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
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 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, 7 – 12, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kando et al.
Kando et al discloses, regarding,
Claim 1, An acoustic wave device comprising: a support substrate 2; an inorganic film 3 located over the support substrate 2; a piezoelectric layer 4 located over the inorganic film 3; and an electrode 5 located over the piezoelectric layer 4; wherein a portion of the support substrate 2 includes a hollow portion 2a; the hollow portion overlaps at least a portion of the electrode 5 in a thickness direction of the support substrate 2 (see Fig. 3A); and an inner wall of the inorganic film 3 is located farther from the hollow portion than a location on an inner wall of the support substrate (see Fig. 3A), the location being closest to the piezoelectric layer 4, the inner wall of the support substrate defining the hollow portion (see Fig. 3A).
Claim 7, the inorganic film is made of silicon oxide [0013].
Claim 8, the hollow portion in the support substrate extends through the support substrate (see Fig. 1A).
Claim 9, the electrode includes a plurality of first electrodes, a first busbar electrode, a plurality of second electrodes, and a second busbar electrode, the plurality of first electrodes being connected to the first busbar electrode, the plurality of second electrodes being connected to the second busbar electrode (see Fig. 1B, 71).
Claim 10, the piezoelectric layer has a thickness of less than or equal to 2p, where p is a center-to-center distance between a first electrode and a second electrode that are adjacent to each other among the plurality of first electrodes and the plurality of second electrodes (see Fig. 2).
Claim 11, the piezoelectric layer includes lithium niobate or lithium tantalate [0019].
Claim 12, the acoustic wave device is structured to generate a plate wave (see Fig. 46).
Claim 18, lithium niobate or lithium tantalate included in the piezoelectric layer has Euler angles (p, 0,r) within a range represented by Expression (1), Expression (2), or Expression (3):
PNG
media_image1.png
71
620
media_image1.png
Greyscale
1800) ... (2); and
PNG
media_image2.png
15
582
media_image2.png
Greyscale
$)... (3) (see Figs. 4 – 8, 43 – 45).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 5, 9, 13 – 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kando et al in view of Shimizu (JP 2020-150415).
Kando discloses all of the elements above. However, Kando does not disclose the elements below.
On the other hand, Shimizu discloses, regarding,
Claim 5, a surface of the support substrate over which the inorganic film is located has a surface roughness greater than a surface roughness of the piezoelectric layer (see Figs. 1b, 3b, 3c, 6).
Claim 9, the electrode includes a plurality of first electrodes, a first busbar electrode, a plurality of second electrodes, and a second busbar electrode, the plurality of first electrodes being connected to the first busbar electrode, the plurality of second electrodes being connected to the second busbar electrode (see Fig. 1).
Claim 13, the acoustic wave device is structured to generate a bulk wave in thickness shear mode (see Fig. 6 and specification related to such figure).
Claim 14, the electrode includes at least one pair of electrodes that face each other; and a value of d/p < about 0.5, where d is a thickness of the piezoelectric layer, and p is a center-to-center distance between the electrodes that are adjacent to each other, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claim 15, the value of d/p is less than or equal to about 0.24, since it has been held that discovering the optimum value of result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F. 2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Claim 16, a metallization ratio MR satisfies MR about 1.75(d/p) + 0.075, (since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233), 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 (see Fig. 1), 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 (see Fig. 1).
Claim 17, a single second electrode is located between adjacent ones of the first electrodes (see Fig. 3).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to design the wave device as disclosed by Kando et al and to modify the invention per the limitations disclosed by Shimuzu for the purpose of improving the acoustic impedance of an elastic wave device.
Claim(s) 19, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kando et al and Shimizu as applied to claims 1, 5, 13 – 17 above, and further in view of Birkmeyer et al.
The combined Prior Art discloses, regarding,
Claim 19, A method for manufacturing an acoustic wave device, the method comprising: roughening a first surface of a support substrate (Shimizu, Fig. 1b), the support substrate including the first surface and a second surface; forming an inorganic film over the first surface (Kando et al, Fig. 3A); forming a piezoelectric layer over the inorganic film (Kando, Fig. 3A); forming an electrode over the piezoelectric layer (Kando, Fig. 3A; Shimizu, Fig. 1a); forming a hollow portion in a portion of the support substrate (Kando, Fig. 3A).
However, the combined Prior Art does not disclose the elements below.It is noted that such procedure is well-known in the art. For example, Birkmeyer et al, teaches roughing a substrate (Fig. 14, paragraph 0128) and thinning the piezoelectric layer (Fig. 22, paragraph 0098) and etching the inorganic film exposed in the hollow portion (paragraph 0086).
Birkmeyer et al further discloses, regarding,
Claim 20, the first surface has a surface roughness in terms of Ra of greater than or equal to about 0.5 nm and less than or equal to about 10 nm, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to design the combined wave device as disclosed above and to modify the invention per the limitations disclosed by Birkmeyer et al for the purpose of improving the uniformity of microelectromechanical systems.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2 – 4, 6, 21 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.
Examiner Notes
The Examiner has cited particular paragraphs and/or columns and line numbers and/or figures in the references applied to the claims for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested of the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner. SEE MPEP 2141.02 [R – 07.2015] VI. PRIOR MUST BE CONSIDERED IN ITS ENTIRETY, INCLUDING DISCLOSURES THAT TEACH AWAY FROM THE CLAIMS: A prior art reference must be considered in its entirety, i.e., as a whole, including portions that would lead away from the claimed invention. W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 220 USPQ 303 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert, denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984). See also MPEP ₴ 2123.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Julio C. Gonzalez whose telephone number is (571)272-2024. The examiner can normally be reached M-F.
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, Abdullah Riyami can be reached at 5712703119. 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.
/Julio C. Gonzalez/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2831
February 4, 2026