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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of invention I (claims 1-10 & 15-20) in the reply filed on 08/17/2026 is acknowledged.
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.
Claim 20 is 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.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 20 recites the broad recitation “the thickness of the damage layer is less than 3nm,” and the claim also recites “the thickness of the damage layer is less than or equal to 1nm” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claims 19 & 20 are rejected on the basis that it contains an improper Markush grouping of alternatives. See In re Harnisch, 631 F.2d 716, 721-22 (CCPA 1980) and Ex parte Hozumi, 3 USPQ2d 1059, 1060 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1984). A Markush grouping is proper if the alternatives defined by the Markush group (i.e., alternatives from which a selection is to be made in the context of a combination or process, or alternative chemical compounds as a whole) share a “single structural similarity” and a common use. A Markush grouping meets these requirements in two situations. First, a Markush grouping is proper if the alternatives are all members of the same recognized physical or chemical class or the same art-recognized class, and are disclosed in the specification or known in the art to be functionally equivalent and have a common use. Second, where a Markush grouping describes alternative chemical compounds, whether by words or chemical formulas, and the alternatives do not belong to a recognized class as set forth above, the members of the Markush grouping may be considered to share a “single structural similarity” and common use where the alternatives share both a substantial structural feature and a common use that flows from the substantial structural feature. See MPEP § 2117.
The Markush grouping of “the thickness of the first supporting layer is less than 2λ; or the thickness of the second supporting layer is less than 0.004λ” of claim 19 is improper because the alternatives defined by the Markush grouping do not share both a single structural similarity and a common use for the following reasons: the limitations describe the thickness of two separate structures and thus lack a structural similarity, and with two separate thicknesses, the structures are used in separate ways, thus lacking a common use.
The Markush grouping of “the thickness of the damage layer is less than 3 nm; or the thickness of the damage layer is less than or equal to 1 nm; or a difference between a maximum and a minimum of the thickness of the piezoelectric layer is less than 40 nm; or the distance between two adjacent interdigital transducers electrodes of the plurality of interdigital transducers electrodes is less than 1µm” of claim 20 is improper because the alternatives defined by the Markush grouping do not share both a single structural similarity and a common use for the following reasons: the limitations describe the thickness of separate structures and thus lack a structural similarity, and with separate thicknesses, the structures are used in separate ways, thus lacking a common use.
To overcome this rejection, Applicant may set forth each alternative (or grouping of patentably indistinct alternatives) within an improper Markush grouping in a series of independent or dependent claims and/or present convincing arguments that the group members recited in the alternative within a single claim in fact share a single structural similarity as well as a common use.
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) 1-9, 15, 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yamamoto et al. (US PGPub 20230208395).
As per claim 1:
Yamamoto et al. discloses in Fig.1:
An elastic wave device, comprising:
a supporting substrate (insulating layer 17);
a piezoelectric layer (15), formed on the supporting substrate, wherein a surface of the piezoelectric layer away from the supporting substrate has a damage layer, and a thickness of the damage layer is less than 0.00075λ (piezoelectric layer 15 is planarized by a thinning process such as CMP [0049], resulting in a damage layer at the top surface, wherein planarized surfaces such as 33 [0047] using CMP are noted as having a roughness less than 1 nm [0174], wherein the wavelength is given as between 1 and 6 µm, [0038]); and
a plurality of interdigital transducers electrodes (22), spaced apart from each other and formed on a side of the piezoelectric layer away from the supporting substrate (as seen in Fig. 1B), wherein a distance between two adjacent interdigital transducers electrodes of the plurality of interdigital transducers electrodes is less than 3µm ([0038]);
wherein λ is a wavelength of an elastic wave of the elastic wave device, and is determined based on an electrode period of the plurality of interdigital transducers electrodes ([0038]).
As per claims 2 & 17:
Yamamoto et al. discloses in Fig.1:
the supporting substrate comprises:
a substrate (insulating layer 12); and
at least one supporting layer (insulating layer 14), arranged between the substrate and the piezoelectric layer;
wherein one of the at least one supporting layer farthest from the substrate is formed on the piezoelectric layer (as seen in Fig. 1B), and has a thickness greater than the thickness of the damage layer (greater than 1 nm, [0036]).
As per claims 3 & 18:
Yamamoto et al. discloses in Fig.1:
the at least one supporting layer comprises:
a first supporting layer (insulating layer 13), located between the substrate and the piezoelectric layer; and
a second supporting layer (insulating layer 14), located between the first supporting layer and the piezoelectric layer; wherein a thickness of the first supporting layer and a thickness of the second supporting layer are respectively greater than the thickness of the damage layer ([0036, 0058]).
