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 § 102
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 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 – 4, 10, 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shibata et al (US 2007/0194863).
Shibata et al discloses, regarding,
Claim 1, An acoustic wave device comprising: a first layer 10 including a support substrate; a second layer 16 on the first layer 10 and including a piezoelectric film (see abstract); and an excitation electrode 18 on the second layer 16; wherein a cavity 20 is between the first layer and the second layer (see Fig. 18), and the excitation electrode 18 at least partially overlaps the cavity in a stacking direction of the first layer and the second layer (see Fig. 18); and a surface roughness 24a-d of a major surface of the first layer facing the cavity is different from a surface roughness 54a-d of a major surface of the second layer facing the cavity (see Fig. 18).
Claim 2, the surface roughness of the major surface of the first layer facing the cavity is larger than the surface roughness of the major surface of the second layer facing the cavity (see Fig. 18).
Claim 3, a through-hole 30 penetrates the second layer and reaches the cavity (see Fig. 12).
Claim 4, the surface roughness of the major surface of the first layer facing the cavity and the surface roughness of the major surface of the second layer facing the cavity are both larger than a surface roughness of a major surface of the second layer on which the excitation electrode is provided (see Fig. 20).
Claim 10, the excitation electrode is an upper electrode 18, and a lower electrode 14 is provided on a major surface of the piezoelectric film 16 on an opposite side to a major surface on which the excitation electrode is provided.
Claim 12, the major surface of the first layer includes a plurality of protrusions that protrude from the major surface of the first layer toward the cavity; and adjacent ones of the plurality of protrusions are provided with a predetermined distance from each other (see Fig. 18).
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) 2, 3, 10 – 13, 18 – 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shibata et al in view of Mitarai (JP 2005-342817).
Shibata et al discloses all of the elements above. However, Shibata does not disclose explicitly the elements below.
On the other hand, Mitarai discloses, regarding,
Claim 2, the surface roughness of the major surface of the first layer facing the cavity is larger than the surface roughness of the major surface of the second layer facing the cavity (see Fig. 4).
Claim 3, a through-hole 15 penetrates the second layer and reaches the cavity (see Fig. 1).
Claim 10, the excitation electrode is an upper electrode 14, and a lower electrode 12 is provided on a major surface of the piezoelectric film 13 on an opposite side to a major surface on which the excitation electrode is provided (see Fig. 1).
Claim 11, the major surface of the first layer includes a plurality of protrusions that protrude from the major surface of the first layer toward the cavity; and the plurality of protrusions include protrusions with different heights (see Fig. 1).
Claim 12, the major surface of the first layer includes a plurality of protrusions that protrude from the major surface of the first layer toward the cavity; and adjacent ones of the plurality of protrusions are provided with a predetermined distance from each other (see Figs. 1, 4).
Claim 13, the major surface of the first layer includes a plurality of protrusions that protrude from the major surface of the first layer toward the cavity; and the plurality of protrusions include end portions pointed on a cavity side (see Figs. 1, 4).
Claim 18, the surface roughness of the major surface of the first layer and the surface roughness of the major surface of the second layer is greater than or equal to about 0.5 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, the surface roughness of the major surface of the first layer and the surface roughness of the major surface of the second layer is greater than or equal to about 1.0 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 20, an upper limit of the surface roughness of the major surface of the first layer and the surface roughness of the major surface of the second layer does not exceed a film thickness of the first intermediate layer or the second intermediate layer (see Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to design the device as disclosed by Shibata et al and to modify the invention per the limitations disclosed by Mitarai for the purpose of providing a durable piezoelectric element.
Claim(s) 5 – 9, 15 – 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shibata et al in view of Han et al (US 10,630,258).
Shibata et al discloses all of the elements above. However, Shibata does not disclose the elements below.
On the other hand, Han et al discloses, regarding,
Claim 5, the second layer further includes a second intermediate layer provided on a major surface of the piezoelectric film on a cavity side (see Fig. 10).
Claim 6, the first layer further includes a first intermediate layer provided on a major surface of the support substrate on a cavity side (see Fig. 10).
Claim 7, the first intermediate layer and the second intermediate layer are integrated (see Fig. 10).
Claim 8, first intermediate layer and the second intermediate layer include a same 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 9, the excitation electrode is an IDT electrode since such electrode is a well-known type of electrode commonly used in the field.
Claim 15, the support substrate is made of silicon (column 4, lines 44 – 48).
Claim 16, the piezoelectric film is made of piezoelectric single crystal 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 first intermediate layer and the second intermediate layer are integrally formed of silicon oxide 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.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to design the device as disclosed by Shibata et al and to modify the invention per the limitations disclosed by Han et al for the purpose of reducing noise in a resonator.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 14 is 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 prior art fails to disclose the busbars, electrode fingers, intersecting regions and how such elements are related to the protrusions as specifically described in the claim.
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
July 8, 2026
Prosecution Insights