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 § 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 1-8 & 10-11 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 the limitations “a plurality of first electrode fingers connected to a side of the first bus bar facing the first bus bar, a plurality of second electrode fingers connected to a side of the second bus bar facing the second bus bar, a plurality of first dummy electrodes connected to the side of the first bus bar facing the first bus bar”
It is not clear what is meant by “a side of the first bus bar facing the first bus bar,” “a side of the second bus bar facing the second bus bar,” or “the side of the first bus bar facing the first bus bar.” Claim 1 further features the limitation “the side of the
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the side of the second bus bar facing the first bus bar" in lines 18-19. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The claim cites “a side of the first bus bar facing the first bus bar” and “a side of the second bus bar facing the second bus bar,” but does not provide antecedent basis for "the side of the second bus bar facing the first bus bar."
Claim 1 recites the limitation " the other end portion toward the one end portion of the second bus bar" in lines 32-33. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The claim cites “one end portion toward an other end portion of the first bus bar,” but does not provide antecedent basis for " the other end portion toward the one end portion of the second bus bar."
The term “closer” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “closer” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The limitations in claim 1 cite “the first bus bar includes an inclined section on a side facing the second bus bar such that the other end portion of the first bus bar is positioned closer to the second bus bar, and the second bus bar includes an inclined section on a side facing the first bus bar such that the one end portion of the second bus bar is positioned closer to the first bus bar.” As per Fig. 3 of the specification, the claims appear to be attempting to describe a portion extending outward from a main rectangular body of each bus bar towards the opposing busbar, wherein a portion extending from the first bus bar is an inclined section wider at an other end of the first bus bar, and narrower at the one end of the bus bar, and a portion extending from the second bus bar is an inclined section wider at one end of the second bus bar, and narrower at the other end of the bus bar. Claim 1 as written, is indefinite, as the claim does not disclose a closeness comparison for either the one end of the inclined section of the second bus bar or the other end of the inclined section of the first bus bar, merely stating “positioned closer.” Furthermore, as each bus bar features an inclined section that is opposite to the opposing inclined section, it would appear that the resultant bus bars are equidistant along the length of the resonator, such that it is not clear how one area may be “positioned closer,” and that an inclined section being “positioned closer” to the opposing bus bar is not properly disclosed as provided for in claim 1.
For purposes of examination, the examiner will interpret claim 1 as best as possible and as per below.
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) 1, 5-7, & 10-11 (as best understood) is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka (US PGPub 20140145557), a reference of record, in view of Yokoyama et al. (US PGPub 20230133161)
As per claim 1:
Tanaka discloses in Figs. 1, 3, & 9:
An acoustic wave device (title) comprising:
a piezoelectric substrate (substrate 3, [0040]);
a support substrate (back surface portion 37) bonded to the piezoelectric substrate; and
a resonator formed on the piezoelectric substrate on a side opposite to the support substrate and configured to generate main-mode wave (surface wave, [0047]) and transverse-mode wave when power is applied ([0086]), wherein the resonator comprises a first bus bar (321A), a second bus bar (321B) facing the first bus bar, a plurality of first electrode fingers (23A) connected to a side of the first bus bar facing the second bus bar, a plurality of second electrode fingers (23B) connected to a side of the second bus bar facing the first bus bar, a plurality of first dummy electrodes (325A) connected to the side of the first bus bar facing the second bus bar and opposed to the plurality of second electrode fingers, and a plurality of second dummy electrodes (325B) connected to the side of the second bus bar facing the first bus bar and opposed to the plurality of first electrode fingers, wherein, when a width of an electrode finger in an acoustic wave propagation direction is defined as an electrode finger width, distal ends of the plurality of first electrode fingers include first distal side wide-width regions (each distal end of the electrode fingers has a width, and thus may be considered a wide-width region), distal ends of the plurality of second electrode fingers include second distal side wide-width regions (each distal end of the electrode fingers has a width, and thus may be considered a wide-width region), the plurality of first dummy electrodes are formed to gradually shorten from one end portion toward an other end portion of the first bus bar (as seen in Fig. 9), the plurality of second dummy electrodes are formed to gradually shorten from the other end portion toward the one end portion of the second bus bar (as seen in Fig. 9, wherein the plurality of first and second dummy electrodes shorten in opposite directions of left and right), the first bus bar includes an inclined section on a side facing the second bus bar such that the other end portion of the first bus bar is positioned closer to the second bus bar, and the second bus bar includes an inclined section on a side facing the first bus bar such that the one end portion of the second bus bar is positioned closer to the first bus bar (as seen in Fig. 9. Each bus bar is inclined relative to the array of gaps 24, inclined toward the other bus bar and the line produced by the array of gaps as the dummy electrodes gradually shorten).