As per claims 4 & 19:
Yamamoto et al. discloses in Fig.1:
the thickness of the first supporting layer is less than 2λ ([0058]).
As per claims 5 & 19:
Yamamoto et al. discloses in Fig.1:
the thickness of the second supporting layer is less than 0.004λ ([0036]).
As per claims 6 & 20:
Yamamoto et al. discloses in Fig.1:
the thickness of the damage layer is less than 3 nm ([0049,0174]).
As per claims 7 & 20:
Yamamoto et al. discloses in Fig.1:
the thickness of the damage layer is less than or equal to 1 nm ([0049,0174]).
As per claims 8 & 20:
Yamamoto et al. discloses in Fig.1:
a difference between a maximum and a minimum of the thickness of the piezoelectric layer is less than 40nm (T4 is given as a single value [0031, 0051], wherein the top surface of the piezoelectric layer is planarized, and the surface 34 has a roughness less than 1 nm and a single thickness of T3 of 1 nm or greater [0036] planarized with the thickness of surfaces of [0049,0174]).
As per claims 9 & 20:
Yamamoto et al. discloses in Fig.1:
the distance between two adjacent interdigital transducers electrodes of the plurality of interdigital transducers electrodes is less than 1µm ([0038], wherein a wavelength of 2 µm results in a pitch of 1 µm, with the distance being 0.3-0.7µm).
As per claim 15:
Yamamoto et al. discloses in Figs.1 & 16:
An electronic module (duplexer, Fig. 16B [0185]) comprising:
an elastic wave device (filter, Fig. 16a [0184]), comprising:
a supporting substrate (insulating layer 17);
a piezoelectric layer (15), formed on the supporting substrate, wherein a surface of the piezoelectric layer away from the supporting substrate has a damage layer, and a thickness of the damage layer is less than 0.00075λ (piezoelectric layer 15 is planarized by a thinning process such as CMP [0049], resulting in a damage layer at the top surface, wherein planarized surfaces such as 33 [0047] using CMP are noted as having a roughness less than 1 nm [0174], wherein the wavelength is given as between 1 and 6 µm, [0038]); and
a plurality of interdigital transducers electrodes (22), spaced apart from each other and arranged on a side of the piezoelectric layer away from the supporting substrate (as seen in Fig. 1B), wherein a distance between two adjacent interdigital transducers electrodes of the plurality of interdigital transducers electrodes is less than 3µm ([0038]);
wherein λ is a wavelength of an elastic wave of the elastic wave device, and is determined based on an electrode period of the plurality of interdigital transducers electrodes ([0038]).
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) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto et al. (US PGPub 20230208395)
As per claim 10:
Yamamoto et al. discloses in Fig.1:
The elastic wave device is configured to reduce loss ([0031]).
Yamamoto et al. does not disclose:
an insertion loss of the elastic wave device is less than 1.4dB.
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to configure the elastic wave device of Yamamoto et al. to have an insertion loss of the elastic wave device is less than 1.4dB as an well-understood in the art optimization to reduce the loss of the device, as taught by Yamamoto ([0031]) and to provide the benefit of increasing the efficiency of the elastic wave device, as is well understood in the art.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto et al. (US PGPub 20230208395) in view of Kitajima (US PGPub 20240030956)
As per claim 16:
Yamamoto et al. discloses in Figs.1 & 16:
The elastic wave device may be included in a multiplexer ([0186]).
Yamamoto et al. does not disclose:
a wiring base, wherein the elastic wave device is arranged on a main surface of the wiring base; an integrated circuit (IC) component, arranged in the wiring base, and comprising a switch circuit and a low-noise amplifier; an inductor, arranged on the main surface of the wiring base, and configured for impedance matching; and a sealing part, configured to seal the elastic wave device.
Kitajima et al. discloses in Figs. 1-5:
a wiring base (module substrate 92 & resin member 95), wherein an elastic wave device (filters 61-66, [0097]) is arranged on a main surface of the wiring base (top);
an integrated circuit (IC) component (20), arranged in the wiring base (as seen in Fig. 5), and comprising a switch circuit and a low-noise amplifier ([0089]);
an inductor matching networks ([0084, 0085]), arranged on the main surface of the wiring base (as seen in Fig. 5, [0084]), and configured for impedance matching ([0084]); and
a sealing part (resin member 93), configured to seal the elastic wave device ([0081]).
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the specific elastic wave device of Yamamoto et al. for the one or more generic filters of Kitajima et al. to provide the benefit of a multiplexer wherein the spurious response of the filters is reduced as taught by Yamamoto et al. ([0130])
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
Prosecution Insights