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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 5, filed on July 9, 2026, with respect to a typographical error in claim 8 have been fully considered and are persuasive in view of the claim amendments. The objection to claim 8 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 5-8, filed on July 9, 2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made in view of U.S. Patent No. 10,096,763 B2 to Iwamoto.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-4 and 7-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2009/098840 A1 to Shimizu et al. in view of U.S. Patent No. 10,096,763 B2 to Iwamoto.
Shimizu et al. clearly teaches an Elastic Boundary Device, comprising:
a piezoelectric layer (2) including lithium tantalate (LiTaO3; see page 3) or lithium niobate (LiNbO3; see page 2);
a dielectric substance (3) on the piezoelectric layer (see Figures 1, 3, and 4); and
an IDT electrode (4) on the dielectric substance (see Figures 1, 3, and 4);
wherein the dielectric substance being one dielectric substance selected from the group consisting of TiO2, TaO2, MnO2, GeO2, RuO2, OsO2, IrO2, SnO2, and PbO2.
However, it fails to disclose an electrode portion of the IDT electrode including an epitaxial film.
Iwamoto discloses an Elastic Wave Device and Method for Manufacturing Same, comprising:
an IDT electrode (14) portion of the IDT electrode including an epitaxial film (see column 7, lines 5-19).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to epitaxially grow an IDT electrode film as disclosed by Iwamoto on the electrode of the Elastic Boundary Device disclosed by Shimizu et al., for the purpose of providing a layer of “oriented film has high stress-induced migration resistance” (see column 7, lines 21 and 22).
With regards to claim 2, Shimizu et al. discloses:
the dielectric substance being one dielectric substance selected from the group consisting of TiO2, TaO2, MnO2, and GeO2.
With regards to claim 3, Shimizu et al. discloses:
the dielectric substance being TiO2.
With regards to claim 4, Shimizu et al. discloses:
the electrode portion of the IDT electrode is in contact with the dielectric substance (see Figures 1, 3, and 4).
With regards to claim 7, Shimizu et al. discloses:
an intermediate layer on a side opposite to a side on which the dielectric substance is located (see Figures 1, 3, and 4); and
a support substrate on a side of the intermediate layer which is opposite to a side of the intermediate layer on which the piezoelectric layer is located (see Figures 1, 3, and 4);
wherein the intermediate layer includes a low-acoustic velocity film including a low-acoustic velocity material through which a bulk wave propagates at an acoustic velocity lower than an acoustic velocity at which a bulk wave propagates through the piezoelectric layer.
With regards to claim 8, Shimizu et al. discloses:
the intermediate layer further includes a high-acoustic velocity film interposed between the low-acoustic velocity film and the support substrate, the high-acoustic velocity film being a high-acoustic velocity material through which a bulk wave propagates at an acoustic velocity higher than an acoustic velocity at which an acoustic wave propagates through the piezoelectric layer.
With regards to claim 9, Shimizu et al. discloses:
the support substrate includes a high-acoustic velocity material through which a bulk wave propagates at an acoustic velocity higher than an acoustic velocity at which an acoustic wave propagates through the piezoelectric layer.
With regards to claim 10, Shimizu et al. discloses:
the piezoelectric layer being a piezoelectric substrate including lithium tantalate (LiTaO3; see page 3) or lithium niobate (LiNbO3; see page 2).
With regards to claim 11, Shimizu et al. discloses:
the support substate includes silicon.
With regards to claim 12, Shimizu et al. discloses:
the support substrate including a semiconductor material or a piezoelectric material.
With regards to claim 13, Shimizu et al. discloses:
the high-acoustic velocity film includes aluminum oxide, silicon carbide, silicon nitride, silicon oxynitride, silicon, sapphire, lithium tantalate, lithium niobate, quartz, alumina, zirconia, cordierite, mullite, steatite, forsterite, magnesia, a diamond- like carbon film or diamond.
With regards to claim 14, Shimizu et al. discloses:
the low-acoustic velocity film includes silicon oxide, glass, silicon oxynitride, tantalum oxide, or a compound including fluorine, carbon, boron, hydrogen, or a silanol group and silicon oxide.
With regards to claim 15, Shimizu et al. discloses:
the piezoelectric layer includes 50° Y-cut X-propagation LiTaO3 (see Figure 1; see page 2).
With regards to claim 16, Shimizu et al. discloses:
reflectors on both sides of the IDT electrode (see Figures 1, 3, and 4).
With regards to claim 17, Shimizu et al. discloses:
the acoustic wave device is a one-port acoustic wave resonator (see Figures 1, 3, and 4).
With regards to claim 18, Shimizu et al. discloses:
the high-acoustic velocity film includes a silicon nitride film (see page 3).
With regards to claim 19, Shimizu et al. discloses:
the low-acoustic velocity film includes silicon oxide (see page 3).
With regards to claim 20, Shimizu et al. discloses:
an Al film (see page 3) or an AlCu film (see page 3) on the electrode portion.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PEDRO J CUEVAS whose telephone number is (571)272-2021. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 AM - 6:00 PM.
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, Tulsidas Patel can be reached at 571-272-2098. 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.
/PEDRO J CUEVAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2896 April 3, 2026
Prosecution Insights