Tanaka does not disclose:
distal ends of the plurality of first electrode fingers include first distal side wide-width regions each having the electrode finger width that is 1.1 to 1.4 times wider than that in an intermediate region between the first bus bar and the second bus bar, distal ends of the plurality of second electrode fingers include second distal side wide-width regions each having the electrode finger width that is 1.1 to 1.4 times wider than that in the intermediate region between the first bus bar and the second bus bar.
Yokoyama et al. discloses in Fig. 3B:
Pluralities of electrode fingers of SAW resonators (title) comprising distal ends wherein distal ends of the plurality of first electrode fingers include first distal side wide-width regions each having the electrode finger width that is 1.1 to 1.4 times wider than that in an intermediate region between bus bars (W2/W1 ratio of 1.2, [0029]).
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the distal ends of the plurality of first electrode fingers to include first distal side wide-width regions each having the electrode finger width that is 1.1 to 1.4 times wider than that in an intermediate region between the first bus bar and the second bus bar and distal ends of the plurality of second electrode fingers to include second distal side wide-width regions each having the electrode finger width that is 1.1 to 1.4 times wider than that in the intermediate region between the first bus bar and the second bus bar to provide the benefit of suppressing the transverse mode while controlling bridging between adjacent fingers, as taught by Yokoyama et al. ([0029])
As per claim 5:
Tanaka discloses in Figs. 1, 3, & 9:
base portions of the plurality of first electrode fingers comprise first base side wide-width regions and base portions of the plurality of the second electrode fingers comprise second base side wide-width regions (each base portion of the electrode fingers has a width, and thus may be considered a wide-width region).
As per claim 6:
Tanaka discloses in Figs. 1, 3, & 9:
the first base side wide-width regions of the first electrode fingers adjoins an adjacent the second distal side wide-width regions of the second electrode fingers and the second base side wide-width regions of the second electrode fingers adjoins an adjacent the first distal side wide-width regions of the first electrode fingers (base regions may be considered to be the region adjoining the distal regions of the plurality of electrode fingers).
As per claim 7:
Tanaka discloses in Figs. 1, 3, & 9:
the plurality of second dummy electrodes are formed so as to gradually lengthen from one end portion to an other end portion of the second bus bar in an inverse relationship with the plurality of first dummy electrodes (as seen in Fig. 9).
As per claim 10:
Tanaka discloses in Figs. 1 & 9:
The length of dummy electrodes is based on the length of the busbar and the angle θ, wherein theta is a design parameter for suppressing spurious wave modes ([0121]).
Tanaka is silent regarding:
a dummy electrode connected to the other end of the first bus bar or one end portion of the second bus bar is formed to have the length of a set magnification between 0.125 and 0.500 times to the length of a dummy electrode connected to one end of the first bus bar or the other end portion of the second bus bar.
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art
for a dummy electrode connected to an other end of the first bus bar or one end of the second bus bar to be formed to have a length of a set magnification between 0.125 and 0.500 times the length of a dummy electrode connected to one end of the first bus bar or the other end of the second bus bar, as a design parameter determined by the length of the IDT which provides the benefit of determining electrical properties of the resonator, as is well understood in the art and the angle θ, which provides the benefit of suppressing the spurious wave modes ([0121]).
