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
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 1-9 and 16-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuroyanagi et al. (US 2016/0049919) in view of Kuroyanagi (US 2014/0210310).
With respect to claim 1, Kuroyanagi et al. discloses an acoustic wave device (Figs 8A-8B) comprising: a piezoelectric substrate including a support including a support substrate (item 10) and a piezoelectric layer (item 12) on the support and including a first main surface and a second main surface facing each other (Fig 8A); at least one functional electrode (item 14) on the first main surface or the second main surface of the piezoelectric layer and including at least one pair of electrodes (Fig 8A).
Kuroyanagi et al. does not disclose a first support on the piezoelectric substrate and surrounding the functional electrode; at least one second support on the piezoelectric substrate and located in a portion surrounded by the first support; and a lid portion on the first support and the at least one second support; wherein a direction in which adjacent electrodes of the at least one pair of electrodes face each other is referred to as an electrode facing direction, a region in which the adjacent electrodes overlap each other when viewed from the electrode facing direction is an intersecting region, and a direction in which the at least one pair of electrodes extend is referred to as an electrode extending direction; and the at least one second support does not overlap the intersecting region both when viewed from the electrode extending direction and when viewed from the electrode facing direction.
Kuroyanagi teaches a piezoelectric acoustic wave device (Figs 4A-4B) that includes a first support (item 32) on the piezoelectric substrate and surrounding the functional electrode (Figs 4A-4B); at least one second support (item 30) on the piezoelectric substrate and located in a portion surrounded by the first support; and a lid portion on the first support and the at least one second support (Figs 4A-4B); wherein a direction in which adjacent electrodes of the at least one pair of electrodes face each other is referred to as an electrode facing direction (Figs 4A-4B), a region in which the adjacent electrodes overlap each other when viewed from the electrode facing direction is an intersecting region (Figs 4A-4B), and a direction in which the at least one pair of electrodes extend is referred to as an electrode extending direction (Figs 4A-4B); and the at least one second support does not overlap the intersecting region both when viewed from the electrode extending direction and when viewed from the electrode facing direction (Figs 4A-4B).
Before the effective filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the dual supports and lid arrangement of Kuroyanagi with the acoustic wave device of Kuroyanagi et al. for the benefit of better protecting the piezoelectric device (Figs 4A-4B of Kuroyanagi).
With respect to claim 2, the combination of Kuroyanagi et al. and Kuroyanagi discloses the acoustic wave device according to claim 1. Kuroyanagi et al. discloses that a plurality of the functional electrodes are provided (Figs 8A-8B); a plurality of resonators each including at least one of the functional electrodes are provided (Figs 8A-8B). Kuroyanagi discloses that the at least one second support is provided between two of the resonators (Figs 4A-4B).
With respect to claim 3, the combination of Kuroyanagi et al. and Kuroyanagi discloses the acoustic wave device according to claim 2. Kuroyanagi discloses that the plurality of resonators include a plurality of divided resonators; and the at least one second support is provided between two of the divided resonators (Figs 4A-4B).
With respect to claim 4, the combination of Kuroyanagi et al. and Kuroyanagi discloses the acoustic wave device according to claim 1. Kuroyanagi discloses that a plurality of the functional electrodes are provided; a plurality of resonators each including at least one of the functional electrodes are provided; and the at least one second support is provided on the piezoelectric substrate at a location other than a portion between the two resonators (Figs 4A-4B).
With respect to claim 5, the combination of Kuroyanagi et al. and Kuroyanagi discloses the acoustic wave device according to claim 1. Kuroyanagi discloses that the at least one second support is electrically connected to the at least one functional electrode (Figs 4A-4B).
With respect to claim 6, the combination of Kuroyanagi et al. and Kuroyanagi discloses the acoustic wave device according to claim 1. Kuroyanagi discloses that a plurality of the functional electrodes and a plurality of second supports are provided; a plurality of resonators each including at least one of the functional electrode are provided; and at least one pair of the plurality of second supports sandwich one of the resonators (Figs 4A-4B).
With respect to claim 7, the combination of Kuroyanagi et al. and Kuroyanagi discloses the acoustic wave device according to claim 6. Kuroyanagi et al. discloses that the plurality of resonators include at least one series arm resonator and at least one parallel arm resonator (Paragraph 31). Kuroyanagi discloses that at least one pair of the plurality of second supports sandwich the at least one series arm resonator (Figs 4A-4B).
