DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
Notice to Applicant
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.
In the amendment dated 1/30/2026, no changes have been made.
The terminal disclaimer filed on 1/30/2026 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of US Patent 12,081,199 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
Claims 1-29 and 31 are pending.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Claims 1-2, 4, 6, 8, 20-21, 23, 29, and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Takagi et al. US Patent 6,377,138 (of record).
As per claims 1-2, 4, 6, 8, 20-21, 23, 29, and 31, Takagi et al. discloses in Figs. 11 and 12a-12f a method of fabricating a surface acoustic wave (SAW) device (e.g. SAW filter therein) comprising:
as per claims 1, 4, 20, 23, and 29, a piezoelectric layer (e.g. piezoelectric substrate 10); and an interdigital transducer (IDT) (e.g. IDT 700) disposed above the piezoelectric layer and comprising a first electrode having a first busbar (e.g. top busbar of fingers 114 in Fig. 11 which corresponds to IDT 700 in Fig. 12f) and a first plurality of fingers (e.g. fingers 114) extending from the first busbar, wherein the first electrode comprises: a first copper layer (Col. 13 lines 15-17, layer 200 which comprises copper) disposed above the piezoelectric layer; a first intermediate layer (e.g. layer 300) disposed above the first copper layer, the first intermediate layer comprising a different material (i.e. tantalum) than the first copper layer (Col. 13 lines 17-19; Layer 300 comprises tantalum.); and a second copper layer (Col. 13 lines 19-21, layer 400 which comprises copper) disposed above the first intermediate layer;
as per claims 2 and 21, wherein the first intermediate layer is insoluble to copper (It is inherent that copper and tantalum are not mutually soluble (i.e. “insoluble”.) as well-known in the art.);
as per claims 6 and 21, wherein the first intermediate layer has a thickness of less than 50 nm (Col. 13 lines 17-19; The layer 300 has a thickness of 5 nm which is necessarily less than 50 nm.);
as per claim 8, wherein the first intermediate layer is located in a lower portion of the first electrode (The layer 300 is disposed at a lower side or “portion” compared to layer 400 in a vertical direction as shown in Fig. 12f);
as per claim 29, means for interrupting grain growth in the first copper layer (It is inherent that tantalum, which layer 300 is comprised of, reduces or “interrupts” grain growth, well-known in the art.); and
as per claim 31, a layer disposed adjacent to the first copper layer, wherein the layer is configured to reduce boundary migration for the first copper layer (Col. 7 lines 13-26; Layer 200 which comprises copper is disposed adjacent layer 100 which comprises tantalum (i.e. “a layer”), where tantalum functions to improve migration resistance (i.e. “boundary migration”).).
Claims 1, 3, 16, 20, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yuhara et al. US Patent 4,775,814 (of record).
As per claims 1, 3, 16, 20, and 22, Yuhara et al. discloses in Figs. 1 and 4g a method of fabricating a surface acoustic wave (SAW) device comprising:
as per claims 1, 3, 20, and 22, a piezoelectric layer (e.g. piezoelectric substrate 1); and an interdigital transducer (IDT) (e.g. array 2 which forms an IDT) disposed above the piezoelectric layer and comprising a first electrode having a first busbar (e.g. bonding pad 3) and a first plurality of fingers (e.g. fingers connected thereto) extending from the first busbar, wherein the first electrode comprises: a first copper layer (Col. 2 lines 48-58, layer 7a which comprises copper) disposed above the piezoelectric layer; a first intermediate layer (e.g. layer 8a) disposed above the first copper layer, the first intermediate layer comprising a different material (i.e. chromium) than the first copper layer (Col. 2 lines 58-60; The layer 8a comprises chromium.); and a second copper layer (Col. 10 lines 20-22, layer 7b which comprises copper) disposed above the first intermediate layer; and
as per claim 16, a plurality of resonators (Fig. 1, resonators 2 and 2’) forming a filter circuit (Col. 7 lines 19-20, SAW filter), wherein the SAW device of claim 1 is a resonator in the plurality of resonators.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishimura et al. US 2015/0123744 in view of Takagi et al. US Patent 6,377,138 (both of record).
