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The rejection of claim 14 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), set forth in the Office Action mailed 04/08/26, is hereby withdrawn due to amendments made by the Applicant.
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 and 3-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kadota et al. (WO 2020/204045); “Kadota”; reference of record).
Regarding claim 1, Kadota teaches a surface acoustic wave device (figure 2) comprising:
a piezoelectric substrate (11); and
an interdigital transducer electrode (12) embedded in a surface of the piezoelectric substrate (11) to support a high-order mode of a surface acoustic wave (Abstract: “higher-order mode surface acoustic waves”) having a wavelength λ (inherent property of acoustic waves) and a phase velocity greater than 8,000 m/s (Figure 16A and associated description. “As shown in FIG 16A, the phase velocity was about 10,000 to 11,500 m/s”. Also, see phase velocities in figure 18.), the high-order mode including a third-order mode (Description of figure 2: “… the high-order mode ( … tertiary mode)”. Also, see phase velocities in figure 18.) in a frequency range between 3.6 GHz and 4.9 GHz (Abstract and description of figure 2: “high-order mode surface acoustic wave device … in a high frequency band of 3.8 GHz or higher”).
As for claim 3, Kadota teaches wherein the phase velocity is at least 9,000 m/s (Figure 16A and associated description. “As shown in FIG 16A, the phase velocity was about 10,000 to 11,500 m/s”. Also, see phase velocities in figure 18.).
Regarding claim 4, Kadota teaches wherein the interdigital transducer electrode includes an upper surface that is approximately coplanar with the surface of the piezoelectric substrate (Figure 2a, 2d, 2f).
As for claim 5, Kadota teaches wherein the piezoelectric substrate includes LiNbO3 (Description of figure 2: “The piezoelectric substrate 11 is composed of … LiNbO3”) crystal having Euler angles (φ, θ, ψ) (Description of figure 3).
Regarding claim 6, Kadota teaches wherein the angle θ is in a range 100 degrees<θ<150 degrees (See figures 10, 12, 13, 15, 16, 19, 20).
Regarding claim 7, Kadota teaches wherein the interdigital transducer electrode is formed from aluminum, molybdenum, copper, tungsten or platinum (Description of figure 10 teaches the electrode 12 being formed from Al, Mo, Cu, W, Pt, Ti, Mg alloy, Ta, Hf).
As for claim 8, Kadota teaches wherein the interdigital transducer electrode is formed from copper (Description of figure 9: “The blind electrode 12 is composed of a Cu electrode”).
Regarding claim 9, Kadota teaches wherein the copper interdigital transducer electrode has a thickness in a range of 0.16λ to 0.24λ (See description of figures 9 and 13a).
Regarding claims 10 and 11, Kadota teaches a silicon dioxide (SiO2) layer (13) implemented over the piezoelectric substrate (11) and the interdigital transducer electrode (12), the layer (13) configured to provide improved temperature coefficient of frequency property of the surface acoustic wave device (10).
As for claim 12, Kadota teaches wherein the layer (13) has a first surface that is coplanar with the upper surface of the interdigital transducer electrode and the surface of the piezoelectric substrate (“Further, in addition to the configuration of FIG. 2D, the thin film 13 may be formed on the surface of the piezoelectric substrate 11 as shown in FIG. 2B.”).
As for claim 13, Kadota teaches wherein the layer (13) has a second surface parallel to the first surface to define a thickness of the layer (See thickness in figure 2).
Regarding claim 14, Kadota teaches wherein the interdigital transducer electrode (12) is formed from copper and has a thickness in a range of 0.24λ to 0.5λ (See description of figure 9: “The blind electrode 12 is composed of a Cu electrode having a thickness of 0.24λ.”).
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 15, 22-24, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kadota in view of Hiramatsu et al. (US 2021/0126616; “Hiramatsu”; reference of record).
Regarding claim 15, Kadota teaches a surface acoustic wave device (figure 2) comprising:
a piezoelectric substrate (11); and
an interdigital transducer electrode (12) embedded in a surface of the piezoelectric substrate (11) to support a high-order mode of a surface acoustic wave (Abstract: “higher-order mode surface acoustic waves”) having a wavelength λ (inherent property of acoustic waves) and a phase velocity greater than 8,000 m/s (Figure 16A and associated description. “As shown in FIG 16A, the phase velocity was about 10,000 to 11,500 m/s”. Also, see phase velocities in figure 18.), the high-order mode including a third-order mode (Description of figure 2: “… the high-order mode ( … tertiary mode)”. Also, see phase velocities in figure 18.) in a frequency range between 3.6 GHz and 4.9 GHz (Abstract and description of figure 2: “high-order mode surface acoustic wave device … in a high frequency band of 3.8 GHz or higher”).