With respect to claim 8, the combination of Kuroyanagi et al. and Kuroyanagi discloses the acoustic wave device according to claim 6. Kuroyanagi et al. discloses that the plurality of resonators include at least one series arm resonator and at least one parallel arm resonator (Paragraph 31). Kuroyanagi discloses that at least one pair of the plurality of second supports sandwich the at least one parallel arm resonator (Figs 4A-4B).
With respect to claim 9, the combination of Kuroyanagi et al. and Kuroyanagi discloses the acoustic wave device according to claim 6. Kuroyanagi discloses that at least one pair of the plurality of second supports sandwich the resonator closest to an input end to which a signal is input (Figs 4A-4B).
With respect to claim 16, the combination of Kuroyanagi et al. and Kuroyanagi discloses the acoustic wave device according to claim 1. Kuroyanagi et al. discloses that the piezoelectric layer is a lithium tantalate layer or a lithium niobate layer (Paragraph 33).
With respect to claim 17, the combination of Kuroyanagi et al. and Kuroyanagi discloses the acoustic wave device according to claim 1. Kuroyanagi et al. discloses that the at least one functional electrode includes first and second busbars facing each other, one or more first electrode fingers connected to the first busbar, and one or more second electrode fingers connected to the second busbar and facing the first electrode fingers (Figs 8A-8B).
With respect to claim 18, the combination of Kuroyanagi et al. and Kuroyanagi discloses the acoustic wave device according to claim 17. Kuroyanagi et al. discloses that the at least one functional electrode is an IDT electrode including the plurality of first electrode fingers and the plurality of second electrode fingers (Figs 8A-8B).
With respect to claim 19¸ the combination of Kuroyanagi et al. and Kuroyanagi discloses the acoustic wave device according to claim 18. The language “wherein the acoustic wave device is structured to generate plate waves” is functional language that refers only to an operational mode of the device and does not further limit the structural features of the acoustic wave device.
With respect to claim 20, the combination of Kuroyanagi et al. and Kuroyanagi discloses the acoustic wave device according to claim 17. The language “wherein the acoustic wave device is structured to generate bulk waves in a thickness shear mode” is functional language that refers only to an operational mode of the device and does not further limit the structural features of the acoustic wave device.
With respect to claim 21, the combination of Kuroyanagi et al. and Kuroyanagi discloses the acoustic wave device according to claim 17.
Kuroyanagi et al. does not disclose that, when a thickness of the piezoelectric layer is defined as d, and a center-to-center distance between the first electrode finger and the second electrode finger adjacent to each other is defined as p, d/p is equal to or less than about 0.5.
However, it has been held that a mere change in size or relative dimensions is obvious (Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 220 USPQ 777). Therefore, before the effective filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adjust dimensions such as piezoelectric substrate thickness and IDT pitch to provide the desired characteristics, including within a range as broad as d/p is equal to or less than about 0.5.
With respect to claim 22, the combination of Kuroyanagi et al. and Kuroyanagi discloses the acoustic wave device according to claim 21.
Kuroyanagi et al. does not disclose that d/p is equal to or less than about 0.24.
However, it has been held that a mere change in size or relative dimensions is obvious (Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 220 USPQ 777). Therefore, before the effective filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adjust dimensions such as piezoelectric substrate thickness and IDT pitch to provide the desired characteristics, including within a range as broad as d/p is equal to or less than about 0.24.
With respect to claim 23, the combination of Kuroyanagi et al. and Kuroyanagi discloses the acoustic wave device according to claim 20.
Kuroyanagi et al. does not disclose that, when viewed from the electrode facing direction, a region in which the first electrode finger and the second electrode finger adjacent to each other overlap each other is an excitation region; and a metallization ratio of the one or more first electrode fingers and the one or more second electrode fingers with respect to the excitation region is defined as MR, MR < about 1.75 (d/p) + 0.075 is satisfied.
However, it has been held that a mere change in size or relative dimensions is obvious (Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 220 USPQ 777). Therefore, before the effective filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adjust dimensions such as piezoelectric substrate thickness and IDT pitch to provide the desired characteristics, including within a broad range such as the claimed range for metallization ratio.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuroyanagi et al. in view of Kuroyanagi and Kai (US 2016/0380611).
