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 .
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 – 5, 7 – 9, 16 – 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aigner et al (US 2024/0088871) in view of Okunaga (US 2025/0260383).
Aigner et al discloses, regarding,
Claim 1, A surface acoustic wave device structure, comprising: a substrate 316, a support structure layer (see fig. 4), a piezoelectric layer 130 and an interdigital transducer 304 which are stacked sequentially (see Figs. 4, 3), wherein the support structure layer comprises at least one periodic structure, each of the at least one periodic structure comprises at least one period, and each of the at least one period comprises a first periodic layer (see Fig. 3) and a second periodic layer 128 which are stacked sequentially, a material of the first periodic layer is AlScN (layer right on top of the buffer layer 128; see paragraph 0003), and the first periodic layer is disposed on one side of the second periodic layer 128 away from the substrate (see Figs. 4, 5).
However, Aigner et al does not disclose using a single crystal piezoelectric layer. Such implementation is well-known in the art.
For example, Okunaga discloses having a wave acoustic device using a single crystal piezoelectric layer (see Fig. 2; 0062).
The Prior Art further discloses, regarding,
Claim 2, a material of the second periodic layer is at least one of GaN, AlInN and AlInGaN, 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 3, a thickness of the second periodic layer ranges from 10 nm to 30 nm 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, a material of the first periodic layer is Al1-aScaN, and a Sc component ranges from 0.15 to 0.25 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 surface acoustic wave device structure according to claim 1, wherein a lattice constant of the first periodic layer ranges from 3.17 to 3.21 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 7, a thickness of the first periodic layer ranges from 10 nm to 30 nm 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 8. The surface acoustic wave device structure according to claim 1, wherein in a same periodic structure, a thickness of the first periodic layer is greater than that of the second periodic layer (Okunaga, Fig. 2).
Claim 9, a thickness of the nth periodic structure is less than that of the (n+1)th periodic structure along a direction away from the substrate, and the n is an integer greater than or equal to 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 16, the substrate is any one of a silicon substrate, a SOI substrate and a silicon substrate of which a surface has silicon dioxide 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 17, the single crystal piezoelectric layer is made of scandium-doped aluminum nitride 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 18, a thickness of the single crystal piezoelectric layer is greater than 500 nm , 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 19, An electronic apparatus, comprising a surface acoustic wave device, wherein the surface acoustic wave device has a surface acoustic wave device structure, comprising: a substrate, a support structure layer, a single crystal piezoelectric layer; and an interdigital transducer which are stacked sequentially, wherein the support structure layer comprises at least one periodic structure, each of the at least one periodic structure comprises at least one period, and each of the at least one period comprises a first periodic layer and a second periodic layer which are stacked sequentially, a material of the first periodic layer is AlScN, and the first periodic layer is disposed on one side of the second periodic layer away from the substrate (see rejection for claim 1 above).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to design the structure/apparatus as disclosed by Aigner et al and to modify the invention per the limitations disclosed by Okunaga for the purpose of efficiently adjusting the fractional band width of acoustic wave devices.
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aigner et al and Okunaga as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Obu et al (US 2016/0005841).
The combined device/apparatus discloses all of the elements above. However, the combined device/apparatus does not disclose the elements below.On the other hand, Obu et al discloses, regarding,
Claim 21, one periodic structure comprises a plurality of periodic structures (multiple layers for a base; see Figs. 3, 4, 18A – 18D).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to design the device/apparatus as disclosed above and to modify the invention per the limitations disclosed by Obu et al for the purpose of reducing the cost of semiconductor devices.
Claim(s) 12, 20, 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aigner et al and Okunaga as applied to claims 1, 19 above, and further in view of Iwamoto (US 2019/0386639).
The combined device/apparatus discloses all of the elements above. However, the combined device/apparatus does not disclose the elements below.On the other hand, Iwamoto discloses, regarding,
Claims 12, 20, each of the at least one period further comprises a third periodic layer, and the third periodic layer is disposed between the first periodic layer and the second periodic layer (see Fig. 1).
Claim 21, one periodic structure comprises a plurality of periodic structures (Figs. 1, 8; since the support structure can have several layers).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to design the device/apparatus as disclosed above and to modify the invention per the limitations disclosed by Iwamoto for the purpose of reducing a higher order mode at higher frequencies in surface acoustic wave devices.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10, 11, 13 – 15 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/09/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
According to the Merriam-Websters Dictionary, the word periodic means “occurring at regular intervals” or “containing repeated stages”.
Thus, as most broadly reasonable interpreted, the claim language as mentioned in claim 1, discloses a support structure having one periodic structure (layer occurring at regular intervals, as defined in the dictionary). Therefore, the prior art, Aigner et al, discloses a support structure having layers occurring at regular intervals or having repeated stages (periodic; see Figs. 3, 4, 5). Okunaga also discloses a support structure occurring periodically (layers occurring at repeated stages or regular interval; see Figs. 5, 6, 8, 9, 10). As seem from the figures from the prior arts, the support layer can be made of several periodic layers occurring at regular intervals or stages.
It is noted that the claims 1 and 19 do NOT provide any specific physical description of a “periodic structure” or a “periodic layer”. As long as a layer is disclosed in regular intervals or happening in stages (as shown in the prior art), the prior art reads on the claim language.
It is also noted that the claims do NOT provide any definition or concept of a periodic stacking.
The claim language is not specific enough to different the different present invention from the prior art.
The claim language is too broad, thus the prior art reads on the claim language as presented.
It is mentioned that the claims 10, 11, 13 – 15 (allowable claim subject matter) provide some type of description (physical or materially) that differentiates the present invention from the prior art.
Again, the claim language as presented by the independent claims is very broad, thus the prior art reads on the claim language.
With respect to claim 21, having a periodic structure (layer occurring at regular intervals) and being made of a plurality of periodic structures only means that the structure is made of two or more layers occurring regularly. The claim language is too broad.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., synergistic effect of multiped periods in the support structure layer by providing a gradual transition of lattice constants, effectively reflect acoustic waves, reduce energy loss, and reduce cracking in single crystal piezoelectric layers) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
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 Julio C. Gonzalez whose telephone number is (571)272-2024. The examiner can normally be reached 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, Abdullah Riyami can be reached at 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.
/Julio C. Gonzalez/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2831
August 20, 2026
Prosecution Insights