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 Objections
Applicant is advised that should claim 11 be found allowable, claim 20 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
With respect to claim 20, it appears that applicant may have intended for claim 20 to depend from claim 12 instead of claim 1 such that the claims would not be identical.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
With respect to claim 1, the language “a sum total of a thickness of the at least one electrode layer converted based on a density ratio of the at least one electrode layer and Al assuming that the at least one electrode layer includes Al is a same or larger than the thickness of the piezoelectric layer’ renders the claim indefinite as the claim does not define how the thicknesses are “converted”. Based on the specification, it appears that this language is intended to refer to a simple multiplication of the density ratios and the thickness of the electrode.
With respect to claim 12, the language “a sum total of a thickness of the at least one electrode layer converted based on a density ratio of the at least one electrode layer and Al assuming that the at least one electrode layer includes Al is a same or larger than the thickness of the piezoelectric layer” renders the claim indefinite as the claim does not define how the thicknesses are “converted”. Based on the specification, it appears that this language is intended to refer to a simple multiplication of the density ratios and the thickness of the electrode.
With respect to claims 2-11 and 13-20, these claims are dependent on either claim 1 or claim 12 and are rejected for the same reasons.
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.
Claims 1-4, 11-13, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Goto et al. (US 2020/0212876).
With respect to claim 1, Goto et al. discloses an acoustic wave device (Figs 12A-12B and 13A-13B) comprising: a piezoelectric substrate (item 10) including an acoustic reflection layer (item 29) and a piezoelectric layer on the acoustic reflection layer (Fig 13B); and an IDT electrode (item 12) on the piezoelectric substrate and including a plurality of electrode fingers (Fig 12B); wherein when a wavelength defined by an electrode finger pitch of the IDT electrode is λ, a thickness of the piezoelectric layer is about 3λ or smaller (Paragraph 99); the plurality of electrode fingers include at least one electrode layer (item 12); and a sum total of a thickness of the at least one electrode layer converted based on a density ratio of the at least one electrode layer and Al assuming that the at least one electrode layer includes Al is a same or larger than the thickness of the piezoelectric layer (Paragraph 90, wherein the thickness of the IDT electrode is 0.05λ, and the converted thicknesses for the density ratios corresponding to Pt, Au, and Mo (converted thicknesses are 0.38, 0.35, and 0.18 respectively), are less than the maximum disclosed thickness of the piezoelectric layer in paragraph 99 (maximum thickness is 0.4)).
With respect to claim 2, Goto et al. discloses the acoustic wave device according to Claim 1, wherein the acoustic reflection layer is an acoustic reflection film (item 29); and the acoustic reflection film includes at least one low acoustic impedance layer with a relatively low acoustic impedance, and at least one high acoustic impedance layer with a relatively high acoustic impedance, and the low acoustic impedance layer and the high acoustic impedance layer are laminated alternately (Fig 13B and paragraph 128).
With respect to claim 3, Goto et al. discloses the acoustic wave device according to Claim 1, wherein the piezoelectric substrate includes a support (item 25), and the piezoelectric layer is provided on the support; and the support includes a hollow portion (item 27), and the hollow portion is the acoustic reflection layer (Fig 13A).
With respect to claim 4, Goto et al. discloses the acoustic wave device according to Claim 1, wherein the at least one electrode layer includes a material in which a temperature coefficient of elasticity of a modulus of elasticity c44 is about -120 ppm/K or larger (Paragraph 90, wherein this is merely an inherent material property of the disclosed materials).
With respect to claim 11, Goto et al. discloses the acoustic wave device according to Claim 1, wherein the piezoelectric layer includes lithium tantalate (Paragraph 87).
With respect to claim 12, Goto et al. discloses an acoustic wave device (Figs 12A-12B and 13A-13B) comprising: a piezoelectric substrate including a high-acoustic-velocity material layer (item 29b) and a piezoelectric layer (item 10) on the high-acoustic- velocity material layer (Fig 13B); and an IDT electrode (item 12) on the piezoelectric substrate and including a plurality of electrode fingers (Fig 12B); wherein an acoustic velocity of a bulk wave propagating in the high- acoustic-velocity material layer is higher than an acoustic velocity of an acoustic wave propagating in the piezoelectric layer (Paragraph 128); when a wavelength defined by an electrode finger pitch of the IDT electrode is λ, a thickness of the piezoelectric layer is about 3λ or smaller (Paragraph 99); the plurality of electrode fingers include at least one electrode layer (item 12); and a sum total of a thickness of the at least one electrode layer converted based on a density ratio of the at least one electrode layer and Al assuming that the at least one electrode layer includes Al is a same or larger than the thickness of the piezoelectric layer (Paragraph 90, wherein the thickness of the IDT electrode is 0.05λ, and the converted thicknesses for the density ratios corresponding to Pt, Au, and Mo (converted thicknesses are 0.38, 0.35, and 0.18 respectively), are less than the maximum disclosed thickness of the piezoelectric layer in paragraph 99 (maximum thickness is 0.4)).
With respect to claim 13, Goto et al. discloses the acoustic wave device according to Claim 12, wherein the at least one electrode layer includes a material in which a temperature coefficient of elasticity of a modulus of elasticity c44 is about -120 ppm/K or larger (Paragraph 90, wherein this is merely an inherent material property of the disclosed materials).
With respect to claim 20, Goto et al. discloses the acoustic wave device according to Claim 1, wherein the piezoelectric layer includes lithium tantalate (Paragraph 87).
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 5, 6, 14, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goto et al. in view of Saji (WO 2017/159408).
With respect to claim 5, Goto et al. discloses the acoustic wave device according to Claim 1.
Goto et al. does not disclose that the at least one electrode layer includes an alloy including at least one of Nb and Pd.
Saji teaches a piezoelectric acoustic wave device in which the at least one electrode layer includes an alloy including at least one of Nb and Pd (Paragraph 91).
Before the effective filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the Mo and Nb alloy IDT material of Saji with the acoustic wave device of Goto et al. for the benefit of providing an improved temperature coefficient of frequency (Paragraph 91 of Saji).
With respect to claim 6, the combination of Goto et al. and Saji discloses the acoustic wave device according to Claim 5. Saji discloses that the at least one electrode layer includes NbMo (Paragraph 91).
With respect to claim 14 Goto et al. discloses the acoustic wave device according to Claim 12.
Goto et al. does not disclose that the at least one electrode layer includes an alloy including at least one of Nb and Pd.
Saji teaches a piezoelectric acoustic wave device in which the at least one electrode layer includes an alloy including at least one of Nb and Pd (Paragraph 91).
Before the effective filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the Mo and Nb alloy IDT material of Saji with the acoustic wave device of Goto et al. for the benefit of providing an improved temperature coefficient of frequency (Paragraph 91 of Saji).
With respect to claim 15, the combination of Goto et al. and Saji discloses the acoustic wave device according to Claim 14. Saji discloses that the at least one electrode layer includes NbMo (Paragraph 91).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Derek John Rosenau whose telephone number is (571)272-8932. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7 am to 5:30 pm Central Time.
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, Dedei Hammond can be reached at (571) 270-7938. 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.
/DEREK J ROSENAU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2837
Prosecution Insights