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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Inoue et al. (US 2018/0159495).
With respect to claim 1, Inoue et al. discloses an acoustic wave device (Fig 12) comprising: a silicon substrate (item 12, paragraph 31); a polysilicon layer provided on the silicon substrate (Fig 12, paragraph 54); a silicon oxide layer (item 102, paragraph 53) directly or indirectly provided on the polysilicon layer (Paragraph 54); a piezoelectric layer (item 14) directly or indirectly provided on the silicon oxide layer (Fig 12); and an interdigital transducer electrode (item 16) provided on the piezoelectric layer (Fig 12); wherein a plane orientation of the silicon substrate is any one of (100), (110), and (111) (Paragraph 31); and where a wave length that is defined by an electrode finger pitch of the interdigital transducer electrode is λ, a thickness of the piezoelectric layer is less than or equal to about 1λ (Paragraph 37).
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.
Claims 2, 3, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inoue et al. in view of Gaudin et al. (US 2019/0372552).
With respect to claim 2, Inoue et al. discloses the acoustic wave device according to claim 1.
Inoue et al. does not disclose a silicon nitride layer provided between the silicon oxide layer and the piezoelectric layer.
Gaudin et al. teaches a piezoelectric acoustic wave device including a silicon nitride layer (item 50) provided between the silicon oxide layer (item 40) and the piezoelectric layer (Fig 3, item 10; paragraphs 67 and 70).
Before the effective filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the silicon nitride layer of Gaudin et al. with the acoustic wave device of Inoue et al. for the benefit of reducing undesired acoustic reflections (Paragraphs 67-=71 of Gaudin et al.).
With respect to claim 3, Inoue et al. discloses the acoustic wave device according to claim 1.
Inoue et al. does not disclose a silicon nitride layer provided between the polysilicon layer and the silicon oxide layer.
Gaudin et al. teaches a piezoelectric acoustic wave device including a silicon nitride layer (item 40) provided between the polysilicon layer (item 30, paragraph 56) and the silicon oxide layer (Fig 3, item 50)
Before the effective filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the silicon nitride layer of Gaudin et al. with the acoustic wave device of Inoue et al. for the benefit of reducing undesired acoustic reflections (Paragraphs 67-=71 of Gaudin et al.).
With respect to claim 22, Inoue et al. discloses the acoustic wave device according to claim 1.
Inoue et al. does not disclose that the piezoelectric layer is a lithium niobate layer.
Gaudin et al. teaches a piezoelectric acoustic wave device in which the piezoelectric layer is a lithium niobate layer (Paragraph 54).
Before the effective filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the lithium niobate of Gaudin et al. with the acoustic wave device of Inoue et al. as it has been held that the selection of a material based on an art-recognized suitability for an intended purpose is obvious (In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416). As lithium niobate is among the most commonly-used piezoelectric materials in acoustic wave devices, including as an alternative to the lithium tantalate of Inoue et al. (Gaudin discloses that either lithium tantalate or lithium niobate, among other materials, may be used as the piezoelectric material), it would have been obvious to use lithium niobate as the piezoelectric material of Inoue et al.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inoue et al. in view of Shibata et al. (US 2020/0161533).
With respect to claim 4, Inoue et al. discloses the acoustic wave device according to Claim 1.
Inoue et al. does not disclose a titanium oxide layer provided between the silicon oxide layer and the piezoelectric layer.
Shibata et al. teaches a piezoelectric device including a titanium oxide layer (item 6, paragraph 20) provided between the silicon oxide layer (item 1b) and the piezoelectric layer (item 3).
Before the effective filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the titanium oxide film of Shibata et al. with the acoustic wave device of Inoue et al. for the benefit of improving adhesion (Paragraph 20 of Shibata et al.).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-21 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art does not disclose or suggest the subject matter of claims 5-21 in combination with their respective parent claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Derek John Rosenau whose telephone number is (571)272-8932. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7 am to 5:30 pm Central Time.
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 at (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 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.
/DEREK J ROSENAU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2837
Prosecution Insights