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 § 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) 1, 2, 4, 5, 10 – 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kishimoto (WO 2016/068003) in view of Ordinary Skill in Art . Kishimoto discloses, regarding , Claim 1 , An acoustic wave device comprising: a support substrate 40 ; a dielectric film 30 on the support substrate (see fig. 1) ; a piezoelectric layer 20 on the dielectric film; and an excitation electrode 211 on the piezoelectric layer 20 ; wherein the piezoelectric layer includes a first main surface and a second main surface (see Fig. 2) , the first main surface and the second main surface being opposed to each other, and the second main surface is positioned on a side including the dielectric film 30 ; a cavity portion 300 is provided in the dielectric film 30 and the cavity portion overlaps with at least a portion of the excitation electrode in plan view (see Fig. 5) ; the dielectric film includes a side wall surface facing the cavity portion (see fig. 6) , the side wall surface includes an inclined portion inclined so that a width of the cavity portion is decreased with increasing distance away from the piezoelectric layer (see fig. 6) , and the inclined portion includes at least an end portion, the end portion being on a side including the piezoelectric layer 20 , in the side wall surface (see fig. 6). The problem to be solve appears to use a specific angle of inclination for the wall surface which is when an angle between the inclined portion of the side wall surface and the second main surface of the piezoelectric layer is defined as an inclination angle, the inclination angle is from about 40 to about 800 inclusive. The prior art discloses the claimed invention except for inclination angle range. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to come with those optimum ranges that the applicant discloses, 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. Kishimoto , further discloses, regarding the below claims, Claim 2 , side wall surface includes a portion in which inclination of the side wall surface decreasing with increasing proximity to the piezoelectric layer (see fig. 6) . Claim 4 , side wall surface includes a portion in which the inclination of the side wall surface continuously changes towards the piezoelectric layer (see fig. 6) . Claim 5 , the side wall surface includes a plurality of side wall portions, and inclination of at least one of the plurality of side wall portions changes at least once (see fig. 8) . Claim 10 , the cavity portion has a rectangular or substantially rectangular shape in plan view (see fig. 10) . Claim 11 , the excitation electrode is an IDT electrode including a plurality of electrode fingers (see fig. 7) . Claim 12 , the acoustic wave device is structured to generate a plate wave (since the device is an acoustic wave device using a reflection layer; see fig. 7b ) . Claim 13 , the acoustic wave device is structured to generate a bulk wave in a thickness sliding mode (see fig. 14 spec description) . Claim 14 , when a thickness of the piezoelectric layer is d and a distance between centers of the electrode fingers adjacent to each other is p, d/p is about 0.5 or lower 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 , d/p is about 0.24 or lower 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 16 , a region in which the electrode fingers adjacent to each other overlap with each other when viewed in a direction in which the electrode fingers are opposed to each other is an excitation region, and when a metallization ratio of the plurality of electrode fingers with respect to the excitation region is MR, MR < 1.75(d/p)+0.075 is satisfied 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 17 , the piezoelectric layer is a lithium tantalate layer or a lithium niobate layer 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. In re Leshin , 125 USPQ 416. Claim 18 , the piezoelectric layer is a lithium tantalate layer or a lithium niobate layer; and Euler angles using the Expression (1), Expression (2), Expression (3) 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 19 , the excitation electrode includes an upper electrode on the first main surface of the piezoelectric layer and a lower electrode on the second main surface, and the upper electrode and the lower electrode are opposed to each other with the piezoelectric layer interposed therebetween (see figs. 4, 15) . Claim 20 , the support substrate is made of silicon 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. In re Leshin , 125 USPQ 416. Claim 21 , the dielectric film includes at least one of silicon oxide, silicon nitride, or aluminum oxide 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. In re Leshin , 125 USPQ 416. . Claim 22 , A method for manufacturing the acoustic wave device the method comprising: forming a sacrificial layer on the piezoelectric layer; patterning the sacrificial layer; forming the dielectric film on the piezoelectric layer so that the dielectric film covers the sacrificial layer; bonding the support substrate to the dielectric film; forming the excitation electrode on the piezoelectric layer; and removing the sacrificial layer; where in the sacrificial layer includes a bottom surface, the bottom surface being positioned on a side including the piezoelectric layer, and a side surface (see spec description pertaining to Figs 4A-D) ; and when an angle between the bottom surface and the side surface of the sacrificial layer is defined as an angle beta the angle beta is from about 40 to about 800 inclusive 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 devices as disclosed by Kishimoto and to modify the invention per the optimization of the inclination angle s , since it would appear to be well within someone skilled in the art to be able to come out with such optimum angle s for the inclination walls of the side surfaces . Allowable Subject Matter Claims 3, 6 – 9 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. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT Julio C. Gonzalez whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-2024 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Abdullah Riyami can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 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. FILLIN "Examiner Stamp" \* MERGEFORMAT /Julio C. Gonzalez/ Primary Examiner Art Unit 2831 March 9, 2026