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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 12-22 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 15 July 2026.
Applicant’s election of the invention of group I in the reply filed on 15 July 2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
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 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Goto et al. (US 2018/0152169).
With respect to claim 1, Goto et al. discloses a surface acoustic wave device (Fig 1), comprising: a carrier substrate (item 121); a piezoelectric layer (item 110) on the carrier substrate (Fig 1), wherein a first portion of the piezoelectric layer has a first thickness (item H1) as measured in a direction perpendicular to the carrier substrate (Fig 1), a second portion of the piezoelectric layer has a second thickness (item H2) as measured in the direction perpendicular to the carrier substrate (Fig 1), and wherein the first thickness is different than the second thickness (Fig 1); and at least one electrode (items 131 and 132) on a surface of the piezoelectric layer opposite the carrier substrate (Fig 1).
With respect to claim 2, Goto et al. discloses the SAW device of claim 1, wherein the at least one electrode comprises a plurality of electrodes (items 131 and 132) on the piezoelectric layer that define a first SAW filter structure and a second SAW filter structure on the carrier substrate (Paragraph 44), and the first SAW filter structure comprises the first portion of the piezoelectric layer and the second SAW filter structure comprises the second portion of the piezoelectric layer (Fig 1 and paragraph 44).
With respect to claim 3, Goto et al. discloses the SAW device of claim 2, wherein the first SAW filter structure and the second SAW filter structure each comprise a number of SAW resonators (Figs 1 and 4; paragraph 44).
With respect to claim 4, Goto et al. discloses the SAW device of claim 3, wherein the first SAW filter structure and the second SAW filter structure further comprise a number of SAW coupled resonator filters (Figs 4 and 12; paragraphs 44 and 78).
With respect to claim 5, Goto et al. discloses the SAW device of claim 1, wherein the at least one electrode comprises a plurality of electrodes on the piezoelectric layer that define a SAW filter structure, and the SAW filter structure comprises a plurality of SAW resonators (Figs 1 and 4; paragraph 44).
With respect to claim 6, Goto et al. discloses the SAW device of claim 5, wherein the plurality of SAW resonators form a number of series resonators that comprise the first portion of the piezoelectric layer and a number of shunt resonators that comprise the second portion of the piezoelectric layer (Figs 1 and 4; paragraph 44).
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 7-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goto et al. in view of Tanaka (US 2007/0188047).
With respect to claim 7, Goto et al. discloses the SAW device of claim 1.
Goto et al. does not disclose that the at least one electrode comprises an interdigitated transducer (IDT) and the SAW device further comprises first and second reflective structures that are arranged on the piezoelectric layer such that the IDT is positioned between the first reflective structure and the second reflective structure.
Tanaka teaches a piezoelectric surface acoustic wave device in which the at least one electrode comprises an interdigitated transducer (IDT) and the SAW device further comprises first and second reflective structures (items 41 and 42) that are arranged on the piezoelectric layer such that the IDT is positioned between the first reflective structure and the second reflective structure (Fig 1).
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art to combine the reflectors of Tanaka with the piezoelectric surface acoustic wave device of Goto et al. for the benefit of better confining the acoustic energy generated by the IDTs (Fig 1 and paragraph 62 of Tanaka).
With respect to claim 8, the combination of Goto et al. and Tanaka discloses the SAW device of claim 7, wherein the IDT is arranged on the first portion of the piezoelectric layer and the first and second reflective structures are arranged on the second portion of the piezoelectric layer (Fig 1 of Goto et al. and Fig 1 of Tanaka)
With respect to claim 9, the combination of Goto et al. and Tanaka discloses the SAW device of claim 7. Goto et al. discloses that the first portion of the piezoelectric layer is registered with individual electrode fingers of the IDT and the second portion of the piezoelectric layer is registered between adjacent pairs of the individual electrode fingers (Fig 1, paragraph 53).
With respect to claim 10, the combination of Goto et al. and Tanaka discloses the SAW device of claim 7. Goto et al. discloses that the first portion of the piezoelectric layer and the second portion of the piezoelectric layer are arranged along a transverse direction of the SAW device such that an electrode finger of the IDT is arranged on both the first portion of the piezoelectric layer and the second portion of the piezoelectric layer (Fig 1).
With respect to claim 11, the combination of Goto et al. and Tanaka discloses the SAW device of claim 10.
Goto et al. does not disclose explicitly that a third portion of the piezoelectric layer comprises a third thickness as measured in the direction perpendicular to the carrier substrate, wherein the third thickness is different that the first thickness and the second thickness, and the electrode finger is arranged on the first, second, and third portions of the piezoelectric layer.
However, Goto et al. does disclose that the differing thicknesses of the piezoelectric layer are associated with the differing frequency responses needed for the various resonators of the device (Paragraph 44). Therefore, at the time of effective filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a third portion of the piezoelectric layer comprises a third thickness as measured in the direction perpendicular to the carrier substrate, wherein the third thickness is different that the first thickness and the second thickness, and the electrode finger is arranged on the first, second, and third portions of the piezoelectric layer for the benefit of providing the necessary frequency responses for each of the resonators within the filters illustrated in figures 4 and 12 of Goto et al.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Derek John Rosenau whose telephone number is (571)272-8932. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7 am to 5:30 pm Central Time.
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.
/DEREK J ROSENAU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2837
Prosecution Insights