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 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hou et al. (US20200028482, hereinafter Hou).
Regarding claims 2-3, Hou discloses an acoustic wave device comprising: a support including a support substrate (110); a piezoelectric layer (102) on the support; and an excitation electrode (104, 106) on the piezoelectric layer; wherein a hollow portion (114) is provided in the support and overlaps with at least a portion of the excitation electrode in plan view; the support includes a cavity (114) opening on a side of the piezoelectric layer, and an inner wall surface connected to the cavity and facing the hollow portion; and a functional film (108) is provided on at least a portion of the inner wall surface. Hou discloses the functional layer comprising diamond, and serving as a heat dissipation layer (paragraph 26). Therefore, inherently, the emissivity of the functional film is higher than emissivity of the inner wall surface of the support in order to perform the heat dissipation function. Regarding claim 3, Hou discloses the layer comprising diamond, which is considered a diamond-like material.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/8/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s argument regarding the features of claims 2 and 3, “emissivity of the functional film is higher than the emissivity of the inner wall surface of the support” and “the functional film including diamond-like carbon” are considered to be anticipated by the reference. In Hou, the inner wall surface facing the hollow portion is made of polysilicon and the functional layer is made of diamond. The emissivity of a material is an inherent characteristic of the material itself. Considering the functional layer is made of diamond; in order to perform the heat dissipation function, the diamond layer must have an emissivity higher than the polysilicon layer. The rejection is considered proper and therefore, maintained.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1 and 4-20 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The references of the Prior Art fail to disclose, either alone or in combination, the structural arrangement of the acoustic wave device comprising a hollow portion provided in the support and a cavity opening wherein the inner wall surface includes a bottom surface and the functional film is provided on at least a portion of the bottom surface, in combination with the recited elements of the independent claim.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jaydi San Martin whose telephone number is (571)272-2018. The examiner can normally be reached on M-Th 7:45-6:00pm.
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 on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/J. San Martin/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2837
Prosecution Insights