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) 1-3, 7-8, & 10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Goto et al. (US PGPub 20230223917)
As per claim 1:
Goto et al. discloses in Fig. 5A&B:
A surface acoustic wave filter ([0065]) configured to suppress spurious components caused by a transverse mode, the surface acoustic wave filter comprising:
a substrate (multilayer piezoelectric substrate 406) on which a support substrate (404), an energy confinement layer (405), and a piezoelectric layer (402) are sequentially stacked;
a first bus bar and a second bus bar (respective BB’s in Fig. 5B) each extending on the substrate in a first direction and spaced apart from each other in a second direction perpendicular to the first direction (as seen in Fig. 5B);
a plurality of first interdigital transducer (IDT) electrodes and a plurality of second IDT electrodes alternately disposed to extend from the first and second bus bars in the second direction and spaced apart from each other in the first direction (IDT 410 includes two sets of interdigitated fingers, as seen in Fig. 5B);
a second dummy electrode (extension portions 416) extending from the second bus bar to face an end portion of each of the plurality of first IDT electrodes extending from the first bus bar; and
a first dummy electrode (extension portions 416) extending from the first bus bar to face an end portion of each of the plurality of second IDT electrodes extending from the second bus bar, wherein an acoustic velocity at the first and second dummy electrodes is higher than an acoustic velocity at the plurality of first and second IDT electrodes (mass loading strips 415 decrease the acoustic velocity of the ends of the plurality of electrodes, as shown in related Fig. 4).
As per claim 2:
Goto et al. discloses in Fig. 5A&B:
A surface acoustic wave filter ([0065]) configured to suppress spurious components caused by a transverse mode, the surface acoustic wave filter comprising:
a substrate (multilayer piezoelectric substrate 406) on which a support substrate (404), an energy confinement layer (405), and a piezoelectric layer (402) are sequentially stacked;
a first bus bar and a second bus bar (respective BB’s in Fig. 5B) each extending on the substrate in a first direction and spaced apart from each other in a second direction perpendicular to the first direction (as seen in Fig. 5B);
a plurality of first interdigital transducer (IDT) electrodes and a plurality of second IDT electrodes alternately disposed to extend from the first and second bus bars in the second direction and spaced apart from each other in the first direction (IDT 410 includes two sets of interdigitated fingers, as seen in Fig. 5B);
a second dummy electrode (extension portions 416) extending from the second bus bar to face an end portion of each of the plurality of first IDT electrodes extending from the first bus bar; and
a first dummy electrode (extension portions 416) extending from the first bus bar to face an end portion of each of the plurality of second IDT electrodes extending from the second bus bar, wherein spurious components are suppressed in a band of frequencies higher than an anti-resonance frequency (Goto et al. provides transverse mode suppression [0067], wherein suppression is further shown in Figs. 6-8, which includes spurious response shown to be reduced above the antiresonance frequency of the resonator, and as the limitation limits the band of frequencies being higher than an anti-resonance frequency by using a generic “anti-resonance frequency” as opposed to an anti-resonance frequency of the resonator, the suppressed spurious response between the resonant and antiresonant frequency of the resonator are in a band of frequencies higher than a generic anti-resonant frequency that is below the resonant frequency of the resonator (as any frequency may be a resonant or anti-resonant frequency)).
As per claim 3:
Goto et al. discloses in Fig. 5A&B:
A surface acoustic wave filter ([0065]) configured to suppress spurious components caused by a transverse mode, the surface acoustic wave filter comprising:
a substrate (multilayer piezoelectric substrate 406) on which a support substrate (404), an energy confinement layer (405), and a piezoelectric layer (402) are sequentially stacked;
a first bus bar and a second bus bar (respective BB’s in Fig. 5B) each extending on the substrate in a first direction and spaced apart from each other in a second direction perpendicular to the first direction (as seen in Fig. 5B);
a plurality of first interdigital transducer (IDT) electrodes and a plurality of second IDT electrodes alternately disposed to extend from the first and second bus bars in the second direction and spaced apart from each other in the first direction (IDT 410 includes two sets of interdigitated fingers, as seen in Fig. 5B);
a second dummy electrode (extension portions 416) extending from the second bus bar to face an end portion of each of the plurality of first IDT electrodes extending from the first bus bar; and
a first dummy electrode (extension portions 416) extending from the first bus bar to face an end portion of each of the plurality of second IDT electrodes extending from the second bus bar, wherein spurious components are suppressed in a band of frequencies higher than a resonance frequency (Goto et al. provides transverse mode suppression [0067], wherein spurious components are suppressed in a band of frequencies higher than a resonance frequency ([0067]).
