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.
Claim(s) 1, 7-9, 11, 19 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (CN 112054781 A) in view of Kaajakari (US 20180019728).
As to claim 1, Li et al.’s figure 1 shows an acoustic wave device comprising: a piezoelectric film (105) including first and second main surfaces facing each other; a first IDT electrode (101,102) provided on the first main surface of the piezoelectric film; and a second IDT electrode (103, 104) provided on the second main surface of the piezoelectric film. The figure fails to show that a crystal c-axis of the piezoelectric film is tilted with respect to a direction normal to the first and second main surfaces of the piezoelectric film. However, Kaajakari’s figure 3A shows that a crystal c-axis (340) of the piezoelectric film (320) is tilted with respect to a direction normal to the first and second main surfaces of the piezoelectric film. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to set a crystal c-axis of Li et al.’s piezoelectric film is tilted with respect to a direction normal to the first and second main surfaces of the piezoelectric film for the purpose of providing more effective electrostatic coupling. The modified Li et al.’s figure further shows that the first IDT electrode and the second IDT electrode at least partially face each other with the piezoelectric film interposed therebetween; each of the first and second IDT electrodes includes two comb-shaped electrodes interdigitated with each other, each of the comb-shaped electrodes including a plurality of electrode fingers and a busbar to which the plurality of electrode fingers are connected; and a direction of an electric field generated between the busbar and end portions of the electrode fingers facing the busbar in the first IDT electrode and a direction of an electric field generated between the busbar and end portions of the electrode fingers facing the busbar in the second IDT electrode are opposite directions; the first IDT electrode includes first and second comb-shaped electrodes (101 and 102), the first comb-shaped electrode including a plurality of first electrode fingers and a first busbar to which the plurality of first electrode fingers are connected, the second comb-shaped electrode including a plurality of second electrode fingers and a second busbar to which the plurality of second electrode fingers are connected; the second IDT electrode includes third and fourth comb-shaped electrodes (103 and 104), the third comb-shaped electrode including a plurality of third electrode fingers and a third busbar to which the plurality of third electrode fingers are connected, the fourth comb-shaped electrode including a plurality of fourth electrode fingers and a fourth busbar to which the plurality of fourth electrode fingers are connected; and regarding an electrode finger of the first IDT electrode and an electrode finger of the second IDT electrode which overlap each other with the piezoelectric film interposed therebetween, a potential of the electrode finger of the first IDT electrode and a potential of the electrode finger of the second IDT electrode are the same potential.
As to claim 7, the modified Li et al.’s figure shows that the acoustic wave device is structured to generate an acoustic wave in an S0 mode (intended use).
As to claim 8, the modified Li et al.’s figure shows a support substrate (507); and an intermediate layer (506) provided on the support substrate; wherein the piezoelectric film is stacked on the support substrate with the intermediate layer interposed therebetween.
As to claim 9, the modified Li et al.’s figure shows that the intermediate layer includes a low acoustic velocity film made of a low acoustic velocity material. Selecting an acoustic velocity of a bulk wave propagating through the low acoustic velocity material to be lower than an acoustic velocity of a bulk wave propagating through the piezoelectric film is seen as an obvious design preference to ensure optimum performance.
As to claim 11, Li et al.’s figure shows that the support substrate (507) is made of a high acoustic velocity material. Selecting an acoustic velocity of a bulk wave propagating through the high acoustic velocity material to be higher than an acoustic velocity of an acoustic wave propagating through the piezoelectric film is seen as an obvious design preference to ensure optimum performance.
As to claim 19, the modified Li et al.’s figure shows that the support substrate (107) is made of silicon.
As to claim 20, the modified Li et al.’s figure shows that the support substrate has a silicon (100) plane (selecting the material as claimed is seen as an obvious design preference).
Claim(s) 10, 12, 13 and 15-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (CN 112054781) in view of Nagatomo et al. (US 20200295730).
As to claim 10, Li et al.’s figure fails to show that the device further includes a support substrate. However, Nagatomo et al.’s figure 14 shows a similar device that comprises support substrate 2, high velocity film 23 and low velocity film 14. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to further include a support substrate below Li et al.’s high velocity film 507 for the purpose of reducing noise. Therefore, the modified Li et al.’s figure shows that the intermediate layer includes a high acoustic velocity material layer (507) made of a high acoustic velocity material. Selecting an acoustic velocity of a bulk wave propagating through the high acoustic velocity material to be higher than an acoustic velocity of an acoustic wave propagating through the piezoelectric layer is seen as an obvious design preference to ensure optimum performance.
As to claim 12, the modified Li et al.’s figure shows that the intermediate layer includes a low acoustic impedance layer (506) and a high acoustic impedance layer (507), the low acoustic impedance layer being made of a low acoustic impedance material of a relatively low acoustic impedance, the high acoustic impedance layer being made of a high acoustic impedance material of a relatively high acoustic impedance.
As to claim 13, Nagatomo et al.’s figure 18 shows a support substrate including a recessed portion on a side of a top surface of the support substrate (2, 34); piezoelectric film 5 is stacked on the support substrate such that the recessed portion defines a cavity that the piezoelectric film faces. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to place Li et al.’s piezoelectric layer on Nagatomo’s support substrate for the purpose of reducing noise.
As to claim 15, the modified Li et al.’s figure shows an acoustic reflective layer (107) and a silicon oxide film (106) are provided between the support substrate and the piezoelectric film.
As to claim 16, the modified Li et al.’s figure shows that the reflective layer includes high acoustic impedance layers and low acoustic impedance layers.
As to claim 17, the modified Li et al.’s figure shows a support substrate including a recessed portion on a side of a top surface of the support substrate; and a silicon oxide film; wherein the silicon oxide film is stacked on the support substrate such that the recessed portion defines a cavity that the silicon oxide film faces (Nagatomo et al.’s ¶0165).
As to claim 18, the modified Li et al.’s figure shows that the piezoelectric film is stacked on the silicon oxide film.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 5, 6 and 14 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 ANH-QUAN TRA whose telephone number is (571)272-1755. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri from 8:00 A.M.-5:00 P.M.
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.
/QUAN TRA/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2842