.
Kadota fails to teach the surface acoustic wave device being part of a radio-frequency filter comprising: an input node for receiving a signal and an output node for providing a filtered signal.
However, it is well-known to those of ordinary skill in the art to utilize a SAW device as a radio-frequency filter comprising an input node and an output node. For example, see figures 10-13 and para. [0102]-[0110] of Hiramatsu.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the SAW device of Kadota as part of a radio-frequency filter comprising an input node and an output node because such a modification would have been implementing a well-known application of a SAW device.
Regarding claims 22 and 23, Kadota teaches a silicon dioxide (SiO2) layer (13) implemented over the piezoelectric substrate (11) and the interdigital transducer electrode (12), the layer (13) configured to provide improved temperature coefficient of frequency property of the surface acoustic wave device (10).
As for claim 24, Kadota teaches wherein the layer (13) has a first surface that is coplanar with the upper surface of the interdigital transducer electrode and the surface of the piezoelectric substrate (“Further, in addition to the configuration of FIG. 2D, the thin film 13 may be formed on the surface of the piezoelectric substrate 11 as shown in FIG. 2B.”).
Regarding claim 26, Kadota teaches a surface acoustic wave device (figure 2) comprising:
a piezoelectric substrate (11); and
an interdigital transducer electrode (12) embedded in a surface of the piezoelectric substrate (11) to support a high-order mode of a surface acoustic wave (Abstract: “higher-order mode surface acoustic waves”) having a wavelength λ (inherent property of acoustic waves) and a phase velocity greater than 8,000 m/s (Figure 16A and associated description. “As shown in FIG 16A, the phase velocity was about 10,000 to 11,500 m/s”. Also, see phase velocities in figure 18.), the high-order mode including a third-order mode (Description of figure 2: “… the high-order mode ( … tertiary mode)”. Also, see phase velocities in figure 18.) in a frequency range between 3.6 GHz and 4.9 GHz (Abstract and description of figure 2: “high-order mode surface acoustic wave device … in a high frequency band of 3.8 GHz or higher”).
Kadota fails to teach the surface acoustic wave device being part of a radio-frequency module comprising: a packaging substrate configured to receive a plurality of components; a radio-frequency circuit implemented on the packaging substrate and configured to support either or both of transmission and reception of signals; and a radio-frequency filter configured to provide filtering for at least some of the signals.
However, it is well-known to those of ordinary skill in the art to utilize a SAW device as part of a radio-frequency module comprising: a packaging substrate configured to receive a plurality of components; a radio-frequency circuit implemented on the packaging substrate and configured to support either or both of transmission and reception of signals; and a radio-frequency filter configured to provide filtering for at least some of the signals. For example, see figures 10-13 and para. [0102]-[0110] of Hiramatsu.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the SAW device of Kadota as part of a radio-frequency module comprising: a packaging substrate configured to receive a plurality of components; a radio-frequency circuit implemented on the packaging substrate and configured to support either or both of transmission and reception of signals; and a radio-frequency filter configured to provide filtering for at least some of the signals because such a modification would have been implementing a well-known application of a SAW device.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/08/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s comments directed to the rejection of claims 1-14 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kadota and the rejection of claims 15, 16, 22-24, and 26 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kadota in view of Hiramatsu, Applicant argues Kadota and Hiramatsu fail to teach the added limitation “the high-order mode including a third-order mode in a frequency range between 3.6 GHz and 4.9 GHz”.
As discussed above in the rejections of claims 1, 15, and 26, Kadota teaches the high-order mode including a third-order mode (Description of figure 2: “… the high-order mode ( … tertiary mode)”. Also, see phase velocities in figure 18.) in a frequency range between 3.6 GHz and 4.9 GHz (Abstract and description of figure 2: “high-order mode surface acoustic wave device … in a high frequency band of 3.8 GHz or higher”).
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 LEVI GANNON whose telephone number is (571)272-7971. The examiner can normally be reached 7:00AM-4:30PM.
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, Menatoallah Youssef can be reached at 571-270-3684. 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.
/LEVI GANNON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2836 July 21, 2026
Prosecution Insights