DETAILED ACTION
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted 7/22/206 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and being considered by the examiner.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection has been withdrawn because of the approved terminal disclaimer.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 7/24/2026 has been entered. The applicant has amended claims 1-3, 6, 8, 12-18, and 20. Claims 1-20 remain pending in the application.
Response to Argument
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 7-11 of the Remarks filed 7/24/2026 (“Remarks"), with respect to the rejections of record have been fully considered but are moot because the new ground(s) of rejection(s), necessitated by the applicant's amendment, do not rely on the combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 14, as amended, recites in its entirety: “The surface acoustic wave device of claim 1 wherein
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
Claims 1-7, 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by DE 10 2011 119 660, published 5/29/2013 (“Jäger”), a machine translation of which is provided herewith.
Jäger discloses in Figs. 1A, 2-5, Abstract, ¶¶7-32, 55-64, claims 1-6:
Claim 1
A surface acoustic wave device (Figs. 1A, 2-5, ¶¶2, 7-32, 55-64) comprising:
a support substrate (M2 and/or ¶23, the second cladding layer can be applied to a carrier substrate);
a piezoelectric layer (M1) over the support substrate;
a temperature compensation structure (WL) between the support substrate (M2) and the piezoelectric layer (M1), the temperature compensation structure including doped germanium oxide (¶¶7-32, 55-64, claims 1-6, glass comprising germanium oxide doped with glass modifiers and/or stabilizers); and
an interdigital transducer electrode (E1) in electrical communication with the piezoelectric layer (¶57).
Claim 2
wherein the doped germanium oxide has an acoustic velocity that is less than 70% of an acoustic velocity of silicon oxide (inherent).
Jäger teaches modifying its germanium oxide TCF layer with various dopants listed in claims 5-6 of Jäger. Jäger also teaches that germanium dioxide layers has a higher density than the silicon dioxide layers (¶11). While Jäger is silent on the acoustic velocity of its doped germanium oxide layers, it is well known in the art that SiO2 has the acoustic velocity of about 3800 m/s, while GeO2 has the acoustic velocity of about 2100 m/s. It is also well known in the art that doping GeO2 with a metal oxide, as taught by Jäger, would increase its mass density (ρ) and therefore decrease its acoustic velocity determined as
v
=
√
M
ρ
. Thus, doped germanium oxide disclosed in Jäger would inherently have a lower acoustic velocity than silicon oxide.
Claim 3
wherein the doped germanium oxide has a permittivity that is more than 1.5 times a permittivity of the silicon oxide (inherent).
While Jäger is silent on the permittivity of its doped germanium oxide layers, it is well known in the art that SiO2 has the permittivity about 4, while GeO2 has the permittivity of about 9. It is also well known that doping GeO2 with a metal oxide increases its dielectric constant and therefore increases its permittivity. Thus, doped germanium oxide disclosed in Jäger would inherently have a higher permittivity than silicon oxide.
Claim 4
wherein the temperature compensation structure has a thickness in a range of 300 nm to 800 nm (¶¶75, 77, the thickness of the germanium dioxide glass waveguide layer is reduced to 800 nm).
Claim 5
wherein the temperature compensation structure directly contacts the piezoelectric layer (Figs. 1A, 2-5, WL directly contacts M1).
Claim 6
wherein the temperature compensation structure has a multi-layer structure that includes a first layer and a second layer (¶17, “a device with a three-layer waveguide view according to the invention makes it possible to arrange an unlimited number of further layers on the waveguide”).
Claim 7
wherein the temperature compensation structure has a thickness in a range of 300 nm to 1200 nm (¶¶75, 77, the thickness of the germanium dioxide glass waveguide layer is reduced to 800 nm).
Claim 12
wherein the temperature compensation structure has a multi-layer structure that includes a first layer having the doped germanium oxide and a second layer that includes at least one of germanium oxide, amorphous zinc phosphate, amorphous aluminum phosphate, amorphous gallium phosphate, amorphous silicon oxycarbide, or tellurium oxide (¶¶17-19).
Claim 13
wherein the doped germanium oxide has a lower acoustic velocity, a higher permittivity, and a higher effective electronegativity than silicon oxycarbide (because undoped GeO2 has a lower acoustic velocity, a higher permittivity and a higher effective electronegativity than silicon oxycarbide SiO2, doped GeO2 disclosed in Jäger would necessarily have even lower velocity, a higher permittivity, and a higher effective electronegativity than silicon oxycarbide).
Claim 14
wherein
Claim 15
A surface acoustic wave device (Figs. 1A, 2-5, ¶¶2, 7-32, 55-64) comprising:
a piezoelectric layer (M1);
a temperature compensation structure in contact with the piezoelectric layer (WL) having a lower acoustic velocity and higher permittivity than silicon oxide (inherent); and
an interdigital transducer electrode (E1) in electrical communication with the piezoelectric layer (¶57).
