DETAILED ACTION
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.
Claim 1 recites “a sum of thicknesses of the at least one electrode layer, calculated assuming that the at least one electrode layer includes Mo and based on a density ratio between the at least one electrode layer and Mo, is at least about 10% of a spatial period of the electrode fingers” which is indefinite because the claim does not provide a clear formula or methodology for performing the recited calculation, and it is unclear how the thickness is determined, particularly when the layer already includes Mo. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to determine the scope of the claim with reasonable certainty. Claims 2-19 are rejected due to claim dependency.
Claims 19 and 20 recite “a normalized thickness of the electrode fingers is about 10%” and “a normalized thickness of the electrode fingers is about 12% or about 14%” which is indefinite because the claim does not provide metes and bounds of what “normalized thickness” means and 10% of what is compared to the normalized thickness. For the purpose of examination, the examiner interprets the claims as the sum of thickness is about 10% and about 12% or about 14% of the spatial period of the electrode fingers.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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) 1-3, 9-12, 16, 17, 19 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okamoto (US 20130026881) in view of Iwamoto (US 20190386639).
Regarding claim 1, Okamoto discloses an acoustic wave device, in figure 1, comprising:
a piezoelectric material layer 6; and
an IDT electrode 7 on the piezoelectric material layer 6 and including a plurality of electrode fingers 7 arranged periodically [0092];
each include at least one electrode layer 10/11; and
wherein the electrode fingers 7
a sum of thicknesses of the at least one electrode layer 10/11, calculated assuming that the at least one electrode layer includes Mo [0067] and based on a density ratio between the at least one electrode layer and Mo, is at least about 10% of a spatial period of the electrode fingers [0064: “λ of the main acoustic waves is twice the length of a pitch of electrode fingers”, 0068: “total thickness not more than 0.15λ, thus, the examiner interprets the spatial period of the electrode fingers as 0.5λ and sum of the thickness as not more than 30% of the spatial period of the electrode fingers which is at least about 10% of spatial period of the electrode fingers].
Okamoto does not disclose the at least one electrode layer including at least one of Nb, Pd, or Ni.
Iwamoto discloses a piezoelectric device, in figure 1, having at least one electrode layer including at least one of Nb, Pd, or Ni [0036].
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have at least one electrode layer including at least one of Nb, Pd, or Ni disclosed by Iwamoto in the device disclosed by Okamoto, for the purpose of improving manufacturability due to the material’s adhesion and barrier properties and low temperature deposition.
Regarding claim 2, Okamoto discloses the piezoelectric material layer includes lithium tantalate [0065].
Regarding claim 3, Okamoto discloses the piezoelectric material layer includes lithium niobate [0065].
Regarding claim 9, Okamoto discloses the piezoelectric material layer is included in a laminated substrate defining a piezoelectric substrate [0064, 0065].
Regarding claim 10, Okamoto discloses the piezoelectric material layer alone defines a piezoelectric substrate [0065].
Regarding claims 11 and 12, Iwamoto discloses the SH mode is in a Love wave state [0031, 0119]. The reason for combining is same as above.
Regarding claim 16, Iwamoto discloses the piezoelectric material layer includes 42YX-LiTaO3 [0026, 0031].
Regarding claim 17, Okamoto discloses the IDT electrode includes multiple electrode layers 10/11.
Regarding claims 19 and 20, Okamoto discloses a normalized thickness of the electrode fingers is about 10%, 12% or 14% [0064, also, note claim 1 rejection above].
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okamoto in view of Iwamoto, in further view of Yamamoto (US 20170111026).
Regarding claim 4, Okamoto in view of Iwamoto does not disclose the piezoelectric material layer includes a rotated Y-cut crystal with a rotation angle of not less than about -30° and not more than about 70°.
Yamamoto discloses a piezoelectric device having the piezoelectric material layer includes a rotated Y-cut crystal with a rotation angle of not less than about -30° and not more than about 70° [0056].
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have the piezoelectric material layer includes a rotated Y-cut crystal with a rotation angle of not less than about -30° and not more than about 70° in the device disclosed by Yamamoto in the device disclosed by Okamoto in view of Iwamoto, for the purpose of maximizing energy trapping and selecting and isolating desired wave mode.
Claim(s) 5-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okamoto in view of Iwamoto, in further view of Kimura (US 20200274052).
Regarding claims 5-8, Okamoto in view of Iwamoto does not disclose the at least one electrode layer includes NbMo, and the claimed ranges of content of Mo.
Kimura discloses a piezoelectric device having the at least one electrode layer includes NbMo and identifying range of Mo as result effective variable (Table 1).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have the at least one electrode layer includes NbMo, and the claimed ranges of content of Mo in the device disclosed by Okamoto in view of Iwamoto, for the purpose of effectively reducing degradation of the piezoelectric characteristics of the device.
Claim(s) 13-15 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okamoto in view of Iwamoto, in further view of Ruby (US 20170155373)
Regarding claim 13, Okamoto in view of Iwamoto does not disclose reflectors on both sides of the IDT electrode.
Ruby discloses a piezoelectric device, in figure 2A, having reflectors 204 on both sides of the IDT electrode 205.
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have reflectors on both sides of the IDT electrode disclosed by Ruby in the device disclosed by Okamoto in view of Iwamoto, for the purpose of improving quality factor and minimizing phase noise and spurious reflections.
Regarding claim 14, Ruby discloses the acoustic wave device is a surface acoustic wave resonator [0002]. The reason for combining is same as above.
Regarding claim 15, Ruby discloses the acoustic wave device is a filter device or a multiplexer [0002]. The reason for combining is same as above.
Regarding claim 18, Ruby discloses a material of the reflectors is same as a material of the IDT electrode [0042]. The reason for combining is same as above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Daimon (US 20200036362), Taniguchi (US 20220123711), Kadota (WO 2016047255) and Mimura (WO 2018135489) disclose an acoustic wave device with piezoelectric layer and IDT electrodes.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BUMSUK WON whose telephone number is (571)272-2713. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 7 AM - 5 PM EST.
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, Allana L Bidder can be reached at (571) 272-5560. 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.
/BUMSUK WON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights