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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the one or more insulators". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kub et al. (US 6593212) in view of Wright (US 6445265).
Claims 14-19 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wright in view of Kub et al.
With respect to claim 1, Kub et al. discloses a composite substrate (Figs 1(a)-1(d) and Figs 11(a)-11(b)), comprising: a final substrate (item 126 and 1126); a piezoelectric material (item 114, and 1114), the piezoelectric material comprising an epitaxial layer; and wherein the piezoelectric material does not comprise a seed layer (column 8, lines 8-24 and column 10, lines 24-49, wherein the piezoelectric layers 114/1114 are grown epitaxially from growth substrates (seed layers) 112/1112).
Kub et al. does not disclose explicitly that the piezoelectric material is directly molecularly bonded to the final substrate at a first interface.
Wright teaches a piezoelectric composite substrate in which the piezoelectric material is directly molecularly bonded to the final substrate at a first interface (Abstract).
Before the effective filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the direct molecular bonding of Wright with the composite substrate of Kub et al. for the benefit of improving energy confinement and improving performance (Abstract of Wright).
With respect to claim 2, the combination of Kub et al. and Wright discloses the composite substrate of claim 1. Wright discloses that he epitaxial layer (piezoelectric layer) has a thickness within a range from about 0.15 µm to about 20 µm (column 3, lines 28-36).
With respect to claim 3, the combination of Kub et al. and Wright discloses the composite substrate of claim 1. Kub et al. discloses that the epitaxial layer is doped (column 7, lines 45-56)
With respect to claim 4, the combination of Kub et al. and Wright discloses the composite substrate of claim 1. Kub et al. discloses that the piezoelectric material comprises quartz or a compound with the formula LiXO3, in which X is selected from among niobium and/or tantalum (column 7, lines 45-56).
With respect to claim 5, Kub et al. discloses a composite substrate (Figs 1(a)-1(d) and Figs 11(a)-11(b)), comprising: a final substrate (item 126 and 1126); a piezoelectric material (item 114 and 1114), the piezoelectric material comprising an epitaxial layer; and a seed layer on which the piezoelectric material has been epitaxially grown, the seed layer disposed on a side of the epitaxial layer opposite the final substrate (column 8, lines 8-24 and column 10, lines 24-49, wherein the piezoelectric layers 114/1114 are grown epitaxially from growth substrates (seed layers) 112/1112).
With respect to claim 6, the combination of Kub et al. and Wright discloses the composite substrate of claim 5. Kub et al. discloses that the epitaxial layer has substantially the same mesh parameter as the seed layer (column 4, line 66 through column 5, line 22, wherein the mesh parameters of the disclosed materials are presumed to be inherent, and having substantially similar mesh parameters is necessary to promote the disclosed growth)
With respect to claim 7, the combination of Kub et al. and Wright discloses the composite substrate of claim 5. Kub et al. discloses that the epitaxial layer has a different crystalline quality than the seed layer (column 4, line 66 through column 5, line 22, wherein the seed layer of piezoelectric layer are different materials and inherently have different crystalline qualities).
With respect to claim 8, the combination of Kub et al. and Wright discloses the composite substrate of claim 5. Kub et al. is silent with respect to the thickness of the seed layer. However, it has been held that a mere change in relative dimensions is obvious (Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc. 220 USPQ 777). Therefore, at the time of effective filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form the seed layer to any suitable thickness.
With respect to claim 9, the combination of Kub et al. and Wright discloses the composite substrate of claim 5. Wright discloses that he epitaxial layer (piezoelectric layer) has a thickness within a range from about 0.15 µm to about 20 µm (column 3, lines 28-36).
With respect to claim 10, the combination of Kub et al. and Wright discloses the composite substrate of claim 5. Kub et al. discloses that the epitaxial layer is doped (column 7, lines 45-56)
With respect to claim 11, the combination of Kub et al. and Wright discloses the composite substrate of claim 5. Kub et al. discloses that the piezoelectric material comprises quartz or a compound with the formula LiXO3, in which X is selected from among niobium and/or tantalum (column 7, lines 45-56)
With respect to claim 12, the combination of Kub et al. and Wright discloses the composite substrate of claim 5. Kub et al. discloses a receiving substrate (item 110 and 1110) bonded to the seed layer on a side thereof opposite the epitaxial layer (Figs 1(a)-1(d) and Figs 11(a)-11(b)).
