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.
Claims 1-8. 14-17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Goto et al. (US 2020/0366268).
With respect to claim 1, Goto et al. discloses an acoustic wave device (Fig 1) configured to generate a wave having a wavelength of L, the acoustic wave device comprising: a piezoelectric layer (item 10); a first layer of an interdigital transducer electrode formed with the piezoelectric layer (Paragraph 129), the first layer having a first material with a first mass density, the first material having a normalized mechanical loading exchange rate normalized by a mechanical loading exchange rate of molybdenum (Paragraph 129, wherein the first IDT layer may be either Mo or W), the first layer having a thickness less than 0.04L multiplied by the normalized mechanical loading exchange rate of the first material (Paragraph 134); and a second layer of the interdigital transducer over the first layer, the second layer having a second material with a second mass density smaller than the first mass density (Paragraph 129).
With respect to claim 2, Goto et al. discloses the acoustic wave device of claim 1 wherein the first layer of the interdigital transducer electrode is disposed on the piezoelectric layer (Fig 1).
With respect to claim 3, Goto et al. discloses the acoustic wave device of claim 1 wherein the first material is molybdenum and the thickness of the first layer is in a range between 0.0025L and 0.04L (Paragraph 134).
With respect to claim 4, Goto et al. discloses the acoustic wave device of claim 1 wherein the first material is tungsten and the thickness of the first layer is in a range between 0.001 337L and 0.02L (Paragraph 134).
With respect to claim 5, Goto et al. discloses the acoustic wave device of claim I wherein the first mass density is greater than 8500 kg/m3 (Paragraph 129, wherein the mass densities of W and Mo satisfy the claimed density).
With respect to claim 6, Goto et al. discloses the acoustic wave device of claim I wherein the first mass density is greater than 10000 kg/m3 (Paragraph 129, wherein the mass densities of W and Mo satisfy the claimed density).
With respect to claim 7, Goto et al. discloses the acoustic wave device of claim I further including a functional layer (item 28) below the piezoelectric layer and a support substrate layer below the functional layer (Fig 6).
With respect to claim 8, Goto et al. discloses the acoustic wave device of claim 7 wherein the second material is aluminum (Paragraph 129), the functional layer is a silicon dioxide layer (Paragraph 142), and the support layer (item 26) is a silicon layer (Paragraph 131).
With respect to claim 14, Goto et al. discloses an acoustic wave device (Fig 1) configured to generate a wave having a wavelength of L, the acoustic wave device comprising: a piezoelectric layer (item 10); a first layer of an interdigital transducer electrode (Paragraph 129, Mo or W layer) formed with the piezoelectric layer (Fig 1), the first layer having a first material with a first mechanical loading exchange rate (this is an inherent material property); and a second layer of the interdigital transducer electrode over the first layer (Paragraph 129, the Al layer over the Mo or W layer), the second layer having a second material with a second mechanical loading exchange rate smaller than the first mechanical loading exchange rate (this is an inherent material property), a thickness of the first layer and a thickness of the second layer configured so as to increase electromechanical coupling coefficient of the wave generated by the acoustic wave device relative to the thickness of the first layer being 0. (Paragraphs 129 and 134, wherein the claimed properties are merely the result of inherent material properties).
With respect to claim 15, Goto et al. discloses the acoustic wave device of claim 14 wherein the first layer has a thickness less than 0.04L multiplied by a normalized mechanical loading exchange rate of the first material that is normalized by a mechanical loading exchange rate of molybdenum (Paragraphs 129 and 134).
With respect to claim 16, Goto et al. discloses the acoustic wave device of claim 15 wherein the first material includes molybdenum and the second layer includes aluminum, the thickness of the first layer is in a range between 0.0025L and 0.04L (Paragraphs 129 and 134).
With respect to claim 17, Goto et al. discloses the acoustic wave device of claim 15 wherein the first material includes tungsten and the second material includes aluminum, the thickness of the first layer is in a range between 0.001337L and 0.02L (Paragraphs 129 and 134).
With respect to claim 20, Goto et al. discloses a surface acoustic wave device (Fig 1) configured to generate a wave having a wavelength of L, the acoustic wave device comprising: a multilayer piezoelectric substrate including a lithium tantalate layer (item 10); a first layer of an interdigital transducer electrode (Paragraph 129, the Mo or W layer) formed with the multilayer piezoelectric substrate (Fig 1), the first layer including molybdenum, tungsten, or platinum (Paragraph 129), the first layer having a thickness less than 0.04L (Paragraph 134); and a second layer of the interdigital transducer electrode (Paragraph 129, the Al layer) over the first layer (Fig 1), the second layer having a material with a mass density smaller than a mass density of the first layer (Paragraph 129, wherein the densities of the materials are inherent material properties).
