DETAILED ACTION
Notice of 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 .
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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 12 January 2026 and 27 December 2023 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-10 and 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miura et al. (U. S. Patent No. 6437479) in view of Nagamoto et al. (U. S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 20220216842) and further in view of Funasaka (JP 2005318365A).
Regarding independent claim 1, Miura et al. (e. g. see FIG. 14) discloses an acoustic wave device comprising: a support substrate (8) with a thickness in a first direction; an intermediate layer (5) on the support substrate (8); a piezoelectric layer (1) on the intermediate layer (5); and an IDT electrode (2) including a first electrode finger (2) at the piezoelectric layer (1) in the first direction and extending in a second direction intersecting the first direction, a second electrode finger (2) facing the first electrode finger (2) in a third direction orthogonal or substantially orthogonal to the second direction and extending in the second direction; wherein the intermediate layer (5) includes a void portion at least partially overlapping the IDT electrode (2) in plan view.
Miura et al. does not explicitly disclose
a first busbar electrode to which the first electrode finger is connected, and a second busbar electrode to which the second electrode finger is connected;
and a surface roughness of an inner sidewall of the intermediate layer is about 0.0055 µm or more.
However, Nagamoto et al. (e. g. see FIG. 1A, FIG. 1B) teaches a first busbar electrode to which the first electrode finger is connected (busbar 5 connected to a finger), and a second busbar electrode to which the second electrode finger is connected (busbar 6 connected to another finger).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date or the priority date of the application, to modify the electrodes in the SAW device of Miura et al. to include “a first busbar electrode to which the first electrode finger is connected, and a second busbar electrode to which the second electrode finger is connected” as taught by Nagamoto et al. for the purpose of providing main electrical power rail connecting the perpendicular IDT fingers in order to distribute voltage uniformly to the alternating IDT fingers.
Since Miura et al. and Nagamoto et al. are both from the same field of endeavor (SAW device), the purpose disclosed by Nagamoto et al. would have been recognized in the pertinent art of Miura et al.
Furthermore, Funasaka (e. g. see [0027]) teaches a surface roughness of an inner sidewall of the intermediate layer is about 0.0055 µm or more ([0027] The roughness of the etched surface is Rmax 0.1 µm to 10 µm.)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date or the priority date of the application, to modify the IDT in the SAW device of Miura et al. to include “a surface roughness of an inner sidewall of the intermediate layer is about 0.0055 µm or more” as taught by Funasaka for the purpose of reducing surface and interface roughness in an acoustic wave device in order to directly improve wave propagation and device efficiency.
Though the roughness of Funasaka is Rmax 0.1 µm to 10 µm instead of “about 0.0055 µm or more” as claimed by claim 1, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date or the priority date of the application to modify and reduce the roughness Rmax 0.1 µm to 10 µm of Funasaka to 0.0055 µm or more to minimize scattering losses and restoring crystal quality in order to directly improve wave propagation and device efficiency. 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.
Since Miura et al. and Funasaka are both from the same field of endeavor (SAW device), the purpose disclosed by Funasaka would have been recognized in the pertinent art of Miura et al.
Regarding claim 2, Miura et al. does not explicitly disclose the surface roughness of the inner sidewall of the intermediate layer is about 0.0143 μm or more.
Funasaka (e. g. see [0027]) teaches a surface roughness of an inner sidewall of the intermediate layer is about 0.0143 μm or more ([0027] The roughness of the etched surface is Rmax 0.1 µm to 10 µm.)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date or the priority date of the application, to modify the IDT in the SAW device of Miura et al. to include “a surface roughness of an inner sidewall of the intermediate layer is about Rmax 0.1 µm to 10 µm” as taught by Funasaka for the purpose of reducing surface and interface roughness in an acoustic wave device in order to directly improve wave propagation and device efficiency.
Though the roughness of Funasaka is Rmax 0.1 µm to 10 µm instead of “about 0.0143 μm or more” as claimed by claim 1, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date or the priority date of the application to modify the roughness Rmax 0.1 µm to 10 µm of Funasaka to reduce the roughness to 0.0143 μm or more to minimize scattering losses and restoring crystal quality in order to directly improve wave propagation and device efficiency. 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.
Regarding claim 3, Miura et al. does not explicitly disclose the surface roughness of the inner sidewall of the intermediate layer is about 0.0327 μm or less.
