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
Applicant's election with traverse of Species III, claims 1-7 and 11-20 in the reply filed on 5/5/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the grounds that there is no search burden to search Species I-III since they have overlapping subject matter (Species I include only a top amorphous silicon oxycarbide layer, Speicies II includes only a lower amorphous silicon oxycarbide layer, and Species III includes both a top and bottom silicon oxycarbide layer). Although the examiner agrees that there is overlapping subject, each of these species have mutually exclusive features unique to each figure as discussed in the restriction requirement mailed on 3/12/2026, and therefore have maintained the restriction. Note at this time, no additional claims beside claims 8-10 have been withdrawn. The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 8-10 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 5/5/2026.
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.
(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 1, 5-7, 11 and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Liu et al. (US2023/0009982 A1, Cited by Applicant).
In regards to claims 1, 5 and 11, Liu et al. teaches in Fig. 2 an acoustic wave device/filter with temperature compensation, the acoustic wave device comprising:
A piezoelectric layer (22);
An interdigital transducer electrode (24); and
A temperature compensation layer (20) including amorphous silicon oxycarbide (see paragraph [0009], note that a silicon oxycarbide layer will necessarily be amorphous), the temperature compensation layer in physical contact with at least a portion of the piezoelectric layer, and the acoustic wave device configured to generate an acoustic wave.
In regards to claim 6, based on paragraph [0001], the acoustic wave is a surface acoustic wave.
In regards to claim 7, based on Fig. 2, a support substrate (12) is located under the piezoelectric layer (22).
In regards to claim 16, based on Fig. 2, a support substrate (12), the amorphous silicon oxycarbide layer (20) being positioned between the piezoelectric layer (22) and the support substrate (12).
In regards to claim 17, based on Fig. 2, the amorphous silicon oxycarbide layer (20) is in physical contact with the piezoelectric layer (22).
In regards to claim 18, based on Fig. 2, an intervening layer (18) is positioned between the support substrate (12) and the amorphous silicon oxycarbide layer (20).
Claims 11 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kimura et al. (US2010/0052473 A1).
In regards to claims 11 and 15, Kimura et al. teaches in Figs. 1, 4A-4D and 5A-C an acoustic wave device comprising:
A piezoelectric layer (10);
An interdigital transducer electrode (12) on the piezoelectric layer; and
Based on paragraph [0025], an amorphous silicon oxycarbide layer is formed in contact with a top surface of the interdigital transducer electrode (12), the acoustic wave device configured to generate an acoustic wave.
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.
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.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (US2023/0009982 A1, Cited by Applicant) in view of Kimura et al. (US2010/0052473 A1).
As discussed above, Liu et al. teaches the claimed invention as recited in claim 16. Liu et al. does not teach in regards to claim 19, a second amorphous silicon oxycarbide layer positioned over and in physical contact with the interdigital transducer electrode.
Kimura et al. teaches in Figs. 1, 4A-4D and 5A-C an acoustic wave device comprising:
A piezoelectric layer (10);
An interdigital transducer electrode (12) on the piezoelectric layer; and
Based on paragraph [0025] an amorphous silicon oxycarbide layer protection film is formed in contact with a top surface of the interdigital transducer electrode (12).
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the invention of Liu et al. and have added a second amorphous silicon oxycarbide layer on top of the interdigital transducer electrode because such a modification would have provided the benefit of forming a protection film for the interdigital transducer electrode as taught by Kimura et al. (See paragraph [0025]).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (US2023/0009982 A1, Cited by Applicant) in view of Goto et al. (US2021/0058057, Cited by Applicant).
In regards to claim 20, Liu et al. teaches in Fig. 2 an acoustic wave device/filter comprising:
A piezoelectric layer (22);
An interdigital transducer electrode (24); and
A temperature compensation layer (20) including amorphous silicon oxycarbide (see paragraph [0009], note that a silicon oxycarbide layer will necessarily be amorphous), the acoustic wave filter/device configured to filter a radio frequency signal (see paragraph [0002], in which the device/filter is used in mobile communication device which uses radio frequency signals).
However, Liu et al. does not teach: in regards to claim 20, a radio frequency module and a radio frequency circuit coupled to the acoustic wave filter, the acoustic wave filter and the radio frequency circuitry being enclosed with a common package.
Goto et al. teaches in Fig. 12 a radio frequency module (315) comprising: an acoustic wave filter (300), and a radio frequency circuitry (340) coupled to the acoustic wave filter, in which both the acoustic wave filter and the radio frequency circuity are enclosed within a common package (330).
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the invention of Liu et al. and have used the acoustic wave device/filter of Liu et al. in a radio frequency module as exemplary taught by Goto et al. (see Fig. 12) because such a modification would have been a well-known in the art intended use for an acoustic wave device/filter for the benefit of forming an RF filter module.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-4 and 12-14 are 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
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JORGE L SALAZAR JR whose telephone number is (571)-272-9326. The examiner can normally be reached between 9am - 6pm Monday-Friday.
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, Andrea Lindgren Baltzell can be reached on 571-272-5918. 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.
/JORGE L SALAZAR JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2843
Prosecution Insights