CTNF 18/220,854 CTNF 83414 DETAILED ACTION Notice of AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. Foreign Priority 02-26 AIA Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 31 July 2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. Specification 06-11 AIA The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. 06-31 AIA The specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (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. 07-15 AIA Claim s 1-2, 9-11 and 15 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1 ) as being anticipated by Goto et al. (U. S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 20190074819) . Regarding independent claim 1 , Goto et al. (e. g. see FIG. 15) discloses an acoustic wave device (25) comprising: a crystal substrate (12); a silicon carbide layer (26) on the crystal substrate (12); a piezoelectric layer (14) on the silicon carbide layer (26); and an interdigital transducer (IDT) electrode (16) on the piezoelectric layer and including a plurality of electrode fingers. Regarding claim 2 , Goto et al. (e. g. see FIG. 15) discloses the piezoelectric layer (11) is a lithium tantalate layer. Regarding claim 9 , Goto et al. (e. g. see FIG. 15) discloses reflectors (metal Aluminum) on opposite ends of the IDT electrode (16). Regarding claim 10 , Goto et al. (e. g. see FIG. 15) discloses the acoustic wave device is a surface acoustic wave resonator. Regarding claim 11 , Goto et al. (e. g. see FIG. 15) discloses the acoustic wave device is a multiplexer. Regarding claim 15 , Goto et al. (e. g. see FIG. 15) discloses the IDT electrode (16) includes a multilayer metal film or a single layer metal film . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA 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. 07-20-02-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim 3 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goto et al. (U. S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 20190074819) in view of Iwaki et al. (U. S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 20160211829) . Regarding claim 3 : Goto et al. fails to disclose “the piezoelectric layer has a cut-angle of about 20°-rotated Y-cut X-propagation to about 60°-rotated Y-cut X-propagation.” Iwaki et al. (e. g. see [0064]), however, teaches the piezoelectric layer has a cut-angle of about 20°-rotated Y-cut X-propagation to about 60°-rotated Y-cut X-propagation ([0064] the piezoelectric substrate 10 which is the rotated Y-cut X-propagation lithium tantalate substrate … The Y-cut angle of the piezoelectric substrate 10 is 20° or more and 48° or less. The Y-cut angle may be 25° or more, or 30° or more, and 45° or less, or 40° or less. When the Y-cut angle is set to 20° or more and 48° or less, and the standardized h/λ is set more than 0.08, a main mode of the acoustic wave that the IDT 12 excites is the SH wave. ) It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date or the priority date of the application, to modify the acoustic wave device of Goto et al. to include “the piezoelectric layer has a cut-angle of about 20°-rotated Y-cut X-propagation to about 60°-rotated Y-cut X-propagation” as taught by Iwaki et al. for the purpose of obtaining a main mode of the acoustic wave that the IDT 12 excites is the SH wave (see [0064]). Since Goto et al. and Iwaki et al. are both from the same field of endeavor (acoustic wave device), the purpose disclosed by Iwaki et al. would have been recognized in the pertinent art of Goto et al. Regarding claim 17 , Goto et al. does not explicitly disclose “a mode of frequencies around 2.2 times of a resonant frequency is a leaky mode.” Iwaki et al. (e. g. see [0064], [0065]), however, teaches a main mode of the acoustic wave that the IDT excites is the shear horizontal SH wave and when the standardized h/λ is more than 0.14, a Rayleigh wave having almost the same frequency as the SH wave increases. For this reason, spurious emissions increase. It is well known in the art that in acoustic wave devices (such as BAW and SAW filters, or Lamb wave resonators), a leaky mode refers to a guided elastic wave that loses energy by radiating it as acoustic waves into surrounding media or adjacent structures. When an interdigital transducer (IDT) excites these devices, this acoustic leakage can lead to unwanted spurious emissions (or parasitic modes) that degrade performance. Specific acoustic leaky waves such as shear horizontal (SH) waves can be excited at frequencies far above the fundamental resonance, including multiples near 2.2 times of the main resonant frequency (f 0 ). High-frequency spurious emissions at roughly 2.2 times the fundamental frequency correspond to higher-order harmonics, overtones, or alternative acoustic plate modes . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 4-5 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goto et al. (U. S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 20200007109) in view of Watanabe et al. (U. S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 20130285768) . Regarding claim 4 , Goto et al. discloses every aspect of the invention except for “a low velocity film between the silicon nitride film and the piezoelectric layer; wherein a bulk wave that propagates through the low velocity film has a lower velocity than a bulk wave that propagates through the piezoelectric layer.” Watanabe et al. (e. g. see Fig. 1A, [0067], [0072], [0088], [0098]), however, teaches a low velocity film (4) between the silicon nitride film (3) and the piezoelectric layer (5) ([0098] the low-acoustic-velocity film 4 composed of silicon oxide between the high-acoustic-velocity film 3 composed of aluminum nitride and the piezoelectric film 5 composed of LiTaO 3 ); wherein a bulk wave that propagates through the low velocity film (4) has a lower velocity ( 3,750 m/sec < 4,212 m/sec ) than a bulk wave that propagates through the piezoelectric layer (5) ([0088] Acoustic velocity of the bulk wave (S wave) in the low-acoustic-velocity film: 3,750 m/sec < Acoustic velocity of the bulk wave (SH) propagating in the piezoelectric film: 4,212 m/sec .) It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date or the priority date of the application, to modify the acoustic wave device of Goto et al. to include “a low velocity film between the silicon nitride film and the piezoelectric layer; wherein a bulk wave that propagates through the low velocity film has a lower velocity than a bulk wave that propagates through the piezoelectric layer” as taught by Watanabe et al. for the purpose of controlling the dominant mode in order to increase the velocity of the surface acoustic wave (see [0088]). Regarding claim 5 , Goto et al. fails to disclose the low velocity film is a silicon oxide film. Watanabe et al. (e. g. see Fig. 1A, [0072]), however, teaches the low velocity film is a silicon oxide film ([0072] the low-acoustic-velocity film 4 is preferably composed of silicon oxide ). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date or the priority date of the application, to modify the acoustic wave device of Goto et al. to include “the low velocity film is a silicon oxide film” as taught by Watanabe et al. for the purpose of significantly reducing the material's density while maintaining its physical integrity because Silicon oxide (SiO 2 ) films can achieve the slow acoustic velocities through structural engineering like nanoporosity or polymer doping. Regarding claim 12 , Goto et al. fails to disclose “the low velocity film includes at least one of glass, a silicon oxynitride, a lithium oxide, a tantalum pentoxide, or a compound obtained by adding fluorine, carbon, or boron to a silicon oxide as a main component.” Watanabe et al. (e. g. see Fig. 1A, [0012]), however, teaches the low velocity film includes a silicon oxynitride ([0012] the low-acoustic-velocity film is preferably made of silicon oxide or a film containing as a major component silicon oxide. It is well known in the art that silicon oxynitride (SiO x N y )) can contain silicon oxide as a major component. It is a ceramic material whose composition ranges continuously between pure silicon dioxide ((SiO 2 ) and pure silicon nitride (Si 3 N 4 ).) It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date or the priority date of the application, to modify the acoustic wave device of Goto et al. to include “the low velocity film includes at least a silicon oxynitride” as taught by Watanabe et al. for the purpose of to creating a zero temperature coefficient of velocity (TCV) in order to ensure the speed of sound remains stable despite temperature changes. Since Goto et al. and Watanabe et al. are both from the same field of endeavor (acoustic wave device), the purposes disclosed by Watanabe et al. would have been recognized in the pertinent art of Goto et al . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 6, 7, 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goto et al. Goto et al. (U. S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 20190074819) in view of Nagamoto et al. (U. S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 20200295730) . Regarding claim 6 , Goto et al. fails to disclose a bulk wave that propagates through the crystal substrate has a lower velocity than an acoustic wave that propagates through the piezoelectric layer. Nagamoto et al. (e. g. see [0049]), however, teaches a bulk wave that propagates through the crystal substrate (2; [0049] the support substrate 2 made of silicon varies depending on a silicon crystal orientation (φ, θ, ψ) ) has a lower velocity than an acoustic wave that propagates through the piezoelectric layer (5) ([0049] an acoustic velocity of a bulk wave propagating through the support substrate 2 is lower than an acoustic velocity of a mode, which is a spurious emission, propagating through the piezoelectric layer 5 ). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date or the priority date of the application, to modify the acoustic wave device of Goto et al. to include “a bulk wave that propagates through the crystal substrate has a lower velocity than an acoustic wave that propagates through the piezoelectric layer” as taught by Nagamoto et al. for the purpose of significantly reducing or preventing a spurious emission [0049]. Regarding claim 7 , Goto et al. fails to disclose the crystal substrate has Euler angles (φ, θ, ψ) of (about 0°±2.5°, θ, about 90°±2.5°), and θ in the Euler angles of the crystal substrate satisfies about 185°≤ θ ≤ about 240°. Goto et al. (e. g. see [0077]-[0080], [0094]-[0095], [0106]), however, discloses various Euler angles (φ, θ, ψ). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date or the priority date of the application to modify the Euler angles of Goto et al. to obtain “the crystal substrate has Euler angles (φ, θ, ψ) of (about 0°±2.5°, θ, about 90°±2.5°), and θ in the Euler angles of the crystal substrate satisfies about 185°≤ θ ≤ about 240°” for the purpose of performing the standard 3D acoustic steering to support the operation of the acoustic wave device of Goto et al., since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Regarding claim 13 , Goto et al. fails to disclose the acoustic wave device is structured such that a bulk wave propagates through the crystal substrate and has a lower velocity than an acoustic wave that propagates through the piezoelectric layer. Nagamoto et al. (e. g. see FIG. 1, [0049]), however, teaches the acoustic wave device (1) is structured such that a bulk wave propagates through the crystal substrate (2; [0049] the support substrate 2 made of silicon varies depending on a silicon crystal orientation (φ, θ, ψ) ) and has a lower velocity than an acoustic wave that propagates through the piezoelectric layer (5) ([0049] an acoustic velocity of a bulk wave propagating through the support substrate 2 is lower than an acoustic velocity of a mode, which is a spurious emission, propagating through the piezoelectric layer 5 ). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date or the priority date of the application, to modify the acoustic wave device of Goto et al. to include “the acoustic wave device is structured such that a bulk wave propagates through the crystal substrate and has a lower velocity than an acoustic wave that propagates through the piezoelectric layer” as taught by Nagamoto et al. for the purpose of significantly reducing or preventing a spurious emission [0049]. Regarding claim 14 , Goto et al. fails to disclose the acoustic wave device is structured such that a slow transversal wave propagates through the crystal substrate and has a lower velocity than a surface acoustic wave that propagates through the piezoelectric layer. Nagamoto et al. (e. g. see FIG. 1, [0049], [0050]), however, teaches the acoustic wave device is structured such that a slow transversal wave ([0051] More specifically, the acoustic velocity V Si-1 is an acoustic velocity of a transversal wave propagating through the support substrate 2 ) propagates through the crystal substrate (2; [0049] the support substrate 2 made of silicon varies depending on a silicon crystal orientation (φ, θ, ψ) ) and has a lower velocity than a surface acoustic wave that propagates through the piezoelectric layer (5) ([0049] an acoustic velocity of a bulk wave propagating through the support substrate 2 is lower than an acoustic velocity of a mode, which is a spurious emission, propagating through the piezoelectric layer 5 ). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date or the priority date of the application, to modify the acoustic wave device of Goto et al. to include “the acoustic wave device is structured such that a slow transversal wave propagates through the crystal substrate and has a lower velocity than a surface acoustic wave that propagates through the piezoelectric layer” as taught by Nagamoto et al. for the purpose of significantly reducing or preventing a spurious emission ([0049]). Since Goto et al. and Nagamoto et al. are both from the same field of endeavor (acoustic wave device), the purposes disclosed by Nagamoto et al. would have been recognized in the pertinent art of Goto et al . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 16 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goto et al. (U. S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 20190074819) . Regarding claim 16 , Goto et al. (e. g. see [0065]) discloses the relationship between the piezoelectric film thickness (λ) and the acoustic velocity to adjust the bandwidth ratio ([0065] The thickness of the lithium tantalate layer can be in a range from 0.15 λ to 1.4 λ, in which λ is a wavelength of a surface acoustic wave generated by the surface acoustic wave device. ) Goto et al. does not explicitly disclose “a thickness of the piezoelectric layer is smaller than or equal to about 1λ, where λ is a wavelength defined by an electrode finger pitch of the IDT electrode.” However, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Regarding claim 19 , Goto et al. fails to disclose the crystal substrate has Euler angles of (φ, θ, ψ) of about 0°, about 180°, about 90°. Goto et al. (e. g. see [0077]-[0080], [0094]-[0095], [0106]), however, discloses various Euler angles (φ, θ, ψ). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date or the priority date of the application to modify the Euler angles of Goto et al. to obtain “the crystal substrate has Euler angles of (φ, θ, ψ) of about 0°, about 180°, about 90°” for the purpose of performing the standard 3D acoustic steering to support the operation of the acoustic wave device of Goto et al., since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller , 105 USPQ 233. Regarding claim 20 , Goto et al. fails to disclose the crystal substrate has Euler angles of (φ, θ, ψ) about 0°, about 200°, about 60°. Goto et al. (e. g. see [0077]-[0080], [0094]-[0095], [0106]), however, discloses various Euler angles (φ, θ, ψ). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date or the priority date of the application to modify the Euler angles of Goto et al. to obtain “the crystal substrate has Euler angles of (φ, θ, ψ) about 0°, about 200°, about 60°” for the purpose of performing the standard 3D acoustic steering to support the operation of the multiplexer of Goto et al., since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller , 105 USPQ 233 . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goto et al. (U. S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 20190074819) in view of Takamine (U. S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 20190238116) . Regarding claim 18 , Goto et al. fails to disclose a bulk wave that propagates through the crystal substrate has a higher velocity than an acoustic wave that propagates through the piezoelectric layer. Takamine (e. g. see [0051], [0053]), however, teaches a bulk wave that propagates through the crystal substrate ([0053] The support substrate 9 is made of Si ) has a higher velocity than an acoustic wave that propagates through the piezoelectric layer ([0051] a support substrate 9 in which an acoustic velocity of a propagating bulk wave is faster than an acoustic velocity of an acoustic wave propagating in the piezoelectric thin film 7 ). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date or the priority date of the application, to modify the acoustic wave device of Goto et al. to include “a bulk wave that propagates through the crystal substrate has a higher velocity than an acoustic wave that propagates through the piezoelectric layer” as taught by Takamine et al. for the purpose of preventing deterioration in insertion loss of connected band pass filters. Since Goto et al. and Takamine are both from the same field of endeavor (acoustic wave device), the purposes disclosed by Takamine would have been recognized in the pertinent art of Goto et al. Examiner’s Note : In this Office Action, Examiner has cited particular figures, column numbers, paragraph numbers, and line numbers of the prior arts applied in the rejections. However, other figures and passages of the same prior arts may anticipate the claim limitations as well. Therefore, Applicants are respectfully requested to consider the prior arts in their entirety as potentially teaching claimed invention. For amendment purpose, Applicants are very much appreciated for indicating the portion(s) of the specification which dictates the structure(s) relied on for proper interpretation as well as for verification and determination of the metes and bounds of the claimed invention. Applicants’ indication of the specific figures and items of figures which represent features of the invention disclosed in the amended claims, is also expected. Additionally, in the event that other prior art(s) is/are provided and made of record by the Examiner as being relevant or pertinent to applicant's disclosure but not relied upon, the examiner requests that the reference(s) be considered in any subsequent amendments, as the reference(s) is also representative of the teachings of the art and may apply to the specific limitations of any newly amended claim(s) . Allowable Subject Matter 12-151-08 AIA 07-43 12-51-08 Claim 8 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. Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Kishino et al. (U. S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 20200028486) discloses an acoustic wave element including an Si single crystal having a plane orientation in which substrate a crystal axis of the Si single crystal parallel to a substrate surface of Si single crystal is inclined at any angle of 25° to 65°, 115° to 155°, 205° to 245°, and 295° to 345° relative to a direction of propagation of an acoustic wave when viewed from the upper surface of the superposed first substrate. Komiyama (U. S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 20210175871) discloses an acoustic wave resonator includes a support substrate, a piezoelectric layer that is disposed on the support substrate and is a rotated Y-cut X-propagation lithium tantalate of which a cut angle is within a range of greater than 50° and less than 150° and the cut angle of the piezoelectric layer 12 expressed in an Euler's angle representation is (φ, θ, ω)=(0°, 140° to 240°, 0°), and may be (φ, θ, ψ)=(0°±5°, 140° to 240°, 0°±10°) in consideration of the production errors. Contact Information Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EMILY P. PHAM whose telephone number is (571) 270-3046. The examiner can normally be reached MON-FRI 8:00AM-5:00PM. 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 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. 13 June 2026 /EMILY P PHAM/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2837 Application/Control Number: 18/220,854 Page 2 Art Unit: 2837 Application/Control Number: 18/220,854 Page 3 Art Unit: 2837 Application/Control Number: 18/220,854 Page 4 Art Unit: 2837 Application/Control Number: 18/220,854 Page 5 Art Unit: 2837 Application/Control Number: 18/220,854 Page 6 Art Unit: 2837 Application/Control Number: 18/220,854 Page 7 Art Unit: 2837 Application/Control Number: 18/220,854 Page 8 Art Unit: 2837 Application/Control Number: 18/220,854 Page 9 Art Unit: 2837 Application/Control Number: 18/220,854 Page 10 Art Unit: 2837 Application/Control Number: 18/220,854 Page 11 Art Unit: 2837 Application/Control Number: 18/220,854 Page 12 Art Unit: 2837 Application/Control Number: 18/220,854 Page 13 Art Unit: 2837 Application/Control Number: 18/220,854 Page 14 Art Unit: 2837 Application/Control Number: 18/220,854 Page 15 Art Unit: 2837 Application/Control Number: 18/220,854 Page 16 Art Unit: 2837
Prosecution Insights