With respect to claim 14, Wright discloses an acoustic wave device (Fig 5c), comprising: a substrate (item 46); and a monocrystalline piezoelectric layer (item 16, column 3, lines 19-27) directly molecularly bonded to the substrate (Abstract); and at least one electrode (item 26) on a surface of the piezoelectric layer opposite the substrate (Fig 5c).
Wright does not disclose that the piezoelectric layer is epitaxially grown.
Kub et al. teaches a piezoelectric composite substrate in which the piezoelectric layer is epitaxially grown (column 8, lines 8-24 and column 10, lines 24-49, wherein the piezoelectric layers 114/1114 are grown epitaxially from growth substrates (seed layers) 112/1112).
Before the effective filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine epitaxial growth of Kub et al. with the composite substrate of Wright for the benefit of providing optimal growth conditions for the piezoelectric layer (column 5, lines 9-22 of Kub et al.).
With respect to claim 15, the combination of Wright and Kub et al. discloses the acoustic wave device of claim 14. Kub et al. discloses that the piezoelectric layer has a first portion located at the interface with the substrate, and a second portion extending from the first portion, and wherein a characteristic of the second portion is different from a characteristic of the first portion (column 7, lines 45-56, wherein the doping of the piezoelectric layer inherently results in differing characteristics at different portions of the piezoelectric layer).
With respect to claim 16, the combination of Wright and Kub et al. discloses the acoustic wave device of claim 15. Kub et al. discloses that the characteristic is crystalline quality or composition (column 7, lines 45-56, wherein the doping of the piezoelectric layer inherently results in differing crystalline qualities and/or compositions at different portions of the piezoelectric layer).
With respect to claim 17, the combination of Wright and Kub et al. discloses the acoustic wave device of claim 16. Kub et al. discloses that the first portion comprises a seed layer, and the second portion comprises piezoelectric material epitaxially grown on the seed layer (column 7, lines 45-56, column 8, lines 8-24, and column 10, lines 24-49).
With respect to claim 18, the combination of Wright and Kub et al. discloses the acoustic wave device of claim 14. Kub et al. discloses that the substrate comprises a receiving substrate (item 110 and 1110), and wherein the epitaxially grown monocrystalline piezoelectric layer bonded to the substrate comprises a seed layer disposed at the interface between the epitaxially grown monocrystalline piezoelectric layer and the receiving substrate (column 8, lines 8-24 and column 10, lines 24-49).
With respect to claim 19, the combination of Wright and Kub et al. discloses the acoustic wave device of claim 14. Kub et al. discloses that the substrate comprises a final substrate (item 126 and 1126), and wherein the epitaxially grown monocrystalline piezoelectric layer bonded to the substrate does not comprise a seed layer (Figs 1 and 11)
With respect to claim 21, the combination of Wright and Kub et al. discloses the acoustic wave device of claim 14. Wright discloses that the acoustic wave device is a surface acoustic wave device further comprising at least one additional electrode on the surface of the piezoelectric layer opposite the substrate (Fig 5c).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kub et al. in view of Wright and Bhattacharjee (US 2016/0182009).
With respect to claim 13, the combination of Kub et al. and Wright discloses the composite substrate of claim 5.
Kub et al. does not disclose that the one or more insulators include one or more mirrors and/or cavities to prevent propagation of acoustic waves in the receiving substrate.
Bhattacharjee teaches a piezoelectric composite substrate in which the one or more insulators include one or more mirrors and/or cavities to prevent propagation of acoustic waves in the receiving substrate (Paragraph 68).
Before the effective filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the Bragg mirror structure of Bhattacharjee with eh composite substrate of Kub et al. for the benefit of improving confinement of acoustic energy (Paragraph 4 of Bhattacharjee).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eggs et al. (US 2012/0056507) in view of Wright and Kub et al.
With respect to claim 20, Eggs et al. discloses an acoustic wave device (Fig 3), wherein the acoustic wave device is a bulk acoustic wave device (Paragraph 30) further comprising at least one electrode (items EL1 and EL2) at or proximate the interface between the piezoelectric layer (item PL) and the substrate (item S)
Eggs et al. does not disclose the acoustic wave device of claim 14.
The combination of Wright and Kub et al. teaches the acoustic wave device of claim 14.
Before the effective filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the composite substrate of Wright as modified by Kub et al. with the acoustic wave device of Eggs et al. for the benefit of providing optimal growth conditions for the piezoelectric layer (column 5, lines 9-22 of Kub et al.).
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