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 § 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, 12 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi et al. (US 20140009032) or further in view of Barsukou (US 20230112487).
As to claim 1, Takahashi et al.’s figures 1-3 shows an acoustic wave device configured (capable of) to excite an asymmetric zero-order mode Lamb wave (by selecting particular thickness and pitch p. ¶0060 teaches that “the thickness of piezoelectric substrate 11 is not limited”, ¶0063 teaches that spacing between electrode fingers 13a and 13b (electrode pitch p) is determined by the thickness of piezoelectric substrate 11, the propagation speed of excited Lamb waves, the resonance frequency of the piezoelectric function member 110, and the like. Figure 3 shows that the device is capable of exciting A0 mode Lamb wave with particular thickness and wavelength (= 2p) ratios), the acoustic wave device comprising: a support substrate (21); a piezoelectric-body layer (11) in direct (figure 16D) or indirect contact (figure 2) with the support substrate; and an IDT electrode (12) located on the piezoelectric-body layer. Furthermore, Barsuko’s figure 1A shows a similar device that excites A0 mode Lamb wave, ¶0051. Figure 1A fails to show the structure of the device as claimed. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to use Takahashi et al.’s resonator with excited A0 mode Lamb wave as stated above for Barsuko’s figure 1A for the purpose achieving more precise resonance characteristics.
As to claim 12, Takahashi et al.’s figure 2 shows an intermediate layer (22) between the support substrate and the piezoelectric- body layer.
As to claim 16, Takahashi et al.’s figures show a communication apparatus (¶0005) comprising the acoustic wave device as claimed.
Claim(s) 2-11 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi et al. (US 20140009032) or further in view of Barsukou (US 20230112487) in view of Kadota et al. (US 20230361752) and BarsuKou et al. (US 20230105794).
As to claim 2, Takahashi et al.’s figures show that the asymmetric zero-order mode Lamb wave has a wavelength l defined as a length twice as long as a pitch of a plurality of electrode fingers (¶0064) comprised in the IDT electrode, the piezoelectric-body layer comprises lithium tantalate as a main component of a constituent material of the piezoelectric-body layer (¶0060), has a thickness ranging from 20% to 87.5% (selecting the thickness range as claimed is seen as an obvious design preference to ensure optimum performance, see figure 3 and MPEP 2144.05). The figures fail to show the Euler angers ranges as claimed. However, Kadota et al.’s ¶0035-0036 teach that its Euler angers ranges for LT piezoelectric substrate are within the claimed ranges. Therefore, it is seen as an obvious design preference to set the Euler angers having ranges as claimed to ensure optimum performance, MPEP 2144.05. The modified Takahashi et al.’s figures further fail to show that the IDT comprises Al and has a thickness ranging from 0.6%l to 50%l. However, Barsukou et al.’s ¶0059 teaches that its IDT is manufactured from AL, and ¶0024 teaches that the thickness of each electrode is equal to 0.01 to 0.5 times the wavelength of the Lamb wave. Therefore, it is seen as an obvious design preference to set Takahashi et al.’s IDT electrodes as claimed to ensure optimum performance, MPEP 2144.05.
As to claim 3, setting the thickness, Euler angles and IDT electrodes as claimed is seen as an obvious design preference to ensure optimum performance, see Takahashi’s figure 3, Kadota et al.’s ¶0035-0036, and Barsukou et al.’s ¶0059 (that teaches copper IDT) and ¶0024.
As to claim 4, setting the thickness, Euler angles and IDT electrodes as claimed is seen as an obvious design preference to ensure optimum performance, see Takahashi’s figure 3, Kadota et al.’s ¶0035-0036, and Barsukou et al.’s ¶0059 (that teaches Patimum IDT) and ¶0024.
As to claim 5, setting the thickness, Euler angles and IDT electrodes as claimed is seen as an obvious design preference to ensure optimum performance, see Takahashi’s figure 3, Kadota et al.’s ¶0035-0036, and Barsukou et al.’s ¶0059 (copper, gold, or aluminum…etc. has transverse wave acoustic velocity between the claimed range) and ¶0024.
As to claim 6, setting the thickness, Euler angles and IDT electrodes as claimed is seen as an obvious design preference to ensure optimum performance, see Takahashi’s figure 3, Kadota et al.’s ¶0035-0036, and Barsukou et al.’s ¶0059 (copper, gold, or aluminum…etc. has transverse wave acoustic velocity between the claimed range) and ¶0024.
As to claims 7-11, Takahashi’s figures show that the asymmetric zero-order mode Lamb wave has a wavelength l defined as a length twice as long as a pitch of a plurality of electrode fingers comprised in the IDT electrode (¶0064),the piezoelectric-body layer comprises lithium niobate as a main component of a constituent material of the piezoelectric-body layer (¶0060). Setting the thickness, Euler angles and IDT electrodes as claimed is seen as an obvious design preference to ensure optimum performance, see Takahashi’s figure 3, Kadota et al.’s ¶0035-0036, and Barsukou et al.’s ¶0059 and ¶0024.
As to claim 13, Takahashi et al.’s figures fail to show an acoustic reflection film between the support substrate and the piezoelectric-body layer. However, Kadota et al.’s figure 1 shows acoustic reflection film 13 is arranging between piezoelectric body layer 11 and support substrate 14. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to include an acoustic reflection film between Takahashi et al.’s support substrate and the piezoelectric-body layer for the purpose of reducing noise.
Claim(s) 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi et al. (US 20140009032) or further in view of Barsukou (US 20230112487) and Nagatomo et al. (US 20230208382).
As to claim 14, Takahashi et al.’s figures fail to show that the acoustic wave device has a fractional bandwidth of 1.1% or more. However, Nagatomo et al.’s figure 22 shows a graph illustrating the relationship between d/2p, where d is the average thickness of the piezoelectric layer and p is the center-to-center distance or the average center-to-center distance between adjacent electrodes, and the fractional bandwidth of the acoustic wave device as a resonator. The figure shows that with d/2p between 0 to 0.8, the fractional bandwidth is greater than 1.1%. Therefore, selecting Takahashi et al.’s d/2p or d/l as shown in figure 3 such that the factional bandwidth is greater than 1.1% is seen as an obvious design preference to ensure optimum performance, MPEP 2144.05.
As to claim 15, Takahashi et al.’s figures fail to show that the IDT electrode is at least in part embedded in the piezoelectric-body layer. However, Nagatomo et al.’s figure 1 shows that the IDT electrode (19A and 19B) is at least in part embedded in the piezoelectric-body layer (16). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to arrange Takahashi et al.’s IDT electrode to be in part embedded in the piezoelectric-body layer for the purpose of suppressing undesired wave.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANH-QUAN TRA whose telephone number is (571)272-1755. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri from 8:00 A.M.-5:00 P.M.
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.
/QUAN TRA/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2843
Prosecution Insights