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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/11/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 1, in response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine Bhattacharjee (US 2016/0182007 A1) and Iwamoto (US 2015/0028966 A1), the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, Iwamoto discloses, in Paragraph [0044], that the inclusion of the epitaxial film manufacturing of the IDT electrode (19) directly correlates to improved "electric power handling capability" (i.e., improved linearity) of the surface acoustic wave filter device. Bhattacharjee continues to disclose, in Paragraph [0091], the non-epitaxial film manufacturing of the IDT electrode (38A, 40A). In combination, Bhattacharjee and Iwamoto disclose wherein one of the first IDT electrode and the second IDT electrode is made of an epitaxial film and another of the first IDT electrode and the second IDT electrode is made of only a non-epitaxial film, as required by the invention as claimed.
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 1-5 & 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bhattacharjee (US 2016/0182007 A1) in view of Iwamoto (US 2015/0028966 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Bhattacharjee discloses, in figure 8, an acoustic wave device comprising:
a support substrate (28);
a piezoelectric film including a first main surface and a second main surface (Para [0091], “piezoelectric layer 12”), the first main surface and the second main surface being opposed to each other (top and bottom of piezoelectric layer 12 opposed to each other), and is directly or indirectly laminated on the support substrate from a side including the second main surface (piezoelectric layer 12 layered on support substrate 28); and
a first Interdigital Transducer (IDT) electrode and a second IDT electrode on the first main surface and the second main surface of the piezoelectric film respectively (Para [0091], “electrodes 38A, 40A in the form of a first IDT arranged on the lower surface of a single crystal piezoelectric layer 12 and alternating top side electrodes 38B, 40B in the form of a second IDT arranged on the upper surface of the piezoelectric layer 12”); wherein
one of the first IDT electrode and the second IDT electrode is made of only a non-epitaxial film (Para [0091], “metal may be deposited in the recesses to form the lower electrodes 38A, 40A”), but fails to disclose one of the first IDT electrode and the second IDT electrode is made of an epitaxial film.
However, Iwamoto discloses, in figure 1, one of the first IDT electrode and the second IDT electrode is made of an epitaxial film (Para [0044], “IDT electrode 19 and the electrode land 16 may be configured with only an epitaxial film”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include the epitaxial film of Iwamoto in the acoustic wave device of Bhattacharjee, to achieve the benefit of utilizing a surface acoustic wave device exhibiting improved electric power handling capability (Iwamoto, Para [0044]).
Regarding claim 2, Bhattacharjee in view of Iwamoto discloses the acoustic wave device according to claim 1, and Bhattacharjee continues to disclose, in figure 8, wherein the second IDT electrode is made of the non-epitaxial film (Para [0091], “metal may be deposited in the recesses to form the lower electrodes 38A, 40A”), but fails to disclose wherein the first IDT electrode is made of the epitaxial film.
However, Iwamoto discloses, in figure 1, wherein the first IDT electrode is made of the epitaxial film (Para [0044], “IDT electrode 19 and the electrode land 16 may be configured with only an epitaxial film”).
Regarding claim 3, Bhattacharjee in view of Iwamoto discloses the acoustic wave device according to claim 1, and Bhattacharjee continues to disclose, in figure 8, a dielectric film (Para [0061], “slow wave propagation layer 14A”) between the support substrate and the piezoelectric film (Para [0067], “slow wave propagation material that may be used according to certain embodiments includes (but is not limited to) silicon dioxide.”);
wherein the second IDT electrode is embedded in the dielectric film (IDT electrode formed by 38A, 40A embedded in dielectric film 14A, see figure 8).
Regarding claim 4, Bhattacharjee in view of Iwamoto discloses the acoustic wave device according to claim 3, and Iwamoto continues to disclose, in figure 1, wherein the dielectric film is a silicon oxide film (Para [0036], “a preferable material for the dielectric layer 13, aluminum nitride, silicon oxide”).
Regarding claim 5, Bhattacharjee in view of Iwamoto discloses the acoustic wave device according to claim 1, and Bhattacharjee continues to disclose, in figure 8, wherein the first IDT electrode and the second IDT electrode are connected in parallel (Para [0075] & [0093], “Although various embodiments disclosed herein include single resonators, it is to be appreciated that any suitable combinations of single or multiple resonators and/or reflector gratings in series and/or in parallel…FIGS. 8 and 9 illustrate two IDTs in phase”).
Regarding claim 8, Bhattacharjee in view of Iwamoto discloses the acoustic wave device according to claim 1, and Bhattacharjee continues to disclose, in figure 8, a high-acoustic-velocity material layer laminated between the support substrate and the piezoelectric film (16A between substrate 28 and piezoelectric layer 12), and made of a high-acoustic-velocity material in which an acoustic velocity of a bulk wave propagating therethrough is higher than an acoustic velocity of an acoustic wave propagating through the piezoelectric film (Para [0090], “fast wave propagation layers 16A”).