As per claim 7:
Goto et al. discloses in Fig. 5A&B:
a density of each of the first and second dummy electrodes is higher than a density of each of the plurality of first and second IDT electrodes (strips 115/415 may be formed of aluminum, [0057], and layer 111/411 may be formed of molybdenum [0056], wherein the layer 111/411 forms part of the dummy electrodes, and the strips 115/415 form part of the first and second IDT electrodes, wherein the density of molybdenum is higher than the density of aluminum).
As per claim 8:
Goto et al. discloses in Fig. 5A&B:
an edge portion (portion with strips 115/415) with an acoustic velocity lower than an acoustic velocity in a central portion (due to mass loading, as per Fig. 4) is disposed on both sides of a region in which the plurality of first IDT electrodes and the plurality of second IDT electrodes are present together in the second direction and spaced apart from each other in the first direction (as seen in Figs. 5A-B).
As per claim 10:
Goto et al. discloses in Fig. 5A&B:
a density of the edge portion is lower than a density of each of the plurality of first and second IDT electrodes (strips 115/415 may be formed of aluminum, [0057], and layer 111/411 may be formed of molybdenum [0056], wherein the layer 111/411 forms part of the plurality of first and second IDT electrodes, and the strips 115/415 form part edge portions, wherein the density of molybdenum is higher than the density of aluminum).
As per claim 11:
Goto et al. discloses in Fig. 5A&B:
the edge portion is constituted by adding a mass addition film (strips 115/415) to the plurality of first and second IDT electrodes.
As per claim 12:
Goto et al. discloses in Fig. 5A&B:
the mass addition film has a density equal to or less than 5 g/cm3 (strips 115/415 may be formed of aluminum, [0057], wherein the density of aluminum is ~2.7 g/cm3).
Claim(s) 1-4 & 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ishitaki et al. (US PGPub 20230077266)
As per claim 1:
Ishitaki et al. discloses in Figs. 2-3 & 12-13A-B:
A surface acoustic wave filter ([0002]) configured to suppress spurious components caused by a transverse mode ([0006]), the surface acoustic wave filter comprising:
a substrate on which a support substrate (13), an energy confinement layer (14), and a piezoelectric layer (10) are sequentially stacked;
a first bus bar and a second bus bar (respective bus bars 31/32) each extending on the substrate in a first direction and spaced apart from each other in a second direction perpendicular to the first direction (as seen in Fig. 12);
a plurality of first interdigital transducer (IDT) electrodes (33) and a plurality of second IDT electrodes (34) alternately disposed to extend from the first and second bus bars in the second direction and spaced apart from each other in the first direction (as seen in Fig. 12);
a second dummy electrode (dummy electrode fingers 102) extending from the second bus bar to face an end portion of each of the plurality of first IDT electrodes extending from the first bus bar; and
a first dummy electrode (dummy electrode fingers 102) extending from the first bus bar to face an end portion of each of the plurality of second IDT electrodes extending from the second bus bar, wherein an acoustic velocity at the first and second dummy electrodes is higher than an acoustic velocity at the plurality of first and second IDT electrodes (as seen in Fig. 12).
As per claim 2:
Ishitaki et al. discloses in Figs. 2-3 & 12-13A-B:
A surface acoustic wave filter ([0002]) configured to suppress spurious components caused by a transverse mode ([0006]), the surface acoustic wave filter comprising:
a substrate on which a support substrate (13), an energy confinement layer (14), and a piezoelectric layer (10) are sequentially stacked;
a first bus bar and a second bus bar (respective bus bars 31/32) each extending on the substrate in a first direction and spaced apart from each other in a second direction perpendicular to the first direction (as seen in Fig. 12);
a plurality of first interdigital transducer (IDT) electrodes (33) and a plurality of second IDT electrodes (34) alternately disposed to extend from the first and second bus bars in the second direction and spaced apart from each other in the first direction (as seen in Fig. 12);
a second dummy electrode (dummy electrode fingers 102) extending from the second bus bar to face an end portion of each of the plurality of first IDT electrodes extending from the first bus bar; and
a first dummy electrode (dummy electrode fingers 102) extending from the first bus bar to face an end portion of each of the plurality of second IDT electrodes extending from the second bus bar, wherein spurious components are suppressed in a band of frequencies higher than an anti-resonance frequency (as seen in Fig. 13, wherein return loss above 2640 MHz is reduced).
