16) provided on a first surface of the acoustic wave element substrate to allow an acoustic wave in the predetermined pass band to pass therethrough; a first insulator layer (26a) covering a second surface of the acoustic wave element substrate; and a second insulator layer (26b) laminated on the first insulator layer (26a) and sandwiching the first insulator layer (26a) between the second insulator layer (26b) and the acoustic wave element substrate (10). Takemura fails to explicitly disclose the relationship between the product of the velocity (V) of the wave and density in each layer (r) wherein, V0xr0 > V1xr1> V2xr2 is satisfied. Takemura discloses the same materials as the instant application to form the insulator layers and the substrate. The examiner takes Official Notice that the use of a multilayer stack where the layers have different impedances and vibration characteristics is well known in the art of SAW in order to improve the vibration characteristics of the device, while minimizing the energy loss and suppressing unwanted reflected waves. Therefore, it is the examiner's position that the claimed relationship would have been an obvious matter of design choice and it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to establish such relationship to improve the vibration characteristics of the device, while minimizing the energy loss and suppressing unwanted reflected waves.
Regarding claims 2 and 12, the elastic modulus of the first insulator layer and an elastic modulus of the second insulator layer made of epoxy resin are each smaller than an elastic modulus of the acoustic wave element substrate made of lithium tantalate.
Regarding claims 3 and 13, Takemura discloses a rough surface on the surface of the piezoelectric substrate, but fails to disclose the surface roughness being smaller than a wavelength of the acoustic wave in the predetermined pass band. However, it is the examiner's position that the value of the surface roughness would have been an obvious matter of design choice and it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine the surface roughness as necessitated by the specific requirements of the particular application.
Regarding claims 5 and 15, Takemura discloses the first insulator layer (26a) and second insulator layers (26b) are made of epoxy resin containing a filler in order to adjust the density of the layers (paragraph [0039]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the before the effective filing date of the instant application to add fillers to the epoxy resin layers to obtain the desired characteristics as necessitated by the specific requirements of the particular application.
Regarding claims 6-9 and 16-19, Takemura discloses the filler can be alumina or silica (paragraph [0039]), the insulator can comprise epoxy resin or polyimide. It is the examiner’s position that it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to determine material of the insulating layers to obtain the desired vibration characteristics. Selection from among known, suitable materials has long been held to be within the skill expected of the routineer and therefore obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the before the effective filing date of the instant application to select the material of the insulating layers in order to obtain the desired vibration characteristics, to reduce the occurrence of reflected waves and to prevent deterioration of the vibration characteristics.
Regarding claims 10 and 20, Takemura discloses the acoustic wave element comprising LT or LN (paragraph [0029]).
Regarding claim 11, Takemura discloses the acoustic wave modulus as claimed.
Claims 4 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takemura in view of Matsumoto et al. (WO-2018235875, hereinafter Matsumoto).
Regarding claims 4 and 14, Takemura discloses the invention as explained above, but fails to explicitly disclose a wiring layer on a second surface side of the acoustic wave element substrate with the first insulator layer or the second insulator layer interposed between the wiring layer and the acoustic wave element substrate. Matsumoto discloses a wiring layer (221) between the insulation substrate (12) and another insulation layer (31). Matsumoto’s invention provides electrical connection between the SAW element and the mounting structure. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the before the effective filing date of the instant application to provide the electrical connections protected by the insulation layers to suppress thermal stress.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jaydi San Martin whose telephone number is (571)272-2018. The examiner can normally be reached on M-Th 7:45-6:00pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Dedei Hammond can be reached on 571-270-7938. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/J. San Martin/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2837
Prosecution Insights