Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/671,784

SURFACE ACOUSTIC WAVE DEVICE INCLUDING IDT ELECTRODES HAVING METAL OXIDE LAYER FORMED THEREON AND METHOD FOR FABRICATING THE SAME

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
May 22, 2024
Examiner
WONG, ALAN
Art Unit
2843
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Wisol Co. Ltd.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
83%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 11m
To Grant
93%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 83% — above average
83%
Career Allow Rate
494 granted / 594 resolved
+15.2% vs TC avg
Moderate +10% lift
Without
With
+9.5%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 11m
Avg Prosecution
17 currently pending
Career history
611
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.5%
-39.5% vs TC avg
§103
45.4%
+5.4% vs TC avg
§102
28.1%
-11.9% vs TC avg
§112
17.2%
-22.8% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 594 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
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 Claim 12, 19 are objected to because of the following informalities: For claim 12, “pattering” appears to correctly be --patterning--. For claim 19, “aluminum (Ti)” appears to correctly be --aluminum (Al)--. Appropriate correction is required. 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) 12, 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Saijou WO 2012/169452. 12. Saijou disclose a method for fabricating a surface acoustic wave device (by the device of Figs. 1, 2, etc.; [0037]-[0039], etc.), comprising steps of: preparing a piezoelectric substrate (20); forming an IDT electrode film comprising a main electrode layer (12) and an upper electrode layer (13 or 15) on the piezoelectric substrate; forming an oxide electrode layer (14 or 16) by oxidizing an upper surface of the upper electrode layer; and forming IDT electrodes by patterning the IDT electrode film (inherent, forming the structure as shown in Fig. 1). 18. The method according to claim 12, wherein the upper electrode layer (13) comprises titanium (Ti), and the oxide electrode layer (14) comprises titanium oxide ([0031]). 19. The method according to claim 12, wherein the upper electrode layer (15) comprises aluminum (Al), and the oxide electrode layer (16) comprises aluminum oxide ([0033]). 20. The method according to claim 12, wherein the main electrode layer (12) comprises at least one metal material selected from among aluminum (Al), copper (Cu), titanium (Ti), tungsten (W), molybdenum (Mo), platinum (Pt), and gold (Au) ([0024]). 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, 4-10, 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seki US 8,564,172 in view of Saijou WO 2012/169452. 1. Seki discloses a surface acoustic wave device (Figs. 1, 2, etc.) comprising: a piezoelectric substrate (9); and a plurality of IDT electrodes (10A-C, etc.) formed on the piezoelectric substrate. Seki does not explicitly disclose each of the plurality of IDT electrodes comprises: a main electrode layer formed on an upper surface of the piezoelectric substrate; an upper electrode layer formed on the main electrode layer; and an oxide electrode layer formed on an upper surface of the upper electrode layer by oxidation of the upper electrode layer, and wherein a thickness (te) of each of the plurality of IDT electrodes satisfies 0.011≤ to/te ≤0.333 with respect to a thickness (to) of the oxide electrode layer. Saijou exemplarily discloses a surface acoustic wave device (Fig. 1) comprising: a piezoelectric substrate (20); IDT electrode (10) comprises a main electrode layer (12) formed on an upper surface of the piezoelectric substrate; an upper electrode layer (13 or 15) formed on the main electrode layer; and an oxide electrode layer (14 or 17) formed on an upper surface of the upper electrode layer by oxidation of the upper electrode layer ([0030]-[0033]); and wherein a thickness (te) of the IDT electrodes in a range of 200 nm to 1000 nm ([0035]) and a thickness (to) of the oxide electrode layer in a range of 3 nm to 10 nm ([0034]). At the time of the filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have made/replaced the IDT electrode of Seki using the multi-layer IDT electrode of Saijou. The modification would have been obvious because the excellent reliability can be obtained as taught by Saijou ([0006]) and/or a simple substitution of part (MPEP 2143(I)(B)). Additionally, the ranges of thicknesses of the IDT electrode and the oxide electrode layer would at least including values that satisfies the claimed inequality of 0.011≤ to/te ≤0.333 (e.g., te = 500 nm, to = 8 nm, to/te = 0.016), thus obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05(I)). 4. The surface acoustic wave device according to claim 1, wherein the upper electrode layer (13) comprises titanium (Ti), and the oxide electrode layer (14) comprises titanium oxide (Seki: [0031]). 5. The surface acoustic wave device according to claim 1, wherein the upper electrode layer (15) comprises aluminum (Al), and the oxide electrode layer (16) comprises aluminum oxide. (Seki: [0033]). 6. The surface acoustic wave device according to claim 1, wherein the main electrode layer (12) comprises at least one metal material selected from among aluminum (Al), copper (Cu), titanium (Ti), tungsten (W), molybdenum (Mo), platinum (Pt), and gold (Au) ([0024]). 7. Seki discloses a surface acoustic wave device (Figs. 1, 2, etc.) comprising: a piezoelectric substrate (9) having a first region (left; 7) and a second region (right; 8) defined thereon; a plurality of first IDT electrodes (10A-C) formed in the first region; and a plurality of second IDT electrodes (11A-C) formed in the second region, each of the plurality of first IDT electrodes has a first thickness (TA; Fig. 2); each of the plurality of second IDT electrodes has a second thickness (TB); wherein the first thickness and the second thickness are different from each other (Fig. 2; Col. 3 lines 59-60). Seki does not discloses each of the plurality of first IDT electrodes comprises: a first main electrode layer formed on an upper surface of the piezoelectric substrate in the first region; a first upper electrode layer formed on the first main electrode layer; and a first oxide electrode layer formed on an upper surface of the first upper electrode layer by oxidation of the first upper electrode layer, and each of the plurality of second IDT electrodes comprises: a second main electrode layer formed