Claim 16
wherein the doped germanium oxide has an of an acoustic velocity less than 70% of silicon oxide (inherent).
Claim 17
wherein the doped germanium oxide has a permittivity that is more than 1.5 times a permittivity of the silicon oxide (inherent), and the temperature compensation structure has a thickness in a range of 300 nm to 800 nm (¶¶75, 77, the thickness of the germanium dioxide glass waveguide layer is reduced to 800 nm).
Claim 18
wherein the temperature compensation structure has a multi-layer structure that includes a first layer having the material the doped germanium oxide and a second layer is having silicon oxide (¶¶17-19).
Claim 19
further comprising a support substrate (M2 and/or ¶23, the second cladding layer can be applied to a carrier substrate), wherein the temperature compensation structure (WL) is positioned between the support substrate and the piezoelectric layer (Figs. 1A, 2-5).
Claim 20
An acoustic wave filter (¶17) comprising:
a surface acoustic wave device (Figs. 1A, 2-5, ¶¶2, 7-32, 55-64) including a support substrate (M2), a piezoelectric layer (M1) over the support substrate, a temperature compensation structure (WL) between the support substrate and the piezoelectric layer, and an interdigital transducer electrode (E1) in electrical communication with the piezoelectric layer (¶57), the temperature compensation structure including doped germanium oxide (¶¶7-32) having a lower acoustic velocity and higher permittivity than silicon oxide (inherent); and
one or more acoustic wave resonators electrically coupled to the surface acoustic wave device (¶17, claim 16 of Jäger).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0173713, published June 2, 2022 (“Smirnow”), of record, in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2012/0112282, published May 10, 2012 (“Lin”).
Smirnow discloses in Fig. 1 and the corresponding description:
Claim 1
A surface acoustic wave device (Fig. 1, Abstract, ¶¶1, 36, 40-49) comprising:
a support substrate (substrate 1, ¶3);
a piezoelectric layer (piezoelectric thin-film 2, ¶6) over the support substrate;
a temperature compensation structure (waveguide layer 4 and TCF compensating layer 5) between the support substrate and the piezoelectric layer (Fig. 1); and
an interdigital transducer electrode (IDT 3, ¶36) in electrical communication with the piezoelectric layer.
Smirnow discloses that the temperature compensation structure includes a germanium oxide layer (¶¶31-32 “the second waveguide layer [42] comprises or consists of one or more of the following materials: SiO2, Si3N4, doped SiO2, GeO2”) but does not disclose that the temperature compensation structure includes doped germanium oxide having a lower acoustic velocity and higher permittivity than silicon oxide.
However, Lin, a reasonably pertinent reference from a relevant field of endeavor, teaches that “germanium oxides are volatile and introduce a large number of defect states resulting in poor device reliability” (¶6) and further teaches a solution to this problem, using a stabilized germanium oxide formed by doping germanium oxide with a stabilizing metal oxide (¶¶21, 23-24, 53-54, claims 13-15, 20).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Smirnow by doping its germanium oxide layer with a stabilizing metal oxide for the benefit of achieving low defect density and preventing environmental degradation of the germanium oxide, as taught by Lin (¶¶21, 23-24).
In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the known technique of doping germanium oxide to reduce defects and to prevent germanium oxide degradation, as was well known in the art. MPEP 2143.I.C.
While Lin is silent on the acoustic velocity and permittivity of its doped germanium oxide layers, it is well known in the art that SiO2 has the acoustic velocity of about 3800 m/s and the permittivity about 4, while GeO2 has the acoustic velocity of about 2100 m/s and the permittivity of about 9. It is also well known in the art that doping GeO2 with a metal oxide, as taught by Lin, would increase its mass density (ρ) and therefore decrease its acoustic velocity determined as
v
=
√
M
ρ
. It is also well known that doping GeO2 with a metal oxide increases its dielectric constant and therefore increases its permittivity. Thus, doped germanium oxide disclosed in Lin would necessarily have a lower acoustic velocity and higher permittivity than silicon oxide, as required by the claim.
Smirnow in view of Lin discloses:
Claim 2
wherein the doped germanium oxide has an acoustic velocity that is less than 70% of an acoustic velocity of silicon oxide (if undoped GeO2 has an acoustic velocity of approximately 55%= 2100/3800 of SiO2, then doped GeO2 would inherently have even lower velocity, that is, less than 70%).
Claim 3
wherein the doped germanium oxide has a permittivity that is more than 1.5 times a permittivity of the silicon oxide (if undoped GeO2 has a permittivity of approximately two times of SiO2, then doped GeO2 would inherently have even higher permittivity velocity, that is, more than 1.5 times).
Claim 4
wherein the temperature compensation structure has a thickness in a range of 300 nm to 800 nm (Smirnow, ¶27, “Absolute values of the mean thickness of the first and/or the second waveguide layer may be between 5 nm and 500 nm inclusive”).
