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 Amendment
Acknowledgment is made that applicant's Amendment, filed on June 15th, 2026, has been entered.
Upon entrance of the Amendment, claims 10 and 14-15 were amended. Claims 10-25 are currently pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 15th, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The deficiency of the primary reference Rottenberg is a material that the conductive film contains. The deficiency is cured by the secondary reference Gregg. The secondary reference discloses a conductive film containing at least one of copper, aluminum, gold, silver, platinum, transparent conductor, superconductor, and graphene. This is the only missing feature from the primary reference, and only this feature is incorporated. Since not all teachings of the secondary reference were incorporated, arguments on other features of the secondary reference are ungermane. The arguments about a combination of Adelmann and Gregg also ungermane because the Office did not make this combination. Furthermore, it is well known in the art that metal such as copper, aluminum, gold, silver, or platinum are used for forming conductive film.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 10-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Adelmann et al. (U.S Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0111473).
Regarding to claim 10, Adelmann teaches a spin wave excitation/detection structure to excite and detect a spin wave ([0038], lines 2-6), comprising:
a support substrate (Figs. 3a-b, element 120, [0052], line 3);
a conductive film provided on the support substrate (Figs. 3a-b, element 200, [0078], lines 8-10) the conductive film containing at least any one of copper, aluminum, gold, silver, platinum, iron, transparent conductor, superconductor, graphene, and magnetic material with conductivity ([0066], last 8 lines);
an insulating magnetic film provided on the conductive film (Figs. 3a-b, element 130, [0053], lines 9-11); and
a conductive line provided on the insulating magnetic film (Figs. 3a-b, element 410/510, [0068], lines 1-3; [0071], lines 1-5).
Regarding to claim 11, Adelmann teaches the insulating magnetic film is a magnetic garnet ([0030], line 3, YIG is a magnetic garnet).
Regarding to claim 12, Adelmann teaches the insulating magnetic film is an yttrium iron garnet ([0030], line 3).
Regarding to claim 13, Adelmann teaches the conductive line contain at least any one of copper, aluminum, gold, silver, platinum, iron, transparent conductor, superconductor, graphene, and magnetic material with conductivity ([0066], last 8 lines).
Regarding to claim 14, Adelmann teaches the conductive line contain at least any one of copper, aluminum, gold, silver, platinum, iron, transparent conductor, superconductor, graphene, and magnetic material with conductivity ([0066], last 8 lines).
Regarding to claim 15, Adelmann teaches t the conductive line contain at least any one of copper, aluminum, gold, silver, platinum, iron, transparent conductor, superconductor, graphene, and magnetic material with conductivity ([0066], last 8 lines).
Regarding to claim 16, Adelmann teaches the support substrate is at least any one of a silicon substrate, a dielectric substrate, a conductive substrate, an insulating substrate, a magnetic substrate, a nonmagnetic substrate, a wood substrate, and a stone substrate ([0052], line 3, a nonmagnetic substrate).
Regarding to claim 17, Adelmann teaches the support substrate is at least any one of a silicon substrate, a dielectric substrate, a conductive substrate, an insulating substrate, a magnetic substrate, a nonmagnetic substrate, a wood substrate, and a stone substrate ([0052], line 3, a nonmagnetic substrate).
Regarding to claim 18, Adelmann teaches the support substrate is at least any one of a silicon substrate, a dielectric substrate, a conductive substrate, an insulating substrate, a magnetic substrate, a nonmagnetic substrate, a wood substrate, and a stone substrate ([0052], line 3, a nonmagnetic substrate).
Regarding to claim 19, Adelmann teaches the support substrate is at least any one of a silicon substrate, a dielectric substrate, a conductive substrate, an insulating substrate, a magnetic substrate, a nonmagnetic substrate, a wood substrate, and a stone substrate ([0052], line 3, a nonmagnetic substrate).
Regarding to claim 20, Adelmann teaches the support substrate is at least any one of a silicon substrate, a dielectric substrate, a conductive substrate, an insulating substrate, a magnetic substrate, a nonmagnetic substrate, a wood substrate, and a stone substrate ([0052], line 3, a nonmagnetic substrate).