As per claim 3:
Ishitaki et al. discloses in Figs. 2-3 & 12-13A-B:
A surface acoustic wave filter ([0002]) configured to suppress spurious components caused by a transverse mode ([0006]), the surface acoustic wave filter comprising:
a substrate on which a support substrate (13), an energy confinement layer (14), and a piezoelectric layer (10) are sequentially stacked;
a first bus bar and a second bus bar (respective bus bars 31/32) each extending on the substrate in a first direction and spaced apart from each other in a second direction perpendicular to the first direction (as seen in Fig. 12);
a plurality of first interdigital transducer (IDT) electrodes (33) and a plurality of second IDT electrodes (34) alternately disposed to extend from the first and second bus bars in the second direction and spaced apart from each other in the first direction (as seen in Fig. 12);
a second dummy electrode (dummy electrode fingers 102) extending from the second bus bar to face an end portion of each of the plurality of first IDT electrodes extending from the first bus bar; and
a first dummy electrode (dummy electrode fingers 102) extending from the first bus bar to face an end portion of each of the plurality of second IDT electrodes extending from the second bus bar, wherein spurious components are suppressed in a band of frequencies higher than a resonance frequency (Goto et al. provides transverse mode suppression [0067], wherein spurious components are suppressed in a band of frequencies higher than a resonance frequency (as seen in Fig. 13, wherein return loss above 2560 MHz is reduced).
As per claim 4:
Ishitaki et al. discloses in Figs. 2-3 & 12-13A-B:
a width of each of the first and second dummy electrodes is smaller than a width (width in edge regions C2 & C3) of each of the plurality of first and second IDT electrodes.
As per claim 8:
Ishitaki et al. discloses in Figs. 2-3 & 12-13A-B:
an edge portion (regions C2 & C3) with an acoustic velocity lower than an acoustic velocity in a central portion (C1) is disposed on both sides of a region in which the plurality of first IDT electrodes and the plurality of second IDT electrodes are present together in the second direction and spaced apart from each other in the first direction (as seen in Fig. 12).
As per claim 9:
Ishitaki et al. discloses in Figs. 2-3 & 12-13A-B:
a width of the edge portion is greater than a width of each of the plurality of first and second IDT electrodes (as seen in Fig. 12).
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) 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishitaki et al. (US PGPub 20230077266) in view of Pernpeintner (US PGPub 20220286106).
As per claim 5:
Ishitaki et al. does not disclose:
a width of each of the first and second dummy electrodes is configured to be in a range between 20 % and 80 % of a width of each of the plurality of first and second IDT electrodes.
Pernpeintner discloses in Fig. 1:
A surface acoustic wave filter (abstract) comprising an IDT electrode with dummy electrodes (stub fingers 30) formed opposing interdigitated electrode fingers (10) between respective bus bars (20), wherein the dummy electrodes have a width in a range between 20% and 80 % of a width of the respective electrode fingers ([0024]).
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form the first and second dummy electrodes with a width in a range between 20% and 80% of a width of each of the plurality of first and second IDT electrodes to provide the benefit of increasing the velocity of the main mode in the region of the dummy electrodes compared to the central region of the interdigitated electrode fingers as taught by Pernpeintner ([0025]).
As per claim 6:
Ishitaki et al. does not disclose:
a width of each of the first and second dummy electrodes is configured to be in a range between 50% and 80% of a width of each of the plurality of first and second IDT electrodes.
Pernpeintner discloses in Fig. 1:
A surface acoustic wave filter (abstract) comprising an IDT electrode with dummy electrodes (stub fingers 30) formed opposing interdigitated electrode fingers (10) between respective bus bars (20), wherein the dummy electrodes have a width in a range between 50% and 80 % of a width of the respective electrode fingers ([0024]).
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form the first and second dummy electrodes with a width in a range between 50% and 80% of a width of each of the plurality of first and second IDT electrodes to provide the benefit of increasing the velocity of the main mode in the region of the dummy electrodes compared to the central region of the interdigitated electrode fingers as taught by Pernpeintner ([0025]).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goto et al. (US PGPub 20230223917) in view of Ruile et al. (US PGPub 20130051588).
As per claim 13:
Goto et al. does not disclose:
the mass addition film comprises at least one selected from silicon dioxide (SiO2), tantalum pentoxide (Ta2O5), and aluminum oxide (Al2O3).
Ruile et al. discloses in Figs. 15a-d:
the use of at least one selected from silicon dioxide (SiO2), tantalum pentoxide (Ta2O5), and aluminum oxide (Al2O3) as a material for a mass addition film over an IDT electrode ([0084])
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use Ta2O5 as the mass addition film of Goto et al. as an art-recognized alternative/equivalent mass addition film material as taught by Ruile et al. ([0084])
Conclusion
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