on an upper surface of the piezoelectric substrate in the second region; a second upper electrode layer formed on the second main electrode layer; and a second oxide electrode layer formed on an upper surface of the second upper electrode layer by oxidation of the second upper electrode layer. Saijou exemplarily discloses a surface acoustic wave device (Fig. 1) comprising: a piezoelectric substrate (20); IDT electrode (10) comprises a main electrode layer (12) formed on an upper surface of the piezoelectric substrate; an upper electrode layer (13 or 15) formed on the main electrode layer; and an oxide electrode layer (14 or 17) formed on an upper surface of the upper electrode layer by oxidation of the upper electrode layer ([0030]-[0033]); and wherein a thickness (te) of the IDT electrodes in a range of 200 nm to 1000 nm ([0035]) and a thickness (to) of the oxide electrode layer in a range of 3 nm to 10 nm ([0034]). At the time of the filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have made/replaced the each of IDT electrodes of Seki using the multi-layer IDT electrode of Saijou. The modification would have been obvious because the excellent reliability can be obtained as taught by Saijou ([0006]) and/or a simple substitution of part (MPEP 2143(I)(B)). 8. The surface acoustic wave device according to claim 7, wherein the plurality of first IDT electrodes correspond to a first center frequency (Col. 3 line 1), the plurality of second IDT electrodes correspond to a second center frequency (Col. 3 lines 1-3) lower than the first center frequency, and the first thickness is smaller than the second thickness (Fig. 2; Col. 3 lines 59-60). 9. The combination discloses the surface acoustic wave device according to claim 8, but does not explicitly disclose a thickness of the first oxide electrode layer is smaller than a thickness of the second oxide electrode layer. However, the first and second thicknesses for the first and second IDT electrodes are in proportional normalized relationship, Col. 3 lines 59-65, thus the first and second oxide layers being corresponding parts of the first and second IDT electrodes would follow the same relationship. With the thickness of the first IDT electrode being smaller than the thickness of the second IDT electrodes, it would have been obvious that a thickness of the first oxide electrode layer is smaller than a thickness of the second oxide electrode layer. 10. The combination discloses the surface acoustic wave device according to claim 9, but does not explicitly disclose the first thickness (te1) satisfies 0.011≤ to1/te1 ≤0.333 with respect to the thickness (to1) of the first oxide electrode layer, and the second thickness (te2) satisfies 0.011≤to2/te2≤0.333 with respect to the thickness (to2) of the second oxide electrode layer. However, Saijou discloses the ranges of thicknesses of the IDT electrode and the oxide electrode layer would at least including values that satisfies the claimed inequality of 0.011≤ to/te ≤0.333 (e.g., te = 500 nm, to = 8 nm, to/te = 0.016), thus the obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05(I)) when applied to the first and second IDT electrodes. 14. For brevity, the combination as discussed above (claim 7) similarly applied to obtain the device having excellent reliability (Saijou: [0006]), duplexer function, and improve electromechanical coupling factor (Seki: Col. 2 lines 62-66, Col. 3 lines 66-67). Specifically, Seki discloses the piezoelectric substrate (9) has a first (left; 7) and second (right; 8) regions; forming a first IDT electrode film (10) in the first region to have a first thickness (TA), forming a second IDT electrode film (11) in the second region to have a second thickness (TB), wherein the first thickness and the second thickness are different from each other (Fig. 2; Col. 3 lines 59-60); and Sajiou discloses the IDT electrode (Figs. 1, 2) with layers as claimed. Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saijou WO 2012/169452 in view of Stelzl US 6,136,175. 13. Saijou discloses the invention as discussed in claim 12, including the method for the oxidization is not particularly limited ([0039]) but does not explicitly disclose the step of forming the oxide electrode layer by oxidizing the upper surface of the upper electrode layer comprises a step of forming the oxide electrode layer by irradiating the upper electrode layer with an ion beam. Stelzl exemplarily discloses in an acoustic wave element (Fig. 1) having conductive structures (2), and an oxide film (3) can be formed by oxidizing the conductive structure with ion bombardment (hence ion beam; Col. 3 lines 32-37). At the time of the filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have used the ion beam method to form the oxide electrode layer. The modification would have been obvious because Saijou allowed other oxidization method ([0039]) and that Stelzl provided an art-recognized method for oxidation useable therewith. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 2, 3, 11, 15-17 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALAN WONG whose telephone number is (571)272-3238. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 10am - 7:00pm. 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 571-272-5918. 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. /A.W/Examiner, Art Unit 2843 /ANDREA LINDGREN BALTZELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2843
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

May 22, 2024
Application Filed
Mar 10, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12587161
HIGHER ORDER LAMB WAVE ACOUSTIC DEVICES WITH COMPLEMENTARILY-ORIENTED PIEZOELECTRIC LAYERS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12587171
PASSBAND FILTER COMBINING TWO SETS OF COMPONENTS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12556159
BULK ACOUSTIC WAVE RESONATOR WITH INTEGRATED CAPACITOR
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 2026
Patent 12549154
PACKAGE COMPRISING AN ACOUSTIC DEVICE AND A CAP SUBSTRATE COMPRISING AN INDUCTOR
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 10, 2026
Patent 12542535
ACOUSTIC WAVE FILTER WITH DIFFERENT TYPES OF RESONATORS IN ACOUSTIC FILTER COMPONENT AND/OR MULTIPLEXER
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 03, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
83%
Grant Probability
93%
With Interview (+9.5%)
2y 11m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 594 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month