Regarding to claim 21, Adelmann teaches the support substrate is at least any one of a silicon substrate, a dielectric substrate, a conductive substrate, an insulating substrate, a magnetic substrate, a nonmagnetic substrate, a wood substrate, and a stone substrate ([0052], line 3, a nonmagnetic substrate).
Regarding to claim 22, Adelmann teaches the insulating magnetic film has a thickness of 10 μm or less ([0055], lines 1-7).
Regarding to claim 23, Adelmann teaches the conductive line has a thickness of 1 μm or less and a width of 5 μm or less ([0055], lines 1-10, width of conductive line is less than width/length of waveguide 130, width/length of waveguide 130 is of 5 μm or less).
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.
Claims 10-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rottenberg et al. (U.S Patent No. 10,211,809) in view of Gregg et al. (U.S Patent No. 11,249,153).
Regarding to claim 10, Rottenberg teaches a spin wave excitation/detection structure to excite and detect a spin wave, comprising:
a support substrate (Fig. 2, element 106, column 6, line 11);
a conductive film provided on the support substrate (Fig. 2, element lower 110, column 6, line 10);
an insulating magnetic film provided on the conductive film (Fig. 2, element 102/202, column 7, lines 35-45); and
a conductive line provided on the insulating magnetic film (Fig. 2, element upper 110, column 6, line 10).
Rottenberg is silent about material of the conductive film. Gregg discloses a conductive film contains at least any one of copper, aluminum, gold, silver, platinum, iron, transparent conductor, superconductor, graphene, and magnetic material with conductivity (column 6, lines 41-42). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Rottenberg in view of Gregg to contain at least any one of copper, aluminum, gold, silver, platinum, iron, transparent conductor, superconductor, graphene, and magnetic material with conductivity, in the conductive film in order to obtain desired conductivity level. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to select well known metals such as copper, aluminum, gold, silver, platinum, iron … for forming conductive films, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 227 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
Regarding to claim 11, Rottenberg teaches the insulating magnetic film is a magnetic garnet (column 7, lines 43-44, YIG is a magnetic garnet).
Regarding to claim 12, Rottenberg teaches the insulating magnetic film is an yttrium iron garnet (column 7, lines 43-45).
Regarding to claim 13, Rottenberg is silent about material of the conductive line. Gregg discloses a conductive line contains at least any one of copper, aluminum, gold, silver, platinum, iron, transparent conductor, superconductor, graphene, and magnetic material with conductivity (column 6, lines 41-42). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Rottenberg in view of Gregg to contain at least any one of copper, aluminum, gold, silver, platinum, iron, transparent conductor, superconductor, graphene, and magnetic material with conductivity, in the conductive line, in order to obtain desired conductivity level. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to select well known metals such as copper, aluminum, gold, silver, platinum, iron … for forming conductive films and conductive lines, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 227 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
Regarding to claim 14, Rottenberg is silent about material of the conductive line. Gregg discloses a conductive line contains at least any one of copper, aluminum, gold, silver, platinum, iron, transparent conductor, superconductor, graphene, and magnetic material with conductivity (column 6, lines 41-42). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Rottenberg in view of Gregg to contain at least any one of copper, aluminum, gold, silver, platinum, iron, transparent conductor, superconductor, graphene, and magnetic material with conductivity, in the conductive line, in order to obtain desired conductivity level. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to select well known metals such as copper, aluminum, gold, silver, platinum, iron … for forming conductive films and conductive lines, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 227 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
Regarding to claim 15, Rottenberg is silent about material of the conductive line. Gregg discloses a conductive line contains at least any one of copper, aluminum, gold, silver, platinum, iron, transparent conductor, superconductor, graphene, and magnetic material with conductivity (column 6, lines 41-42). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Rottenberg in view of Gregg to contain at least any one of copper, aluminum, gold, silver, platinum, iron, transparent conductor, superconductor, graphene, and magnetic material with conductivity, in the conductive line, in order to obtain desired conductivity level. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to select well known metals such as copper, aluminum, gold, silver, platinum, iron … for forming conductive films and conductive lines, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 227 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
Regarding to claim 16, Rottenberg teaches the support substrate is at least any one of a silicon substrate, a dielectric substrate, a conductive substrate, an insulating substrate, a magnetic substrate, a nonmagnetic substrate, a wood substrate, and a stone substrate (column 9, lines 26-30, Bragg mirror structure is a nonmagnetic material. Further, Bragg mirror structure is a type of dielectric).