Funasaka (e. g. see [0027]) teaches a surface roughness of an inner sidewall of the intermediate layer is about 0.0327 μm or less ([0027] The roughness of the etched surface is Rmax 0.1 µm to 10 µm.)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date or the priority date of the application, to modify the IDT in the SAW device of Miura et al. to include “a surface roughness of an inner sidewall of the intermediate layer is about Rmax 0.1 µm to 10 µm” as taught by Funasaka for the purpose of reducing surface and interface roughness in an acoustic wave device in order to directly improve wave propagation and device efficiency.
Though the roughness of Funasaka is Rmax 0.1 µm to 10 µm instead of “about 0.0327 μm or less” as claimed by claim 1, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date or the priority date of the application to modify the roughness Rmax 0.1 µm to 10 µm of Funasaka to reduce the roughness to 0.0327 μm or less to minimize scattering losses and restoring crystal quality in order to directly improve wave propagation and device efficiency. 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.
Regarding claim 4, Miura et al. fails to disclose “a thickness of the piezoelectric layer is 2p or less where p is a center-to-center distance between the first electrode finger and the second electrode finger adjacent to each other.”
However, Nagamoto et al. (e. g. see FIG. 1A, FIG. 1B, Abstract, [0007], [0041], [0047], [0055], [0064], [0069]) teaches a thickness of the piezoelectric layer (2) is 2p or less where p is a center-to-center distance between the first electrode finger (3) and the second electrode finger (4) adjacent to each other.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date or the priority date of the application, to modify the electrodes in the SAW device of Miura et al. to include “a thickness of the piezoelectric layer is 2p or less where p is a center-to-center distance between the first electrode finger and the second electrode finger adjacent to each other” as taught by Nagamoto et al. for the purpose of improving the Q value and adjusting the frequency of the acoustic wave devices even when their size is reduced.
Regarding claim 5, Miura et al. (e. g. see lines 25-55 of col. 1) discloses the piezoelectric layer (1) includes lithium niobate or lithium tantalate.
Regarding claim 6, Miura et al. fails to disclose the acoustic wave device is structured to generate a bulk wave of a thickness-shear mode.
However, Nagamoto et al. (e. g. see FIG. 3A, FIG. 4, [0041]) teaches the acoustic wave device (1) is structured to generate a bulk wave of a thickness-shear mode ([0041] The first preferred embodiment of the present invention uses primary thickness-shear mode bulk waves.)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date or the priority date of the application, to modify the SAW device of Miura et al. to include “the acoustic wave device is structured to generate a bulk wave of a thickness-shear mode” as taught by Nagamoto et al. for the purpose of enabling acquisition of resonance characteristics obtained by using primary thickness-shear mode bulk waves excited in the piezoelectric layer (see [0055]).
Regarding claim 7, Miura et al. fails to disclose d/p ≤ about 0.5, where d is a thickness of the piezoelectric layer and p is a center-to-center distance between the first electrode finger and the second electrode finger adjacent to each other.
However, Nagamoto et al. (e. g. see FIG. 1A, FIG. 1B, FIG. 3A, FIG. 4, [0055]) teaches d/p ≤ about 0.5, where d is a thickness of the piezoelectric layer (2) and p is a center-to-center distance between the first electrode finger and the second electrode finger adjacent to each other ([0055] In the acoustic wave device 1, when d represents the thickness of the piezoelectric layer 2 and p represents the center-to-center distance between any adjacent electrodes 3 and 4 among multiple pairs of electrodes 3 and 4, d/p is to be equal to or less than about 0.5.)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date or the priority date of the application, to modify the SAW device of Miura et al. to include “d/p ≤ about 0.5, where d is a thickness of the piezoelectric layer and p is a center-to-center distance between the first electrode finger and the second electrode finger adjacent to each other” as taught by Nagamoto et al. for the purpose of exciting the primary thickness-shear mode bulk waves effectively and obtaining good resonance characteristics (see [0055]).
Regarding claim 8, Miura et al. fails to disclose d/p is about 0.24 or less.
