Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/304,765

SURFACE ACOUSTIC WAVE DEVICE STRUCTURE AND ELECTRONIC APPARATUS

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Apr 21, 2023
Examiner
GONZALEZ, JULIO CESAR
Art Unit
2831
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Enkris Semiconductor Inc.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
74%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 6m
To Grant
90%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 74% — above average
74%
Career Allow Rate
681 granted / 918 resolved
+6.2% vs TC avg
Strong +16% interview lift
Without
With
+15.8%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 6m
Avg Prosecution
51 currently pending
Career history
969
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
2.0%
-38.0% vs TC avg
§103
50.8%
+10.8% vs TC avg
§102
14.3%
-25.7% vs TC avg
§112
30.4%
-9.6% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 918 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
CTNF 18/304,765 CTNF 78030 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 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 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA 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 Al 1-a Sc a N, 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 n th 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 . 07-22-aia AIA Claim (s) 6 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 6, a lattice constant of the first periodic layer matches that of the second periodic layer (see Fig. 2; 0081). 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 . 07-22-aia AIA Claim (s) 12, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aigner et al and Okunaga as applied to claim s 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). 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 12-151-08 AIA 07-43 12-51-08 Claim s 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. The cited prior art fails to disclose the layer description(s) as specifically recited in such claims. Conclusion 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 March 12, 2026 Application/Control Number: 18/304,765 Page 2 Art Unit: 2831 Application/Control Number: 18/304,765 Page 3 Art Unit: 2831 Application/Control Number: 18/304,765 Page 4 Art Unit: 2831 Application/Control Number: 18/304,765 Page 5 Art Unit: 2831 Application/Control Number: 18/304,765 Page 7 Art Unit: 2831 Application/Control Number: 18/304,765 Page 8 Art Unit: 2831
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Apr 21, 2023
Application Filed
Mar 12, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12603591
METHOD FOR CONTROLLING AN ELECTRICAL GENERATOR OF A WIND TURBINE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12588418
PIEZOELECTRIC DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12577932
HYDRODYNAMIC POWER GENERATOR AND SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12569883
MULTILAYER BOARD, PROBE UNIT, AND ULTRASOUND ENDOSCOPE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12571376
ENERGY STORAGE AND DELIVERY SYSTEM WITH AN ELEVATOR LIFT SYSTEM AND METHOD OF OPERATING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
74%
Grant Probability
90%
With Interview (+15.8%)
2y 6m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 918 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month