Regarding to claim 17, Rottenberg teaches the support substrate is at least any one of a silicon substrate, a dielectric substrate, a conductive substrate, an insulating substrate, a magnetic substrate, a nonmagnetic substrate, a wood substrate, and a stone substrate (column 9, lines 26-30, a nonmagnetic substrate).
Regarding to claim 18, Rottenberg teaches the support substrate is at least any one of a silicon substrate, a dielectric substrate, a conductive substrate, an insulating substrate, a magnetic substrate, a nonmagnetic substrate, a wood substrate, and a stone substrate (column 9, lines 26-30, a nonmagnetic substrate).
Regarding to claim 19, Rottenberg teaches the support substrate is at least any one of a silicon substrate, a dielectric substrate, a conductive substrate, an insulating substrate, a magnetic substrate, a nonmagnetic substrate, a wood substrate, and a stone substrate (column 9, lines 26-30, a nonmagnetic substrate).
Regarding to claim 20, Rottenberg teaches the support substrate is at least any one of a silicon substrate, a dielectric substrate, a conductive substrate, an insulating substrate, a magnetic substrate, a nonmagnetic substrate, a wood substrate, and a stone substrate (column 9, lines 26-30, a nonmagnetic substrate).
Regarding to claim 21, Rottenberg teaches the support substrate is at least any one of a silicon substrate, a dielectric substrate, a conductive substrate, an insulating substrate, a magnetic substrate, a nonmagnetic substrate, a wood substrate, and a stone substrate (column 9, lines 26-30, a nonmagnetic substrate).
Regarding to claim 22, Rottenberg is silent about the thickness of the YIG insulating magnetic film. Gregg discloses a YIG insulating magnetic film has a thickness of 10 μm or less (column 4, lines 60-61). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Rottenberg in view of Gregg to configure the insulating magnetic film having a thickness of 10 μm or less in order to obtain efficiency for desired detection wavelength.
Regarding to claim 23, Rottenberg is silent about the size of the conductive line. Gregg discloses a conductive line has a thickness of 1 μm or less and a width of 5 μm or less (column 6, lines 48-49; column 13, lines 30-36). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Rottenberg in view of Gregg to configure the conductive line having a thickness of 1 μm or less and a width of 5 μm or less in order to reduce footprint. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to configure the conductive line having a thickness of 1 μm or less and a width of 5 μm in order to reduce footprint and weight, 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 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding to claim 24, Rottenberg is silent about the size of the conductive film. Gregg discloses a conductive film has a thickness of 1 μm (column 6, lines 48-49). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Rottenberg in view of Gregg to configure the conductive film having a thickness of 1 μm or less in order to reduce thermal stress. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to configure the conductive film having a thickness of 1 μm or less in order to reduce thermal stress, 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 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding to claim 25, Rottenberg discloses the support substrate has a thickness (Fig. 2), however is silent about a range of thickness. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to configure the support substrate having a thickness of 100 μm or more and 500 μm or less in order to provide sufficient support strength with a light weight, 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 (CCPA 1955).
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adelmann et al. (U.S Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0111473).
Regarding to claim 25, Adelmann discloses the support substrate has a thickness (Fig. 3a}, however is silent about a range of thickness. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to configure the support substrate having a thickness of 100 μm or more and 500 μm or less in order to provide sufficient support strength with a light weight, 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 (CCPA 1955).
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 VU A VU whose telephone number is (571)270-7467. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 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, CHAD M DICKE can be reached at (571) 270-7996. 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.
/VU A VU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2897
Prosecution Insights