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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 11/21/2025 has been entered.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4, 11, 13-14, and 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Taniguchi (US 10,468,584).
In regard to Claim 1:
Taniguchi discloses, in Figure 3, a Surface Acoustic Wave (SAW) device, comprising:
a piezoelectric layer (2) having a top surface (top surface of 2);
an interdigitated transducer (8, 9) having a first pattern and over the top surface (8, 9 are patterned on the top surface, see Figure 2); and
an interface structure (3a) having a second pattern that corresponds to the first pattern (Figure 2 shows 3a in the same pattern as 8, 9) and residing directly between the top surface (top surface of 2) and the interdigitated transducer (8, 9), wherein:
the interface structure (3a) is conductive (Column 4: lines 58-62 and Column 5: lines 5-9) and completely separates the interdigitated transducer (8, 9) from the piezoelectric layer (2); and
a plurality of elements of the interface structure (3a) are wider (3a is wider than the main electrode layer 3b of 8, 9) than corresponding elements of the interdigitated transducer (8, 9), so as to reduce effective coupling of the SAW device without adding any extra capacitor to the SAW device (Column 6: lines 29-47).
In regard to Claim 2:
Taniguchi discloses, in Figure 3, the SAW device of claim 1 wherein the interface structure (3a) is directly on the top surface (top surface of 2) and the interdigitated transducer (main electrode 3b of 8, 9) is directly on the interface structure (3a).
In regard to Claim 4:
Taniguchi discloses, in Figure 3, the SAW device of claim 1 wherein each of the plurality of elements of the interface structure (3a) is wider than each of the corresponding elements (main electrode 3b of 8, 9) of the interdigitated transducer (Column 6: lines 33-37).
In regard to Claim 11:
Taniguchi discloses, in Figure 3, the SAW device of claim 1 wherein the piezoelectric layer is a piezoelectric substrate (Column 4: lines 37-40).
In regard to Claim 13:
Taniguchi discloses, in Figure 3, the SAW device of claim 1 wherein the interdigitated transducer (main electrode 3b of 8, 9) has a thickness greater than a thickness of the interface structure (3a, Column 5: lines 11-13).
In regard to Claim 14:
Taniguchi discloses, in Figure 3, the SAW device of claim 1 wherein the SAW device forms a SAW resonator (Column 5: lines 26-29).
In regard to Claim 16:
Taniguchi discloses, in Figure 3, a method of fabricating a Surface Acoustic Wave (SAW) device, comprising:
providing a piezoelectric layer (2) having a top surface (top surface of 2);
providing an interdigitated transducer (8, 9) having a first pattern and over the top surface (8, 9 are patterned on the top surface, see Figure 2); and
providing an interface structure (3a) having a second pattern that corresponds to the first pattern (Figure 2 shows 3a in the same pattern as 8, 9) and residing directly between the top surface (top surface of 2) and the interdigitated transducer (8, 9), wherein:
the interface structure (3a) is conductive (Column 4: lines 58-62 and Column 5: lines 5-9) and completely separates the interdigitated transducer (8, 9) from the piezoelectric layer (2); and
a plurality of elements of the interface structure (3a) are wider (3a is wider than the main electrode layer 3b of 8, 9) than corresponding elements of the interdigitated transducer (8, 9), so as to reduce effective coupling of the SAW device without adding any extra capacitor to the SAW device (Column 6: lines 29-47).
In regard to Claim 17:
Taniguchi discloses, in Figure 3, a communication device comprising a Surface Acoustic Wave (SAW) device that comprises:
a piezoelectric layer (2) having a top surface (top surface of 2);
an interdigitated transducer (8, 9) having a first pattern and over the top surface (8, 9 are patterned on the top surface, see Figure 2); and
an interface structure (3a) having a second pattern that corresponds to the first pattern (Figure 2 shows 3a in the same pattern as 8, 9) and residing directly between the top surface (top surface of 2) and the interdigitated transducer (8, 9), wherein:
the interface structure (3a) is conductive (Column 4: lines 58-62 and Column 5: lines 5-9) and completely separates the interdigitated transducer (8, 9) from the piezoelectric layer (2); and
a plurality of elements of the interface structure (3a) are wider (3a is wider than the main electrode layer 3b of 8, 9) than corresponding elements of the interdigitated transducer (8, 9), so as to reduce effective coupling of the SAW device without adding any extra capacitor to the SAW device (Column 6: lines 29-47).
In regard to Claim 18:
Taniguchi discloses, in Figure 3, the SAW device of claim 1 wherein the interface structure (3a) is formed from one or more of titanium, nickel, chromium, zirconium, magnesium, aluminum, and a compound containing the same (Column 6: lines 61-65).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 5-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taniguchi (US 10,468,584).