As per claims 17-19, Nishimura et al. discloses in Fig. 1 a wireless device (e.g. module 100 which is a cellular phone (Paragraph 3)) comprising:
as per claim 17, a RF circuit (e.g. duplexer 10 and IC 12); a surface acoustic wave (SAW) filter (Paragraph 45, filter 30 which comprises SAW resonators, thus is necessarily a “SAW filter”) coupled to the RF circuit;
as per claim 18, wherein the RF circuit comprises a transmit path (e.g. path comprising transmit terminal Tx) and a receive path (e.g. path comprising receive terminal Rx) and wherein the SAW filter forms a portion of a duplexer (e.g. duplexer 10) coupled to an output of the transmit path and to an input of the receive path (The filter 30 is connected to terminal Rx and terminal Tx.); and
as per claim 19, wherein the RF circuit comprises a low-noise amplifier (LNA) (e.g. LNA 16) and wherein the SAW filter is coupled to an output of the LNA (The filter 30 is directly connected to the amplifier 16.).
However, Nishimura et al. does not disclose the SAW filter comprising all of the limitations recited therein.
Takagi et al. discloses in Figs. 11 and 12a-12f a saw filter (See above description pertaining to claim 1 which has not been repeated for the sake of brevity.). Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have replaced each of the generic SAW filters 20 and 30 of Nishmura et al. with the specific SAW filter of Takagi et al. as being obvious art substitutions of equivalents. As an obvious consequence of the modification, the combination would have necessarily included the SAW filter comprising all of the limitations recited therein.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takagi et al. US Patent 6,377,138 in view of Ruile et al. US 2006/0103486 (both of record).
As per claim 14, Takagi et al. discloses the SAW device of claim 1, but does not disclose wherein the SAW device is a temperature compensated SAW device.
Ruile et al. exemplarily discloses in Figs. 1-2 a SAW component comprising a compensation layer K disposed on an entire surface of metallization layers of the substrate S thereof. Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have disposed a compensation layer on the layers and substrate of Takagi et al. as exemplarily taught by Ruile et al. with the motivation of providing the benefit of improving a temperature coefficient to reduce losses in the SAW device therein (Abstract of Ruile et al.). As an obvious consequence of the modification, the combination would have necessarily included: wherein the SAW device is a temperature compensated SAW device.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/30/2026 have been fully considered and they are partially but are not fully persuasive.
On pages 7-11 of Applicant’s Remarks, the Applicant states that Takagi (of record) fails to teach “a first copper layer disposed above the piezoelectric layer…a second copper layer disposed above the first intermediate layer”. The Examiner has alleged that Takagi’s layers 200 and 400 teach these claim elements which Applicant disagrees. Takagi describes layers 200 and 400 to each have 0.5% copper and identifies these as “aluminum-copper layers”, where aluminum is a base material with copper as a minor additive at only 0.5%, which is not the same as “a copper layer”. Under broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification, a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand “first and second copper layer” to mean layers that are copper based, not aluminum layers with only trace amounts of copper additive. Applicant notes that even federal regulations have recognized that when an alloy is named by a single metal, the named metal must constitute at least 50% of the composition (see DFARS 252.225-7009). Applicant further disagrees with the Examiner’s reasoning that the term “comprising” permits any layer containing any amount of copper. Under this interpretation, virtually any metallic layer containing any amount of copper could be considered a “copper layer”. Such an interpretation would render the term “copper layer” meaningless and inconsistent with how a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand the claim language. The term “comprising” means that the claimed first electrode may include additional elements but does not transform the meaning of “copper layer” to encompass layers that are 99.5% aluminum. Claims 20 and 29 recite similar features as claim 1, thus claims 1, 20, and 29 are allowable for these reasons. Further claims 1, 3, 16, 20, and 22 are also allowable for the same reasons above, as 0.4% of copper in Yuhara is inconsistent with how a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand the claim language. Claims 14 and 17-19 are also allowable as Takagi fails to teach “a copper layer”.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Although Takagi and Yuhara (both of record) teach a low concentration of Cu in each of the layers therein, the layers are indeed COMPRISED of copper. The limitations in the independent claims are recited under “comprising” language, and not “consisting” language, thus each of the “first and second layers” can comprise other elements as long as copper is one of the elements to meet the limitations in the claims, regardless of whether copper is a main or secondary element therein. Because of the comprising language, the mere fact that copper exists in the “first and second layers” meets the limitations in the claims.
The Examiner respectfully points to MPEP 2111.03 Section I. As stated, “comprising” means that the elements are essential, but other elements may be added. Comprising leaves “the claim open for inclusion of unspecified ingredients even in major amounts”. Further, Applicant’s arguments pertaining to federal regulations are not germane as they are not relevant to what is recited in claims of a patent application, but rather the MPEP is. Thus, the rejections have been sustained. This action has been made final. The Examiner advises the Applicant to use consisting language or to recite that the copper layers are mainly formed of copper within the claims to overcome the rejections of record.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 RAKESH PATEL whose telephone number is (571)272-0961. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM EST M-F.
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 on 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.
/RAKESH B PATEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2843