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, 4, 6, 9-14 and 22-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takagi et al. (US 6377138) in view of Kodama et al. (US 11082029) or vice versa.
As to claim 1, Takagi et al.’s figure 34 shows an acoustic wave device comprising: a piezoelectric layer (341); and at least one pair of comb-shaped electrodes (344) provided on the piezoelectric layer, each of the comb-shaped electrodes including electrode fingers each having a first layer and a second layer provided on the first layer (col. 1, lines 59-61 and col. 2, lines 7-10), the first layer (lower layer) being a titanium nitride layer and the second layer (upper layer) being an aluminum layer, an aluminum alloy layer, a copper layer, or a copper alloy layer (col. 2, lines 7-10, teaches that “upper and lower layers are formed of aluminum and titanium nitride, respectively”). The figure fails to show that the thickness of the first layer is greater than 50 nm and 90nm or less. However, Kodama et al.’s figure 1 shows a similar device that its comb-shaped electrodes (24) including electrode fingers each having a first layer (14) and a second layer (16) provided on the first layer, the first layer being a titanium, the like or any suitable combination (col. 6, lines 32-45) with a thickness greater than 50 nm and 90 nm or less (80 nm to 100 nm, Therefore, selecting the thickness to be greater than 50 nm and 90 nm or less is seen as an obvious design preference to ensure optimum performance, MPEP 2144.05) and the second layer being an aluminum layer, an aluminum alloy layer, a copper layer, or a copper alloy layer ((col. 6, lines 59-60). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary kill in the art to select the thickness of Takagi’s first layer to be equal or greater than 50 nm and 90 nm or less in order to reduce insertion loss, MPEP 2144.05, or it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to use titanium nitrate for Kodama et al.’s first layer for the purpose of improve electrode migration or stress migration problem.
As to claim 4, Takagi or Kodama et al.’s figure shows that the first layer is in contact with the piezoelectric layer and the second layer.
As to claim 6, selecting the claimed relationship is seen as an obvious design preference to ensure optimum performance, MPEP 2144.05.
As to claim 9, Kodama et al.’s figure 6A shows a similar device that comprises a support substate (52) located under the piezoelectric layer (12). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to further include a support substrate under Takagi et al.’s piezoelectric layer for the purpose of reducing loss.
As to claim 10, Takagi’s figure 34 or Kodama et al.’s figure 10 shows a filter comprising the acoustic wave device as claimed.
As to claim 11, acoustic wave filter used in a multiplexer is well known in the art. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to use Takagi’s filter or Kodama et al.’s filter in a multiplexer for the purpose of providing more precise signal (Kodama et al.’s col. 11, lines 10-15).
As to claim 12, selecting the thickness of the first layer to be equal or greater than 60 nm is seen as an obvious design preference to ensure optimum performance, MPEP 2144.05.
As to claim 13, Kodama et al.’s col 9, lines 65-67, teaches that “the thickness H2 of the second IDT electrode layer 16 can be at least 200 nm. Therefore, selecting the thickness relationship as claimed is seen as an obvious design preference to ensure optimum performance, MPEP 2144.05.
As to claim 14, Takagi’s col. 2, lines 44-45, teaches that “the thickness of the electrode fingers formed on the piezoelectric substrate is settled depending on the required frequency characteristic”. Therefore, selecting the sum of the thicknesses of the first layer and the second layer to be equal to or greater than 0.05 times and equal to or less than 0.15 times the distance corresponding to two times the pitch D of the comb-shaped electrodes is seen as an obvious design preference to ensure optimum performance.
As to claim 22, selecting the thickness of the first layer to be greater than 50 nm and not greater than one-half of a thickness of the second layer is seen as an obvious design preference to ensure optimum performance, MPEP 2144.05 and see Kodama et al.’s col. 6, lines 41-42 and lines 65-66.
As to claim 23, selecting the thickness of the first layer is not greater than 1/5 times the thickness of the second layer is seen as an obvious design preference to ensure optimum performance.
As to claim 24, Takagi’s figure 34 or Kodama et al.’s figure 10 shows a filter comprising the acoustic wave device as claimed.
As to claim 25, acoustic wave filter used in a multiplexer is well known in the art. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to use Takagi’s filter or Kodama et al.’s filter in a multiplexer for the purpose of providing more precise signal (Kodama et al.’s col. 11, lines 10-15).
Claim(s) 2, 5, 7, 8 and 15-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takagi et al. (US 6377138) in view of Kodama et al. (US 11082029) and Miura et al. (US 20190207583).
As to claim 2, Takagi et al. or Kodama et al.’s figure fails to show that the piezoelectric layer is a rotated Y-cut X-propagation lithium tantalate substrate or a rotated Y-cut X-propagation substrate. However, Miura et al.’s figure 3 shows a similar device that its piezoelectric layer is a rotated Y-cut X-propagation lithium tantalate substrate or a rotated Y-cut X-propagation substrate (¶0068). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to form Takagi et al. or Kodama et al.’s substrate with a rotated Y-cut X-propagation lithium tantalate substrate or a rotated Y-cut X-propagation substrate for the purpose of ensuring optimum performance (reducing loss).
As to claim 5, Miura et al.’s figure 3 shows that a thickness of its first layer (12a) is equal to or less than its thickness of the second layer (12b, ¶0069). Kodama et al.’s col 9 also teaches that the thickness of the second layer is greater than the thickness of the first layer. Therefore, selecting the thickness relationship as claimed for Takagi et al.’s device is seen as an obvious design preference to ensure optimum performance.
As to claim 7, the modified Takagi et al. or Kodama et al.’s figure shows that the first layer is in contact with the piezoelectric layer and the electrode fingers, wherein a thickness of the first layer is equal to or less than a thickness of the second layer, and wherein a ratio of a content percentage of nitrogen in the first layer in atomic% to a sum of a content percentage of titanium in the first layer in atomic% and a content percentage of nitrogen in the first layer in atomic% is 0.3 or greater and 0.6 or less (see the rejection of claims 5 and 6).
As to claim 8, the modified Takagi et al. or Kodama et al.’s figure shows that the piezoelectric layer is a rotated Y-cut X-propagation lithium tantalate substrate, and wherein the second layer is an aluminum layer or an aluminum alloy layer.
Claims 15-21 recite similar limitations in claims above. Therefore, they are rejected for the same reasons.
Conclusion
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, Andrea Lindgren Baltzell can be reached at 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 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 2843
Prosecution Insights