With respect to claim 13, the combination of Kuroyanagi et al. and Kuroyanagi discloses the acoustic wave device according to Claim 1.
Kuroyanagi et al. does not disclose that the support includes an intermediate layer between the support substrate and the piezoelectric layer.
Kai teaches a piezoelectric acoustic wave device in which the support includes an intermediate layer (items 3a-3b) between the support substrate (item 2) and the piezoelectric layer (item 4).
Before the effective filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the intermediate layer of Kai with the acoustic wave device of Kuroyanagi et al. for the benefit of providing an improved quality factor (Paragraph 43 of Kai).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuroyanagi et al. in view of Kuroyanagi and Ortiz et al. (US 2015/0280688).
With respect to claim 15, the combination of Kuroyanagi et al. and Kuroyanagi discloses the acoustic wave device according to Claim 1.
Kuroyanagi et al. does not disclose that the lid portion includes a lid body including a semiconductor as a main component.
Ortiz et al. teaches an acoustic wave device in which the lid portion includes a lid body including a semiconductor as a main component (Paragraph 41).
Before the effective filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the semiconductive lid of Ortiz et al. with the acoustic wave device of Kuroyanagi et al. for the benefit of providing a material that is easily manufactured by semiconductor processes (Paragraph 41 of Ortiz et al.).
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuroyanagi et al. in view of Kuroyanagi and Iwasaki et al. (US 2014/0232239).
With respect to claim 24, the combination of Kuroyanagi et al. and Kuroyanagi discloses the acoustic wave device according to Claim 20.
Kuroyanagi et al. does not disclose that the piezoelectric layer is a lithium tantalate layer or a lithium niobate layer; and Euler angles (cp, e,$) of lithium niobate or lithium tantalate forming the piezoelectric layer are in a range of the following Expression (1), Expression (2), or Expression (3).
Iwasaki et al. teaches an acoustic wave device in which the piezoelectric layer is a lithium tantalate layer or a lithium niobate layer; and Euler angles (cp, e,$) of lithium niobate or lithium tantalate forming the piezoelectric layer are in a range of the following Expression (1), Expression (2), or Expression (3) (Paragraphs 43-46).
It should be noted that the claimed Euler ranges for expressions 1-3 encompass very broad ranges that include multiple common cut angles for lithium niobate and lithium tantalate substrates that are commonly used for piezoelectric acoustic wave devices.
Before the effective filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the cut angles of the piezoelectric materials of Iwasaki et al. with the acoustic wave device of Kuroyanagi et al. as it has been held that the selection of a material based on an art-recognized suitability for an intended purpose is obvious (In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10-12 and 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter.
The prior art does not disclose or suggest “wherein, when an axis passing through a center of the intersecting region of at least one of the plurality of resonator in the electrode facing direction and extending in a direction orthogonal or substantially orthogonal to the electrode facing direction is referred to as a symmetry axis, the at least one pair of second supports sandwiching the one of resonators are not line- symmetric” in combination with the remaining elements of claim 10.
The prior art does not disclose or suggest “wherein at least one first cavity portion is provided in the support, and the first cavity portion overlaps at least a portion of the at least one functional electrode in plan view; a second cavity portion surrounded by the piezoelectric substrate, the first support, and the lid portion is provided; and when a dimension along a direction in which the piezoelectric substrate, the first support, and the lid portion are stacked is referred to as a height, a height of the first cavity portion is higher than a height of the second cavity portion” in combination with the remaining elements of claim 11.
The prior art does not disclose or suggest “wherein at least one first cavity portion is provided in the support, and the first cavity portion overlaps at least a portion of the at least one functional electrode in plan view; a second cavity portion surrounded by the piezoelectric substrate, the first support, and the lid portion is provided; and when a dimension along a direction in which the piezoelectric substrate, the first support, and the lid portion are stacked is referred to as a height, a height of the second cavity portion is higher than a height of the first cavity portion” in combination with the remaining elements of claim 12.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Derek John Rosenau whose telephone number is (571)272-8932. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7 am to 5:30 pm Central Time.
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, Dedei Hammond can be reached at (571) 270-7938. 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.
/DEREK J ROSENAU/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2837
Prosecution Insights