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 , 3- 8 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Daimon (PG Pub 20210265972) . Considering claim 1, Daimon (Figure 1) teaches an acoustic wave device comprising: a high acoustic velocity structure (4 + paragraph 0031); a low acoustic velocity layer (5 + paragraph 0030) on the high acoustic velocity structure; a piezoelectric layer (6 + paragraph 0030) directly or indirectly on the low acoustic velocity layer; an electrode (7 + paragraph 0029) on the piezoelectric layer wherein the low acoustic velocity layer is made of a dielectric material having a lower Young’s modulus than silicon oxide or includes the dielectric material as a main component ( 5 + paragraph 0030 + glass). Considering claim 3, Daimon (Figure 1) teaches a support substrate (3 + paragraph 0028); wherein the high acoustic velocity (4 + paragraph 0031) structure is provided on the support substrate. Considering claim 4, Daimon (Figure 1) teaches wherein the high acoustic velocity structure (4) includes a support substrate made of a high acoustic velocity material (3 + paragraphs 0028-0031). Considering claim 5, Daimon (Figure 1) teaches wherein the support substrate is a silicon substrate (3 + paragraph 0032). Considering claim 6, Daimon (Figure 1) teaches wherein the piezoelectric layer is made of lithium tantalate (6 + paragraph 002*) or lithium niobate. Considering claim 7, Daimon (Figure 1) teaches wherein the electrode includes first electrode fingers (16 + paragraph 0035) and second electrode fingers (17 + paragraph 0035) that are interdigitated with each other (paragraph 0035). Considering claim 8, Daimon (Figure 1) teaches wherein further comprising reflectors on both sides of the electrode (8a + 8b + paragraph 0029). Considering claim 10, Daimon (Figure 1) teaches wherein the high acoustic velocity structure includes at least one of aluminum oxide, silicon carbide, silicon nitride, silicon oxynitride, silicon, sapphire, lithium tantalate, lithium niobate, crystal, alumina, zirconia, cordierite, mullite, steatite, forsterite, magnesia, a diamond like carbon film (4 + paragraph 0031) or diamond as a main component. 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. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness . 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) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Daimon (PG Pub 20210265972) and in view of Plesski (PG Pub 20200373902). Considering claim 2, Daimon teaches the dielectric material as described above. However, Daimon does not teach wherein the dielectric material is one of aluminum titanate, boron nitride, carbon containing silicon oxide and nitrogen containing silicon carbide. Plesski teaches wherein the dielectric material is one of aluminum titanate, boron nitride, carbon containing silicon oxide (paragraph 0040) and nitrogen containing silicon carbide. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the dielectric material is one of aluminum titanate, boron nitride, carbon containing silicon oxide and nitrogen containing silicon carbide into Daimon’s device for the benefit of minimizing reflections between other materials in the device. Claim(s) 9 and 1 2 -1 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Daimon (PG Pub 20210265972) and in view of Konoma (PG Pub 20150115771). Considering claim 9, Daimon teaches the electrode as described above. However, Daimon does not teach wherein the electrode includes a multilayer body including at least two metal layers. Konoma (Figure 1) teaches wherein the electrode includes a multilayer body including at least two metal layers (11a + 11b + paragraph 0055). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the electrode includes a multilayer body including at least two metal layers into Daimon’s device for the benefit of having a multilayer structure which has excellent electrical power handling capability. Considering claim 12, Daimon in view of Konoma discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the piezoelectric layer is a 35 degrees Y-cut X-propagating LiTaO3 film with a thickness of about 300 nm. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include piezoelectric layer is a 35 degrees Y-cut X-propagating LiTaO3 film with a thickness of about 300 nm, since it has been held that the provision of adjustability, where needed, involves only routine skill in the art. Considering claim 13, Konoma (Figure 1) teaches wherein the electrode includes a multilayer body including a first Ti film (11a + paragraph 0055), an AlCu (11b + paragraph 0055) on the first Ti film and a second Ti film (11c + paragraph 0055) on the AlCu . Considering claim 14, Konoma (Figure 1) teaches wherein the first Ti film has a thickness of about 12 nm (11a + paragraph 0055); the A l Cu film has a thickness of about 100 nm (11b + paragraph 0055) and the second Ti film has a thickness of about 4 nm (11c + paragraph 0055). Considering claim 15, Daimon teaches wherein the low acoustic velocity layer having a thickness of about 400 nm (paragraph 0050) except for the low acoustic velocity layer is made of boron nitride. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the low acoustic velocity layer is made of boron nitride, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. Considering claim 16, Daimon (Figure 1) teaches wherein the high acoustic velocity structure is made of silicon nitride (paragraph 0051) having a thickness of about 300 nm (paragraph 0051). Considering claim 17, Daimon in view of Konoma discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the piezoelectric layer is a 40 degree Y-cut X-propagating LiTaO3 film with a thickness of about 400 nm. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include wherein the piezoelectric layer is a 40 degree Y-cut X-propagating LiTaO3 film with a thickness of about 400 nm, since it has been held that the provision of adjustability, where needed, involves only routine skill in the art. Considering claim 18, Daimon in view of Konoma discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the piezoelectric layer is a 30 degree Y-cut X-propagating LiNbO3 film with a thickness of about 400 nm. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include wherein the piezoelectric layer is a 30 degree Y-cut X-propagating LiNbO3 film with a thickness of about 400 nm, since it has been held that the provision of adjustability, where needed, involves only routine skill in the art. Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Daimon (PG Pub 20210265972) and in view of Omura (PG Pub 20210297060). Considering claim 11, Daimon teaches wherein a third Euler angle of about 73 degrees (paragraph 0032). However, Daimon does not teach wherein the silicon substrate is made of Si with a (111) plane orientation. Omura (Figure 2) teaches wherein the silicon substrate is made of Si with a (111) plane orientation (2 + paragraph 0027). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the silicon substrate is made of Si with a (111) plane orientation into Daimon’s device for the benefit of properly propagation acoustic waves. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT BRYAN P GORDON whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-5394 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-F 8 a.m. - 4:30 p.m. . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Dedei K Hammond can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 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. /BRYAN P GORDON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2837