Claims 6 & 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bhattacharjee in view of Iwamoto as applied to claims 1-5 & 8 above, and further in view of Kando (US 2008/0106354 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Bhattacharjee in view of Iwamoto discloses the acoustic wave device according to claim 1, and Iwamoto continues to disclose, in figure 1, a metal of the epitaxial film (Para [0044], “each of the IDT electrode 19 and the electrode land 16 may be configured with only an epitaxial film whose major component is aluminum”), but fails to disclose the non-epitaxial film made of a metal having a higher density.
However, Kando discloses, in figure 1, the non-epitaxial film made of a metal having a higher density (Para [0038], “second IDT electrode 4 are preferably made of Au”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include the material of Kando in the IDT electrodes of Bhattacharjee and Iwamoto, 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 [i.e., embedding a denser IDT electrode with decreased electric power handling capability], 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).
Regarding claim 11, Bhattacharjee in view of Iwamoto discloses the acoustic wave device according to claim 1, but fails to disclose reflectors on two respective sides in an acoustic wave propagating direction of the first IDT electrode; and additional reflectors on two respective sides in an acoustic wave propagating direction of the second IDT electrode.
However, Kando discloses, in figures 7A & 8, reflectors on two respective sides in an acoustic wave propagating direction of the first IDT electrode (Para [0072], “reflectors 33c and 33d are arranged on both sides of a region containing the first IDT electrodes 33a and 33b in the boundary acoustic wave-propagating direction”); and
additional reflectors on two respective sides in an acoustic wave propagating direction of the second IDT electrode (Para [0073], “second IDT electrodes 34a and 34b are also arranged in the boundary acoustic wave-propagating direction. Reflectors 34c and 34d are arranged on both sides of a region containing the second IDT electrodes 34a and 34b.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include the reflectors of Kando in the acoustic wave device of Bhattacharjee and Iwamoto, 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 [i.e., confining and reflecting the acoustic waves of the acoustic wave device], 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).
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bhattacharjee in view of Iwomata as applied to claims 1-5 & 8 above, and further in view of Taniguchi et al. (US 12,149,226 B2), hereinafter Taniguchi.
Regarding claim 9, Bhattacharjee in view of Iwamoto discloses the acoustic wave device according to claim 1, but fail to disclose wherein the support substrate is a high-acoustic-velocity material layer, the high-acoustic-velocity material layer being made of a high-acoustic-velocity material in which an acoustic velocity of a bulk wave propagating therethrough is higher than an acoustic velocity of an acoustic wave propagating through the piezoelectric film.
However, Taniguchi discloses, in figure 1, wherein the support substrate is a high-acoustic-velocity material layer (7), the high-acoustic-velocity material layer being made of a high-acoustic-velocity material in which an acoustic velocity of a bulk wave propagating therethrough is higher than an acoustic velocity of an acoustic wave propagating through the piezoelectric film (Col. 6, Lines 13-17, “the acoustic velocity of bulk waves propagating in the high acoustic velocity material layer is higher than the acoustic velocity of bulk waves propagating in the piezoelectric layer 9. The high acoustic velocity support substrate 7 defining and functioning as the high acoustic velocity material layer”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include the high acoustic velocity substrate of Taniguchi in the acoustic wave device of Bhattacharjee and Iwomata, to achieve the benefit of more effectively confining acoustic waves in the piezoelectric layer side of the acoustic wave device (Taniguchi, Col. 6, Lines 28-32).
Regarding claim 10, Bhattacharjee in view of Iwamoto discloses the acoustic wave device according to claim 1, but fail to disclose a low-acoustic-velocity material layer laminated between the high-acoustic-velocity material layer and the piezoelectric film, and made of a low-acoustic-velocity material in which an acoustic velocity of a bulk wave propagating therethrough is lower than an acoustic velocity of a bulk wave propagating through the piezoelectric film.
However, Taniguchi discloses, in figure 8, a low-acoustic-velocity material layer (8) laminated between the high-acoustic-velocity material layer and the piezoelectric film (8 laminated between high acoustic velocity film 27 and piezoelectric film 9), and made of a low-acoustic-velocity material in which an acoustic velocity of a bulk wave propagating therethrough is lower than an acoustic velocity of a bulk wave propagating through the piezoelectric film (Col. 5, Lines 64-67, “the acoustic velocity of bulk waves propagating in the low acoustic velocity film 8 is lower than the acoustic velocity of bulk waves propagating in the piezoelectric layer 9”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include the low acoustic velocity material layer of Taniguchi in the acoustic wave device of Bhattacharjee and Iwomata, to achieve the benefit of more effectively confining acoustic waves in the piezoelectric layer side of the acoustic wave device (Taniguchi, Col. 6, Lines 28-32).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7 & 12 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.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 TYLER J PERENY whose telephone number is (571)272-4189. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5.
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, Lincoln Donovan can be reached at 571-272-1988. 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.
/TYLER J PERENY/Examiner, Art Unit 2842
/LINCOLN D DONOVAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2842