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 .
Specification
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 § 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 of this title, 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 1, 2 and 6-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Daimon (US20220182035, hereinafter Daimon) in view of Ruby et al. (US20170155373, hereinafter Ruby).
Regarding claim 1, Daimon discloses an acoustic wave device (1) comprising: a high acoustic-velocity material layer (4) made of a high acoustic-velocity material (paragraph [0048]); a piezoelectric film (6) directly or indirectly provided on the high acoustic-velocity material layer; and an IDT electrode (18) on the piezoelectric film; wherein the high acoustic-velocity material is a material in which an acoustic velocity of a bulk wave propagating therethrough is higher than an acoustic velocity of an acoustic wave propagating through the piezoelectric film; the acoustic wave device further includes a dielectric film (15) between the IDT electrode and the piezoelectric film; the IDT electrode includes a first electrode finger and a second electrode finger that are interdigitated, a direction orthogonal or substantially orthogonal to an extending direction of the first electrode finger and the second electrode finger is an acoustic wave propagating direction, a region in which the first electrode finger and the second electrode finger overlap with each other when viewed in the acoustic wave propagating direction is an intersecting region (A), and the intersecting region includes a central region (B) positioned in a center in the extending direction of the first electrode finger and the second electrode finger, and first and second low acoustic-velocity regions (C1, C2) on both respective sides of the central region in the extending direction of the first electrode finger and the second electrode finger; and the dielectric film is made of tantalum pentoxide. The film thickness of the dielectric film is set to about 30nm, which when normalized would fall within the claimed ranges.
Daimon is silent regarding the film thickness range depending on the material of the dielectric layer.
Ruby discloses forming a layer of dielectric material, such as silicon oxide, aluminum oxide, silicon nitride, and the benefits of forming the dielectric layer having a thickness of 5 Å-1000Å between the piezoelectric layer and the idt in paragraph [0045]. Ruby discloses changing the thickness to provide benefits as necessitated by the specific requirements of the particular application. Ruby discloses that adding a layer of dielectric material under the idt portions can reduce the amplitude of the rattles, improve the quality factor and reduce the coupling coefficient. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to provide a layer of dielectric material with a specific thickness depending on the material to obtain the desired characteristics as disclosed by Ruby.
Regarding claim 2, the width in the first and second low acoustic-velocity regions of the first electrode finger and the second electrode finger along the acoustic wave propagating direction is larger than a width of the first electrode finger and the second electrode finger in the central region. Daimon shows in Figs. 2, 8-10 a continued layer (15) formed below the idt. Ruby discloses dielectric layers 241 and 242 wider than the idt.
Regarding claim 6, comprising a support substrate laminated on a surface of the high acoustic-velocity material layer opposite to a surface on a piezoelectric film side. See Figs. 8, 11, 12.
Regarding claim 7, the support substrate is made of the high acoustic-velocity material; and the support substrate and the high acoustic-velocity material layer are integrated with each other. The support substrate (3) and the high acoustic velocity film can be made of the same material. See paragraph [0049].
Regarding claim 8, a low acoustic layer (5) is laminated between the piezoelectric layer and the high acoustic material layer.
Regarding claim 9, the support substrate is made of silicon (paragraph [0049).
Regarding claim 10, the high acoustic velocity material layer is silicon nitride (paragraph [0048]).
Regarding claim 11, the low acoustic-velocity material layer is made of silicon oxide. (paragraph [0047])
Regarding claim 12, the piezoelectric layer is LT (paragraph [0046]).
Regarding claim 13, Figs. 1, 2 and 12 show the busbars connecting to the idt electrodes.
Claims 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Daimon in view of Ruby as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Daimon (US20200328727, hereinafter Daimon ‘727).
Regarding claims 3-5, the combination of Daimon and Ruby discloses the invention as explained above, but fails to explicitly disclose the mass addition film laminated on the electrode fingers in the low acoustic velocity regions.
Daimon ‘727 discloses mass addition layers (8) comprising a dielectric or a metal material and formed on the electrode fingers in the low acoustic velocity region. The mass addition layer helps suppress unwanted transverse modes. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application provide a mass addition layer on the idt electrodes to further improve the performance of the acoustic wave by suppressing unwanted transverse modes.
Claims 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Daimon in view of Ruby as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Mimura et al. (US.20160072475, hereinafter Mimura)
Regarding claims 14 and 15, the combination of Daimon and Ruby discloses the invention as explained above, but fails to explicitly disclose the busbar comprising inner and outer busbars.
Mimura shows in Fig. 1B inner (11A) and outer (11C) portions of the busbar and an opening (11B) along the acoustic wave propagation direction. Mimura’s invention provides a structure capable of reducing unwanted transverse-mode ripples in the frequency response and to confine acoustic energy more effectively in the useful center region. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to provide a busbar comprising an inner portion and an outer portion to form a higher velocity portion farther from the center of the structure and reduce transverse-mode ripples.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892.
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