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 9, 10, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goto et al. (US 2020/0366268) in view of Goto et al. (US 2020/0212876).
With respect to claim 9, Goto et al. discloses the acoustic wave device of claim 1.
Goto et al. (‘268) does not disclose a passivation layer over the interdigital transducer electrode.
Goto et al. (‘876) teaches a piezoelectric acoustic wave device including a passivation layer over the interdigital transducer electrode (Figs 11A-11B, paragraph 124).
Before the effective filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the passivation layer of Goto et al. (‘876) with the acoustic wave device of Goto et al. (‘268) for the benefit of providing the desired dispersion and acoustic velocity characteristics (Paragraph 124 oi Goto et al.).
With respect to claim 10, the combination of Goto et al. and Goto et al. discloses the acoustic wave device of claim 9. Goto et al. (‘876) the passivation layer is a silicon nitride layer (Paragraph 124).
With respect to claim 18, Goto et al. discloses the acoustic wave device of claim 14.
Goto et al. (‘268) does not disclose a passivation layer over the interdigital transducer electrode.
Goto et al. (‘876) teaches a piezoelectric acoustic wave device including a passivation layer over the interdigital transducer electrode (Figs 11A-11B, paragraph 124).
Before the effective filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the passivation layer of Goto et al. (‘876) with the acoustic wave device of Goto et al. (‘268) for the benefit of providing the desired dispersion and acoustic velocity characteristics (Paragraph 124 oi Goto et al.).
Claims 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goto et al. in view of Ruile et al. (US 2013/0051588).
With respect to claim 12, Goto et al. discloses the acoustic wave device of claim 1.
Goto et al. does not disclose that the interdigital transducer electrode includes a hammer head shape at an edge region of the interdigital transducer electrode.
Ruile et al. teaches a piezoelectric acoustic wave device in which the interdigital transducer electrode includes a hammer head shape at an edge region of the interdigital transducer electrode (Fig 4).
Before the effective filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the hammer head shape in the IDT edge region of Ruile et al. with the acoustic wave device of Goto et al. for the benefit of providing decreased acoustic velocity in the edge regions (Paragraph 175 of Ruile et al.).
With respect to claim 13, Goto et al. discloses the acoustic wave device of claim 1.
Goto et al. does not disclose that the interdigital transducer electrode includes a thicker interdigital transducer electrode portion at an edge region of the interdigital transducer electrode that has a thickness greater than other portions of the interdigital transducer electrode.
Ruile et al. teaches a piezoelectric acoustic wave device in which the interdigital transducer electrode includes a thicker interdigital transducer electrode portion at an edge region of the interdigital transducer electrode that has a thickness greater than other portions of the interdigital transducer electrode (Fig 8c).
Before the effective filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the thicker IDT portions in the edge regions of Ruile et al. with the acoustic wave device of Goto et al. for the benefit of providing the desired acoustic velocity profile (Paragraph 181 of Ruile et al/).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goto et al. in view of Goto et al. and Ruile et al.
With respect to claim 19, the combination of Goto et al. and Goto et al. discloses the acoustic wave device of claim 18. Goto et al. (‘876) the passivation layer is a silicon nitride layer (Paragraph 124).
Goto et al. does not disclose that the interdigital transducer electrode includes a hammer head shape at an edge region of the interdigital transducer electrode.
Ruile et al. teaches a piezoelectric acoustic wave device in which the interdigital transducer electrode includes a hammer head shape at an edge region of the interdigital transducer electrode (Fig 4).
Before the effective filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the hammer head shape in the IDT edge region of Ruile et al. with the acoustic wave device of Goto et al. for the benefit of providing decreased acoustic velocity in the edge regions (Paragraph 175 of Ruile et al.).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 11 is 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 doe not disclose or suggest “wherein the passivation layer has a first region that is positioned at least partially over an edge region and a gap region of the interdigital transducer electrode, and a second region that is positioned over a center region of the interdigital transducer electrode and has a thickness greater than a thickness of the first region” in combination with the remaining elements of claim 11.
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