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 1-7 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Okamoto et al. (US 2013/0026881).
With respect to claim 1, Okamoto 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 6); a first layer of an interdigital transducer electrode (item 10) formed with the piezoelectric layer (Fig 1), the first layer having a material with a first mass density (Paragraph 185), the first mass density being greater than 5000 kg/m3 (Paragraph 185), the first layer having a thickness less than 0.04L (Paragraph 185); and a second layer of the interdigital transducer electrode (item 11) over the first layer (Fig 1), the second layer having a material with a second mass density smaller than the first mass density (Paragraph 185, wherein the density of Al is less than that of W).
With respect to claim 2, Okamoto 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, Okamoto et al. discloses the acoustic wave device of claim 1, wherein the first mass density is greater than 8500 kg/m3 (Paragraph 185, wherein this condition is satisfied by W).
With respect to claim 4, Okamoto et al. discloses the acoustic wave device of claim 1, wherein the first mass density is greater than 10000 kg/m3 (Paragraph 185, wherein this condition is satisfied by W).
With respect to claim 5, Okamoto et al. discloses the acoustic wave device of claim 1, wherein the first mass density is greater than 15000 kg/m3 (Paragraph 185, wherein this condition is satisfied by W).
With respect to claim 6, Okamoto et al. discloses the acoustic wave device of claim 5 wherein the thickness of the first layer is less than 0.008L (Paragraph 185).
With respect to claim 7, Okamoto et al. discloses the acoustic wave device of claim 1 wherein the second material is aluminum and the first mass density is greater than 10000 kg/m3, the thickness of the first layer is in a range between 0.0025L and 0.03L (Paragraph 185).
With respect to claim 18, Okamoto 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 6); a first layer of an interdigital transducer electrode (item 10) formed with the piezoelectric layer (Fig 1), the first layer having a material with a first mass density of p, the first mass density of p being greater than 5000 kg/mi3 (Paragraph 185), the first layer having a thickness of t1 in a range between 0.0025L(10220/p) and 0.04L(10220/p) (Paragraph 185); and a second layer of the interdigital transducer electrode (item 11) over the first layer (Fig 1), the second layer having a material with a second mass density smaller than the first mass density (Paragraph 185, wherein the density of Al is less than that of W).
With respect to claim 19, Okamoto et al. discloses the acoustic wave device of claim 18 wherein the first mass density of p is greater than 8500 kg/m3 (Paragraph 185, wherein this condition is satisfied by W).
With respect to claim 20, Okamoto et al. discloses the acoustic wave device of claim 19, wherein the first mass density of p is greater than 10000 kg/m3 (Paragraph 185, wherein this condition is satisfied by W) and the thickness of t1 is less than 0.03L(10220/p) (Paragraph 185).
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 8, 9, 14, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okamoto et al. in view of Goto et al. (US 2020/0366268).
With respect to claim 8, Okamoto et al. discloses the acoustic wave device of claim 1.
Okamoto et al. does not disclose a functional layer below the piezoelectric layer and a support substrate layer below the functional layer.
Goto et al. teaches a piezoelectric acoustic wave device including a functional layer (item 28) below the piezoelectric layer and a support substrate layer (item 26) below the functional layer (Fig 6).
Before the effective filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the functional and support layers of Goto et al. with the acoustic wave device of Okamoto et al. for the benefit of providing improved reflection coefficient (Paragraph 142 of Goto et al.).
With respect to claim 9, the combination of Okamoto et al. and Goto discloses the acoustic wave device of claim 8. Goto et al. discloses the functional layer is a silicon dioxide layer and the support layer is a silicon layer (Paragraphs 131 and 142).
With respect to claim 14, Okamoto 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 6); a first layer of an interdigital transducer electrode structure (item 10) formed with the piezoelectric layer (Fig 1), the first layer having a material with a mass density greater than 8500 kg/m3 (Paragraph 185), the first layer having a thickness less than 0.03L (Paragraph 185);a second layer of the interdigital transducer structure (item 11) over the first layer (Fig 1), the second layer being an aluminum layer (Paragraph 185).
Okamoto et al. does not disclose a support substrate layer below the piezoelectric layer.
Goto et al. teaches a piezoelectric acoustic wave device including a support substrate layer (item 26) below the piezoelectric layer (Fig 6).
Before the effective filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the functional and support layers of Goto et al. with the acoustic wave device of Okamoto et al. for the benefit of providing improved reflection coefficient (Paragraph 142 of Goto et al.).
With respect to claim 15, the combination of Okamoto et al. and Goto et al. discloses the acoustic wave device of claim 14. Okamoto et al. discloses that the first mass density is greater than 10000 kg/m3 (Paragraph 185).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okamoto et al. in view of Goto et al. (US 2020/0212876).
With respect to claim 10, Okamoto et al. discloses the acoustic wave device of claim 1.
Okamoto et al. does not disclose a passivation layer over the interdigital transducer electrode.
Goto et al. teaches a piezoelectric acoustic resonator including a passivation layer over the interdigital transducer electrode (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. with the acoustic wave device of Okamoto et al. for the benefit of providing the desired dispersion and acoustic velocity characteristics (Paragraph 124 of Goto et al.).
Claims 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okamoto er al. in view of Ruile et al. (US 2013/0051588).
With respect to claim 12, Okamoto et al. discloses the acoustic wave device of claim 1.
Okamoto 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 at the edge regions of the IDTs of Ruile et al. with the acoustic wave device of Okamoto et al. for the benefit of providing reduced acoustic velocity in the edge regions (Paragraph 175 of Ruile et al.).
With respect to claim 13, Okamoto et al. discloses the acoustic wave device of claim 1.
Okamoto 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 increased thickness regions in the edge regions of the IDT of Ruile et al. with the acoustic wave device of Okamoto et al. for the benefit of providing the desire velocity profile (Paragraph 181 of Ruile et al.).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okamoto et al. in view of Goto et al. (US 2020/0366268) and Ruile et al.
With respect to claim 16, the combination of Okamoto et al. and Goto et al. discloses the acoustic wave device of claim 14.
Okamoto et al. does not disclose a passivation layer over the interdigital transducer electrode, the passivation layer is a silicon nitride layer.
Goto et al. teaches a piezoelectric acoustic resonator including a passivation layer over the interdigital transducer electrode, the passivation layer is a silicon nitride layer (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. with the acoustic wave device of Okamoto et al. for the benefit of providing the desired dispersion and acoustic velocity characteristics (Paragraph 124 of Goto et al.).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11 and 17 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 “wherein the passivation layer has a first region that is positioned 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 clam 11.
The prior art does not disclose or suggest “wherein the passivation layer has a first region that is positioned 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, and the interdigital transducer electrode includes a hammer head shape at an edge region of the interdigital transducer electrode” in combination with the remaining elements of claim 17.
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