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 § 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.
Claim(s) 1-11 & 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yantchev. (US PGPub 20220321082), a reference of record.
As per claim 1:
Yantchev discloses in Fig. 4A:
An acoustic wave device comprising:
a support substrate (420);
a medium layer formed on the support substrate;
a piezoelectric substrate (410) formed on the medium layer; and
a resonator (IDT 434) formed on the piezoelectric substrate,
wherein the medium layer includes:
a first acoustic velocity region (Bragg reflector layer 428 or in the alternative, layer 426) disposed beneath the resonator as a solid material (428 is provided as tungsten [0101] and 426 as SiO2, [0101], both solid materials at standard temperature and pressures, and recognized as solid materials in the specification of the current application); and
a second acoustic velocity region (Bragg reflector layer 426, or in the alternative, layer 428) having different acoustic velocity from that of the first acoustic velocity region (silicon dioxide and tungsten [0101] are respectively, low and high acoustic velocity layers [0135]), the second acoustic velocity region disposed beneath the resonator and next to the first acoustic velocity region as a solid material (428 is provided as tungsten [0101] and 426 as SiO2, [0101], both solid materials at standard temperature and pressures, and recognized as solid materials in the specification of the current application), and the second acoustic velocity region distributed discretely within the medium layer in a direction parallel to a surface of the piezoelectric substrate penetrating at least one half of the thickness of the medium layer (each layer has a thickness equal to ¼ wavelength of a resonance frequency [0075], wherein the medium layer may consist of one pair of layers 426 & 428, or multiple pairs [0082]).
As per claim 2:
Yantchev discloses in Fig. 4A & 5:
the second acoustic velocity regions include a plurality of divided regions (individual layers 428), and wherein three or more of the second acoustic velocity regions are formed in a region where the resonator is formed (as seen in Fig. 4A, [0082], and further in Fig. 5, wherein a resonator is disposed over a cavity 535, [0128]).
As per claim 3:
Yantchev discloses in Fig. 4A & 5:
an average acoustic velocity of a bulk wave propagating through the medium layer (tungsten, [0101]) is higher than a velocity of an acoustic wave of a main mode excited by the resonator (in lithium niobate [0037]) in a region overlapping with a region where the resonator is formed in a top view (acoustic velocity in Tungsten exceeds that of Lithium Niobate as a known material property).
As per claim 4:
Yantchev discloses in Fig. 4A:
an average acoustic velocity of a bulk wave propagating through the medium layer is from 4500 m/s to 5500 m/s (acoustic velocity of Tungsten is ~5200 m/s, a material property).
As per claim 5:
Yantchev discloses in Fig. 4A & 5:
a second medium layer (pedestals portion 456 comprising the layer of 424) formed between the medium layer and the piezoelectric substrate.
As per claim 6:
Yantchev discloses in Fig. 4A & 5:
the second medium layer comprising a third acoustic velocity region and a fourth acoustic velocity region having different acoustic velocity from that of the third acoustic velocity region in a top view (pedestals portion 456 comprises SiO2 as 422, and Tungsten as 424 [0077], interspersed with cavities filled with air [0063]).
As per claim 7:
Yantchev discloses in Fig. 4A:
a third medium layer (pedestals portion 456 comprising the layer of 422) formed between the second medium layer and the piezoelectric substrate.
As per claim 8:
Yantchev discloses in Fig. 4A & 5:
the second acoustic velocity region includes a circular shape, an elliptical shape, or a polygonal shape in a top view (as seen in Fig. 5, wherein cavities 535 are polygonal).
As per claim 9:
Yantchev discloses in Fig. 4A & 5:
the support substrate is made of sapphire, silicon, alumina, spinel, quartz, or glass ([0038]).
As per claim 10:
Yantchev discloses in Fig. 4A & 5, in the alternative:
the first acoustic velocity region comprises silicon nitride, silicon oxynitride, silicon, alumina, silicon dioxide, or silicon carbide ([0082]).
As per claim 11:
Yantchev discloses in Fig. 4A & 5:
the second acoustic velocity region comprises silicon nitride, silicon oxynitride, silicon, alumina, silicon dioxide, silicon carbide, germanium, tungsten, platinum, or iridium ([0082]).
As per claim 13:
Yantchev discloses in Fig. 4A & 5:
A module (filter 500) comprising the acoustic wave device according to claim 1 ([0127]).
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.
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.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yantchev. (US PGPub 20220321082)
As per claim 12:
Yantchev discloses in Fig. 4A & 5:
An average area of the second acoustic velocity region is determined by the size of the aperture and length of the resonator ([0046]).
Yantchev does not disclose:
an average area of the second acoustic velocity region is 0.1 m2 to 500 m2.
