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. Drawings The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the - the intervening layer positioned between the silicon oxycarbide layer and the piezoelectric layer as disclosed in claim 8; must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b ) CONCLUSION.— The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the appl icant regards as his invention. Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. The claim discloses that the second electrode and the oxycarbide layer are on opposite sides of the air cavity. According to the disclosure (Fig. 5A), it seems that it is the first electrode 60 and not the second electrode that meets the claim requirement. Clarification is required. 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. Claim (s) 1 , 3 – 7, 11, 13 , 14, 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al (US 2023/0009982) in view of Yu et al (US 2021/0399716) . Liu et al discloses, regarding, Claim 1 , An acoustic wave device comprising (see abstract) : a trap rich layer 14 over a substrate 12 , the substrate including a semiconductor (paragraph 0007) ; an amorphous silicon oxycarbide layer 20 (0009) over the trap rich layer 14, 16, 18 (see Fig. 1) ; a piezoelectric layer 22 over the amorphous silicon oxycarbide layer 20 ; and an electrode 24 over the piezoelectric layer 22 (see Fig. 2) , the acoustic wave device configured to generate an acoustic wave. Yu et al is being cited for explicitly showing that it is common engineering design to have a substrate 1410, a trap rich layer 1431a, an amorphous silicon oxycarbide layer 1431b and a piezoelectric layer 1433 over such layers and then having electrode 1435 over the piezoelectric layer (see Fig. 14). The Prior Art further discloses, regarding, Claim 3 , material of the amorphous silicon oxycarbide layer has a stoichiometric formula of SiO2(1- z) Cz in which 0 < Z < 1 , 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. Claim 4 , material of the amorphous silicon oxycarbide layer has a stoichiometric formula of SiO2(1- z) Cz + yCfree in which 0 < Z <1, 0< y < 0.5, and Cfree is elemental carbon , 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. Claim 5 , the semiconductor is silicon ( Liu et al, paragraph 0007) . Claim 6, the electrode is an interdigital transducer electrode (Yu et al, 0018). Claim 7 , the acoustic wave is a surface acoustic wave ( Liu et al, see title) . Claim 11, a second electrode 2039, the piezoelectric layer 2037 positioned between the electrode 2035 and the second electrode 2039 (Yu et al, Fig. 2a), and the acoustic wave being a bulk acoustic wave (Yu et al, 0002). Claim 14, the support substrate is a silicon substrate (Liu et al, 0007). Claim 17, the amorphous silicon oxycarbide layer has a stoichiometric formula of SiO2(1- z) Cz and 0 < Z < 1, 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. Liu et al discloses, regarding, Claim 13 , A film bulk acoustic wave resonator comprising: a support substrate 12 ; a trap rich layer 14 over the support substrate (see Fig. 2). The problem to be solve appears to use a cavity. Such implementation is well-known. For example, Yu et al discloses, an air cavity 1051 ; and an amorphous silicon oxycarbide layer 1031b positioned between the trap rich layer 1031a and the air cavity 1051 (see Fig. 10) , the film bulk acoustic wave resonator configured to generate a bulk acoustic wave [0002] . It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to design the device as disclosed by Liu et al and to show the elements pertaining to Yu et al for the purpose of broadening a passband width, thus efficiently optimizing an RF filter . Claim(s) 2, 8, 9, 10, 15, 16, 18, 19, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al and Yu et al as applied to claim s 1, 13 above, and further in view of Goto et al (US 2021/0058057) . The combined Prior Art discloses, regarding, Claim 19 , the acoustic wave device is a surface acoustic wave device (Liu et al, abstract) . Claim 20 , the acoustic wave device is a bulk acoustic wave device (Yu et al, paragraph 0002) . However, the combined Prior Art does not disclose the elements below. On the other hand, Goto et al discloses, regarding, Claim 8 , an intervening layer positioned between the amorphous silicon oxycarbide layer and the piezoelectric layer (since it is well-known to use a bonding layer for attaching a piezoelectric layer to other layers; 0014, 0021) . Claim 9 , a temperature compensation layer over and in physical contact with the interdigital transducer electrode (see Fig. 4A, 0060) . Claim 10 , the temperature compensation layer includes silicon oxycarbide , 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 , 125 USPQ 416. Claim s 2, 15, the amorphous silicon oxycarbide layer includes a dopant [0016, 0017, 0066] . Moreover, i t would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use such material , 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 , 125 USPQ 416. Claim 16 , the amorphous silicon oxycarbide layer includes free carbon [0079]. Claim 18, An acoustic wave filter comprising: an acoustic wave device including a trap rich layer over a semiconductor substrate, an amorphous silicon oxycarbide layer over the trap rich layer, a piezoelectric layer over the amorphous silicon oxycarbide layer, and an electrode over the piezoelectric layer (see rejection for claims 1, 13 above). However, the combined Prior Art does not disclose using a plurality of acoustic wave devices. On the other, Goto et al discloses using a plurality of acoustic wave devices (see Figs. 5B, 11) and an acoustic wave filter configured to filter a radio frequency signal (paragraphs 0022, 0023). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to design the combined device as disclosed above and to disclose the limitations pertaining to Goto et al for the purpose of improving the temperature stability of a SAW resonator. Allowable Subject Matter Claim 12 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 and overcoming the 112 rejection noted above. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT Julio C. Gonzalez whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-2024 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-F . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Abdullah Riyami can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 5712703119 . 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. FILLIN "Examiner Stamp" \* MERGEFORMAT /Julio C. Gonzalez/ Primary Examiner Art Unit 2831 March 3, 2026