As per claim 11:
Tanaka discloses in Figs. 1, 3, & 9:
A module (SAW device 51) comprising the acoustic wave device according to claim 1 ([0222]).
Claim(s) 2-4 (as best understood) is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over The resultant combination of Tanaka (US PGPub 20140145557), a reference of record, in view of Yokoyama et al. (US PGPub 20230133161) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ruby et al. (US PGPub 20170085247), a references of record.
The resultant combination discloses the acoustic wave device of claim 1, as rejected above.
As per claim 2:
The resultant combination does not disclose:
the support substrate comprises a polycrystalline substrate formed of silicon, alumina, spinel, or glass.
Ruby et al. discloses in Fig. 2B:
A surface acoustic wave resonator (abstract) comprising an IDT electrode (102), a piezoelectric layer (203), a low acoustic velocity layer (layer 209, comprising silicon oxide [0048]), and a polycrystalline substrate (substrate 208, [0041-0043]) formed of silicon, alumina, spinel, or glass.
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to replace the substrate structure of the resultant combination with the substrate structure of Ruby et al. as an art-recognized alternative/equivalent support substrate for SAW resonators as taught by Ruby et al. ([0041]) and further to provide the benefit of improving device performance ([0051]).
As per claim 3:
The resultant combination does not disclose:
the polycrystalline substrate is C-axis oriented.
Ruby et al. discloses in Fig. 2B:
A polycrystalline substrate that is C-axis oriented ([0079]).
As a consequence of the combination of claim 2, the polycrystalline substrate is c-axis oriented.
As per claim 4:
The resultant combination does not disclose:
a low acoustic velocity layer disposed between the piezoelectric substrate and the support substrate.
A surface acoustic wave resonator (abstract) comprising an IDT electrode (102), a piezoelectric layer (203), a low acoustic velocity layer (layer 209, comprising silicon oxide [0048]), and a polycrystalline substrate (substrate 208, [0041-0043]) formed of silicon, alumina, spinel, or glass.
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to replace the substrate structure of The resultant combination with the substrate structure of Ruby et al. as an art-recognized alternative/equivalent support substrate for SAW resonators as taught by Ruby et al. ([0041]) and further to provide the benefit of improving device performance ([0051]).
Claim(s) 8 (as best understood) is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over The resultant combination of Tanaka (US PGPub 20140145557), a reference of record, in view of Yokoyama et al. (US PGPub 20230133161) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Abbott et al. (US PGPub 20120161577), a references of record.
As per claim 8:
Tanaka does not disclose:
the first distal side wide-width regions or the second distal side wide-width regions have length between 0.50λ and 1.75λ in direction of aperture length, wherein the direction of aperture length is the direction in which the electrode fingers extend, and k is the wavelength of the surface acoustic wave defined by the pitch of the electrode fingers.
Abbott et al. discloses in Fig. 9:
A surface acoustic wave resonator ([0054]) comprising an IDT electrode further comprising first and second pluralities of fingers connected to respective first and second busbars, wherein the plurality of fingers have wider edge regions than a central region of the area where the pluralities of fingers overlap, and wherein the edge regions have a length between 0.50λ and 1.75λ in the direction of aperture length ([0067]), wherein the direction of aperture length is the direction in which the electrode fingers extend, and k is the wavelength of the surface acoustic wave defined by the pitch of the electrode fingers ([0009-0010]).
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to configure the lengths of edge regions of the pluralities of fingers of The resultant combination as per that disclosed by Abbott et al. to provide the benefit of exciting a mode that is essentially flat in the transducer region as taught by Abbott et al. ([0064])
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see applicant’s remarks, filed 03/30/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 under Tanaka have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Tanaka in view of Yokoyama.
Applicant has amended to overcome the previous 112(b) rejections of claim 1, but in doing so has created further indefiniteness issues as highlighted above.
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