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form the second acoustic velocity region to have an average area 0.1 μm2 to 500 μm2 as a design parameter determined by the size of the resonator as taught by Yantchev et al. ([0046]) to provide the benefit of overlapping the area of the resonator, as well understood in the art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/27/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pages 5-6 of the applicant’s remarks, the applicant argues that:
Without conceding the propriety of the rejection, claim 1 has been amended to recite in part "a first acoustic velocity region disposed beneath the resonator as a solid material; and a second acoustic velocity region having different acoustic velocity from that of the first acoustic velocity region, the second acoustic velocity region disposed beneath the resonator and next to the first acoustic velocity region as a solid material, and the second acoustic velocity region distributed discretely within the medium layer in a direction parallel to a surface of the piezoelectric substrate penetrating at least one half of the thickness of the medium layer." Yantchev fails to disclose at least these recitations of amended claim 1.
In rejecting previously pending claim 1, the Examiner compares Yantchev's Bragg reflector layers 426/428 with the recited "first acoustic velocity region" and "second acoustic velocity region." However, as shown in cited Fig. 4A, Yantchev's layers 426 and 428 are laminated in the thickness direction. Neither of the layers 426 nor 428 corresponds to the "second acoustic velocity region" that is "disposed beneath the resonator and next to the first acoustic velocity region as a solid material, and the second acoustic velocity region distributed discretely within the medium layer in a direction parallel to a surface of the piezoelectric substrate penetrating at least one half of the thickness of the medium layer" as recited in amended claim 1. Furthermore, the "second acoustic velocity region" recited in amended claim 1 is "distributed discretely within the medium layer in a direction parallel to a surface of the piezoelectric substrate penetrating at least one half of the thickness of the medium layer," not merely a pedestal structure divided by voids. Therefore, Yantchev fails to disclose at least the aforementioned recitations of amended claim 1.
For at least these reasons, amended claim 1 is patentable over Yantchev. Reconsideration and withdrawal of the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection of claim 1 is respectfully requested.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. The applicant cites the amended limitations of claim 1, and alleges the amendments overcome the prior art of record. The examiner notes that applicant’s remarks appear to merely assert that the prior art does not meet the claim limitations without further explanation. The examiner notes that the materials of layers 426 and 428 (Tungsten and silicon dioxide, [0084]) are the same as materials listed within the specification of the current application ([0041]), and are shown as solid materials in Fig. 4A (each layer is shown as a discrete layer without special techniques to render it in an atypical state (such as a non-solid) as a product). The applicant appears to allege the limitation of "a first acoustic velocity region disposed beneath the resonator as a solid material; and a second acoustic velocity region having different acoustic velocity from that of the first acoustic velocity region, the second acoustic velocity region disposed beneath the resonator and next to the first acoustic velocity region as a solid material, and the second acoustic velocity region distributed discretely within the medium layer in a direction parallel to a surface of the piezoelectric substrate penetrating at least one half of the thickness of the medium layer" is not met by Yantchev. The examiner respectfully disagrees, as Yantchev provides two acoustic velocity regions (layers 426 and 428), wherein each region has a different acoustic velocity ([0084] acoustic velocity being a material property, with silicon dioxide and tungsten having different acoustic velocities due to the difference of their inherent material properties). Both regions are shown to be below the resonator, which may be considered to be IDT 130 and piezoelectric material 110. The first and second regions are shown as being “next” to each other, as they are shown being formed as alternating layers. As each layer is shown individually, they are each distributed discretely, and are within the medium layer (by virtue of the medium layer comprising these layers). Each layer is distributed discretely in a direction parallel to a surface of the piezoelectric substrate, as each layer is formed as a layer, and is thus formed in the horizontal direction of Fig. 4A, which is parallel to the top surface of the substrate. As each layer is formed with a thickness of a ¼ wavelength ([0075]), a medium layer comprising two of the layers 426 and 428, each layer penetrates at least one half of the thickness of the medium layer, thereby meeting the limitations of the claim. The applicant appears to consider the medium layer of Yantchev to comprise “a pedestal structure divided by voids.” The examiner notes that the pedestal portion 456 of Yantchev is not considered as the medium layer in claim 1, nor does claim 1 limit the existence of the pedestal portion 456. In fact, dependent claim 5 specifically discloses additional medium layers (such as a pedestal structure) between the medium layer and resonator of claim 1. Applicant’s allegations are therefore not persuasive, and the rejections of claims 1-13 are sustained.
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 SAMUEL S OUTTEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7123. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:30AM-6:00PM.
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, Andrea Lindgren Baltzell 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.
/Samuel S Outten/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2843
Prosecution Insights