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 § 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, 2 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Otsubo et al. (US2017/0077897 A1, Reference of Record).
In regards to claim 1, Otsubo et al. teaches in Fig. 1A and 1B an acoustic wave device comprising:
A support substrate (2);
An intermediate layer (combination of 3, 4, 5a, 5b and 7) on the support substrate;
A piezoelectric layer (6) on the intermediate layer;
A bonding layer (3) located between the support substrate and the piezoelectric layer;
A low-resistivity layer (7) made from Aluminum (see Paragraphs [0043]-[0044]) between the support substrate and the piezoelectric layer; and
An IDT electrode (8) on the piezoelectric layer and including a pair of busbars and a plurality of electrode fingers;
Wherein the low-resistivity layer (7) is closer to the piezoelectric layer than the bonding layer (3) and the low-resistivity layer includes Al as a main component (see Paragraphs [0043]-[0044]).
In regards to claim 2, based on Fig. 1A, the bonding layer (3) and the low-resistivity layer (7) are provided within the intermediate layer (combination of 3, 4, 5a, 5b and 7).
In regards to claim 4, based on Paragraphs [0043]-[0044], the low-resistivity layer is made from Aluminum which will necessarily have a sheet resistance that is less than 1 ohms square.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3 and 5-9 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.
Claims 10-19 are allowed. See office action mailed on 7/15/2025 for reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/14/2025, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 3-4 of the applicants made the following remark:
As shown in Figs.1A and 1B of Otsubo (reproduced above), paragraphs [0043] and [0044] of Otsubo, referred to by the Examiner, disclose:
[0043] As is clear from a non-limiting example of a production method described below, the bonding layer 7 is a portion formed by metal diffusion bonding and is prefer- ably formed of Ti oxide in the present preferred embodiment.
[0044] A metal other than Ti may also be used. An example of such a metal is Al. Alternatively, the bonding layer 7 may be made of a metal, such as Ti or Al, instead of metal oxides. To achieve electrical insulation, a metal oxide or a metal nitride is preferable. In particular, an oxide or nitride of Ti is preferably used in order to achieve high bonding strength.
That is, paragraphs [0043]-[0044] of Otsubo merely refer to materials of the bonding layer 7 of Otsubo.
Further, paragraph [0035] of Otsubo discloses that "the low-acoustic-velocity film 5 has a structure in which a low-acoustic-velocity layer 5a and a low-acoustic-velocity layer 5b are bonded to each other by a bonding layer 7."
Thus, in view of the disclosure of Otsubo quoted and described above, it is readily apparent that Otsubo does not teach, suggest, or even mention that the bonding layer 7 of Otsubo is or could possibly have been or properly corresponded to the feature of "the low- resistivity layer includes Al as a main component" as recited in Applicant's Claim 1. Instead, at best, Otsubo clearly discloses that the bonding layer 7 bonds the low-acoustic-velocity layer 5a and the low-acoustic-velocity layer 5b to each other.
The examiner finds this remark unpersuasive. As disclosed above, Otsubo et al. teaches in paragraphs [0043]-[0044], that layer (7) is made from aluminum, in which aluminum is a type of “low-resistivity layer” since it made from a conductive metal, hence layer (7) of Otsubo et al. can be interpreted as the claimed “low-resistivity layer”. Furthermore, even though layer (7) is located between two low acoustic velocity layers (5a and 5b), the claim doesn’t exclude such layer from being a “low-resistivity layer” (i.e. the claim merely states that the “low resistivity layer” is located “between the support substrate and piezoelectric” and that the low resistivity layer “is closer to the piezoelectric layer than the bonding layer”, which as discussed above, the low-resistivity layer of Otsubo et al. is located in a position as claimed). Therefore, the examiner has maintained the rejection of record.
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 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