However, Nagamoto et al. (e. g. see FIG. 1A, FIG. 1B, FIG. 3A, FIG. 4, [0055]) teaches d/p is about 0.24 or less ([0055] More preferably, d/p is preferably equal to or less than about 0.24.)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date or the priority date of the application, to modify the SAW device of Miura et al. to include “d/p is about 0.24 or less” as taught by Nagamoto et al. for the purpose of obtaining much better resonance characteristics (see [0055]).
Regarding claim 9, Miura et al. fails to disclose a region where the first electrode finger and the second electrode finger overlap each other when viewed in the third direction is an excitation region; and MR ≤ about 1.75(d/p) + 0.075, where MR is a metallization ratio of the first electrode finger and the second electrode finger to the excitation region.
However, Nagamoto et al. (e. g. see FIG. 1A, FIG. 1B, FIG. 3A, FIG. 4, [0096]) teaches a region (excitation zone) where the first electrode finger (3) and the second electrode finger (4) overlap each other when viewed in the third direction is an excitation region; and MR ≤ about 1.75(d/p) + 0.075, where MR is a metallization ratio of the first electrode finger and the second electrode finger to the excitation region (excitation zone).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date or the priority date of the application, to modify the SAW device of Miura et al. to include “a region where the first electrode finger and the second electrode finger overlap each other when viewed in the third direction is an excitation region; and MR ≤ about 1.75(d/p) + 0.075, where MR is a metallization ratio of the first electrode finger and the second electrode finger to the excitation region” as taught by Nagamoto et al. for the purpose of reducing spurious components effectively (see [0096]).
Regarding claim 10, Miura et al. fails to disclose the acoustic wave device is structured to generate a plate wave.
However, Nagamoto et al. (e. g. see FIG. 3A, [0013], [0058], [0059]) teaches the acoustic wave device (1) is structured to generate a plate wave (Lamb wave).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date or the priority date of the application, to modify the SAW device of Miura et al. to include “the acoustic wave device is structured to generate a plate wave” as taught by Nagamoto et al. for the purpose of making a design choice to have flexibility in controlling the velocities and behaviors of the waves by adjusting the frequency and the plate thickness.
Regarding claim 12, Miura et al. (e. g. see lines 25-55 of col. 1) discloses the piezoelectric layer (SAW) includes lithium niobate.
Regarding claim 13, Miura et al. (e. g. see lines 25-55 of col. 1) discloses the piezoelectric layer (SAW) includes lithium tantalate.
Regarding claim 14, Miura et al. fails to disclose a thickness of the piezoelectric layer is about 50 nm or more and about 1000 nm or less.
However, Nagamoto et al. (e. g. see FIG. 1A, [0043] teaches a thickness of the piezoelectric layer is about 50 nm or more and about 1000 nm or less ([0043] The thickness of the piezoelectric layer 2 is preferably equal to or greater than about 40 nm and equal to or less than about 1000 nm.)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date or the priority date of the application, to modify the SAW device of Miura et al. to include “a thickness of the piezoelectric layer is about 50 nm or more and about 1000 nm or less” as taught by Nagamoto et al. for the purpose of achieving ultra-high operating frequencies, maximizing device sensitivity, and lowering driving voltages.
Regarding claim 15, Miura et al. (e. g. see FIG. 14) discloses each (2) of the first and second electrode fingers has a rectangular or substantially rectangular shape.
Regarding claim 16, Miura et al. fails to disclose a center-to-center distance between the first and second electrode fingers is in a range from about 1 μm or more to about 10 μm or less.
However, Nagamoto et al. (e. g. see FIG. 1A, [0078] teaches a center-to-center distance between the first and second electrode fingers is in a range from about 2 μm to 20 μm ([0078] The electrode center-to-center distance: varied in a range from 2 μm to 20 μm.)
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice bounded by well-known manufacturing constraints and ascertainable by routine experimentation and optimization to choose this particular “a center-to-center distance between the first and second electrode fingers is in a range from about 1 μm or more to about 10 μm or less”. For a Surface Acoustic Wave (SAW) device, the center-to-center distance is reduced to construct an efficient resonant circuit. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date or the priority date of the application to reduce “a range from about 2 μm to 20 μm” of Nagamoto et al. to “a range from about 1 μm or more to about 10 μm or less”, 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.
Regarding claim 17, Miura et al. does not disclose the intermediate layer includes silicon oxide.