In regard to Claim 5:
All of the claim limitations have been discussed with respect to Claim 1 above, except for wherein a plurality of elements of the interface structure are at least 25% wider than corresponding elements of the interdigitated transducer. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have the plurality of elements of the interface structure be at least 25% wider than corresponding elements of the interdigitated transducer, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Further it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the at the time the invention was effectively filed to have the interface structure be 25% wider than the interdigitated transducer, in order to reduce the number and cross width of electrode fingers 8 and 9, consequently reducing the size of the IDT electrode 3 (Taniguchi Column 6: lines 42-47).
In regard to Claim 6:
All of the claim limitations have been discussed with respect to Claim 1 above, except for wherein a plurality of elements of the interface structure are at least 50% wider than corresponding elements of the interdigitated transducer. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have the plurality of elements of the interface structure be at least 50% wider than corresponding elements of the interdigitated transducer, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Further it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the at the time the invention was effectively filed to have the interface structure be 25% wider than the interdigitated transducer, in order to reduce the number and cross width of electrode fingers 8 and 9, consequently reducing the size of the IDT electrode 3 (Taniguchi Column 6: lines 42-47).
In regard to Claim 7:
All of the claim limitations have been discussed with respect to Claim 1 above, except for wherein a plurality of elements of the interface structure are at least 75% wider than corresponding elements of the interdigitated transducer. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have the plurality of elements of the interface structure be at least 75% wider than corresponding elements of the interdigitated transducer, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Further it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the at the time the invention was effectively filed to have the interface structure be 25% wider than the interdigitated transducer, in order to reduce the number and cross width of electrode fingers 8 and 9, consequently reducing the size of the IDT electrode 3 (Taniguchi Column 6: lines 42-47).
Claim(s) 8-10, 12, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taniguchi (US 10,468,584), in view of Kodama et al. (US 11,082,029).
In regard to Claim 8:
All of the claim limitations have been discussed with respect to Claim 1 above, except for wherein the interface structure comprises titanium.
Kodama discloses wherein the interface structure comprises titanium (Column 6: line 39). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to use the interface material of titanium taught by Kodama with the interface structure taught by Taniguchi, since all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. (KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385).
In regard to Claim 9:
All of the claim limitations have been discussed with respect to Claim 1 above, except for further comprising a carrier substrate and wherein the piezoelectric layer is a piezoelectric film over the carrier substrate.
Kodama discloses, in Figure 6B, further comprising a carrier substrate (52) and wherein the piezoelectric layer is a piezoelectric film (12) over the carrier substrate (52).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to use the substrate taught by Kodama with the piezoelectric layer taught by Taniguchi, since all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. (KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385).
In regard to Claim 10:
All of the claim limitations have been discussed with respect to Claims 1 and 9 above, except for further comprising at least one dielectric layer between the piezoelectric film and the carrier substrate.
Kodama discloses, in Figure 6B, further comprising at least one dielectric layer (67) between the piezoelectric film (12) and the carrier substrate (52, Column 9: lines 56-59).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to use the dielectric layer and substrate taught by Kodama with the piezoelectric layer taught by Taniguchi, since all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. (KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385).
In regard to Claim 12:
All of the claim limitations have been discussed with respect to Claims 1 and 11 above, except for further comprising at least one dielectric layer over the top surface, the interdigitated transducer, and at least certain portions of the interface structure.
Kodama discloses, in Figure 6B, further comprising at least one dielectric layer (18) over the top surface (12), the interdigitated transducer (16), and at least certain portions of the interface structure (14).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to use the dielectric layer taught by Kodama with the top surface of the piezoelectric layer, interdigitated transducer, and interface structure taught by Taniguchi, since all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. (KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385).
In regard to Claim 15:
All of the claim limitations have been discussed with respect to Claim 1 above, except for wherein: the plurality of elements of the interface structure are wider than the corresponding elements of the interdigitated transducer; the SAW device forms a SAW resonator; the interface structure comprises titanium; and the interdigitated transducer has a thickness greater than a thickness of the interface structure.
Taniguchi further discloses, in Figure 3, wherein: the plurality of elements of the interface structure (3a) are wider than the corresponding elements of the interdigitated transducer (3a is wider than main electrode layer 3b of 8, 9); the SAW device forms a SAW resonator (Column 5: lines 26-29); and wherein the interdigitated transducer (main electrode layer 3b of 8, 9) has a thickness greater than a thickness of the interface structure (3a, Column 5: lines 11-13).
Kodama discloses the interface structure comprises titanium (Column 6: line 39).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to use the interface material of titanium taught by Kodama with the interface structure taught by Taniguchi, since all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. (KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to John W Poos whose telephone number is (571)270-5077. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8-5.
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, Jessica Han can be reached at 571-272-2078. 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.
/JOHN W POOS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2896