However, it is well-known in the art that silicon oxide has a large electronic bandgap that prevents electrical current from flowing through it. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date or the priority date of the application to modify the low expansion material in the SAW device of Miura et al. to include “the intermediate layer includes silicon oxide” for the purpose of improving the insulation function of the SAW device.
Regarding claim 18, Miura et al. (e. g. see FIG. 14, lines 40-45 of col. 7) discloses the support substrate (8) is a low expansion material. It is well-known in the art that silicon (Si) is considered a low expansion material compared to most metals and plastics.
Regarding claim 19, Miura et al. fails to disclose a resistivity of the Si is about 4 kΩ or more.
However, Nagamoto et al. (e. g. see FIG. 1A, [0053]) teaches a resistivity of the Si is about 4 kΩ or more ([0053] The resistivity of the Si substrate is preferably equal to or greater than about 4 kΩ.)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date or the priority date of the application, to modify the SAW device of Miura et al. to include “a resistivity of the Si is about 4 kΩ or more” as taught by Nagamoto et al. for the purpose of minimizing substrate-related electrical losses and suppressing parasitic noise coupling in high-frequency Radio Frequency (RF) and mixed-signal integrated circuits.
Regarding claim 20, Miura et al. does not disclose “each of the first and second electrode fingers includes Al or an AlCu alloy.”
However, Nagamoto et al. (e. g. see FIG. 1A, [0054]) teaches each of the first (3) and second (4) electrode fingers includes Al or an AlCu alloy ([0054] The multiple electrodes 3, the multiple electrodes 4, and the first and second busbars 5 and 6 are made of an appropriate metal or alloy, such as Al or AlCu alloy. Cu in AlCu alloy is preferably equal to or greater than about 1% by weight and equal to or less than about 20% by weight.)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date or the priority date of the application, to modify the SAW device of Miura et al. to include “each of the first and second electrode fingers includes Al or an AlCu alloy” as taught by Nagamoto et al. for the purpose of suppressing atom migration and maintaining performance at high frequencies because Al or an AlCu alloy balance low electrical resistance, low acoustic load, and high durability.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miura et al. (U. S. Patent No. 6437479) in view of Nagamoto et al. (U. S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 20220216842) and Funasaka (JP 2005318365A) and further in view of Inoue (U. S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 20230336140).
Regarding claim 11, Miura et al. fails to disclose Euler angles (φ, θ, ψ) of the lithium niobate or the lithium tantalate are within ranges of Formula (1), (2), or (3) below:
PNG
media_image1.png
154
428
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, Inoue (e. g. see Expression 1, Expression 2 and Expression 3 of claim 13) teaches
PNG
media_image2.png
158
431
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date or the priority date of the application, to modify the acoustic wave device of Miura et al. to include the formulas/expressions 1, 2 and 3 as taught by Inoue for the purpose of adjusting a piezoelectric material's crystal property tensors (like elasticity, coupling, and permittivity) from the standard crystallographic coordinate system into a global or rotated device coordinate system.
Since Miura et al. and Inoue are both from the same field of endeavor (acoustic wave device), the purpose disclosed by Inoue would have been recognized in the pertinent art of Miura et al.
Examiner’s Remark:
In this Office Action, Examiner has cited particular figures, column numbers, paragraph numbers, and line numbers of the prior arts applied in the rejections. However, other figures and passages of the same prior arts may anticipate the claim limitations as well. Therefore, Applicants are respectfully requested to consider the prior arts in their entirety as potentially teaching claimed invention.
For amendment purpose, Applicants are very much appreciated for indicating the portion(s) of the specification which dictates the structure(s) relied on for proper interpretation as well as for verification and determination of the metes and bounds of the claimed invention. Applicants’ indication of the specific figures and items of figures which represent features of the invention disclosed in the amended claims, is also expected.
Additionally, in the event that other prior art(s) is/are provided and made of record by the Examiner as being relevant or pertinent to applicant's disclosure but not relied upon, the examiner requests that the reference(s) be considered in any subsequent amendments, as the reference(s) is also representative of the teachings of the art and may apply to the specific limitations of any newly amended claim(s).
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EMILY P. PHAM whose telephone number is (571) 270-3046. The examiner can normally be reached on MON-FRI 8:00AM-5:00PM.
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.
16 September 2026
/EMILY P PHAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2837
Prosecution Insights