Claim 5
wherein the temperature compensation structure directly contacts the piezoelectric layer (Smirnow, Fig. 1, the second waveguide layer 42 directly contacts the piezoelectric layer 2).
Claim 6
wherein the temperature compensation structure has a multi-layer structure that includes a first layer (Smirnow, Fig. 1, layer 41 or 42) having the doped germanium oxide (Smirnow, ¶¶31-32; Lin, ¶¶21, 23) and a second layer (Smirnow, Fig. 1, layer 5 or layer 41 or 42, respectively, as explained below)
Smirnow discloses a multi-layer temperature compensation structure comprising layer 5 and layer 4, which, in turn, includes multi-layers 41 and 42; for example, if layer 41 is considered the claimed first layer, then layer 42 (and/or layer 5) can be considered the claimed second layer and vice versa. Alternatively, or in addition, because Smirnow teaches using at least two layers 41 and two layers 42, one of the two (41 or 42) layers can be considered the claimed first layer and the other of the two (41 or 42) layers can be considered the claimed second layer.
Claim 7
wherein the temperature compensation structure has a thickness in a range of 300 nm to 1200 nm (Smirnow, ¶27, “Absolute values of the mean thickness of the first and/or the second waveguide layer may be between 5 nm and 500 nm inclusive”).
Claim 8
wherein the first layer has a thickness in a range of 0.1L to 0.2L where L is a wavelength generated by the surface acoustic wave device (Smirnow, ¶26, “a mean thickness of the first and/or second waveguide layer is at most λ/4 or at most λ/8 or at most λ/16”).
Claim 9
wherein the piezoelectric layer has a thickness (Smirnow, ¶29, 0.6λ) that is greater than a thickness of the temperature compensation structure (Smirnow, ¶¶26, 31, Smirnow teaches that the mean thickness of the first and/or second waveguide layer is from λ/16 to λ/4 and the mean thickness of the TCF compensating layer is from 0.1λ to 0.5λ, that is, the total thickness of the temperature compensating structure is from 0.25λ to λ, which is less than the mean thickness of the piezoelectric layer).
Claim 10
wherein the first layer has a thickness in a range of 20% to 80% of a total thickness of the temperature compensation structure (Smirnow, ¶¶26, 31, Smirnow teaches that the mean thickness of the GeO2 layer(s) is from 0.125λ to 0.5λ and the total thickness of the temperature compensating structure is from 0.25λ to λ; that is, the total thickness of the GeO2 layer(s) is approximately 50%; Lin, ¶¶21, 23, Lin teaches to dope the GeO2 layer(s) with metal oxide for stability).
Claim 11
further comprising a trap rich layer between the support substrate and the temperature compensation structure (Smirnow, Fig. 1, layer 6, ¶¶34, 56).
Claim 12
wherein the temperature compensation structure has a multi-layer structure that includes a first layer (Smirnow, Fig. 1, layer 41 or 42) having the doped germanium oxide (Smirnow, ¶¶26, 31; Lin, ¶¶21, 23) and a second layer (Smirnow, Fig. 1, layer 5 and/or layer 41 or 42, respectively, as explained below) that includes at least one of germanium oxide, amorphous zinc phosphate, amorphous aluminum phosphate, amorphous gallium phosphate, amorphous silicon oxycarbide, or tellurium oxide (Smirnow, ¶¶31-32 “the second waveguide layer [42] comprises or consists of one or more of the following materials: SiO2, doped SiO2, GeO2”).
Smirnow discloses a multi-layer temperature compensation structure comprising layer 5 and layer 4, which, in turn, includes multi-layers 41 and 42; for example, if layer 41 is considered the claimed first layer, then layer 42 (and/or layer 5) can be considered the claimed second layer and vice versa. Alternatively, or in addition, because Smirnow teaches using at least two layers 41 and two layers 42, one of the two (41 or 42) layers can be considered the claimed first layer and the other of the two (41 or 42) layers can be considered the claimed second layer.
For example, when two germanium oxide layers (41 or 42) of Smirnow are doped as taught by Lin, such doped layers would still contain germanium oxide, therefore at least one of those doped layers, i.e., the claimed first layer, will be having the doped germanium oxide and the other of the two layers, i.e., the claimed second layer, will include at least one of germanium oxide, as required by the claim.
Claim 13
wherein the doped germanium oxide has a lower acoustic velocity, a higher permittivity, and a higher effective electronegativity than silicon oxycarbide (doped germanium oxide disclosed in Lin would necessarily have a higher effective electronegativity than silicon oxycarbide).
Claim 14
wherein
Claim 15
A surface acoustic wave device (Fig. 1, Abstract, ¶¶1, 36, 40-49) comprising:
a piezoelectric layer (piezoelectric thin-film 2, ¶6);
a temperature compensation structure in contact with the piezoelectric layer (waveguide layer 4 and TCF compensating layer 5), the temperature compensation structure including doped germanium oxide (Lin (¶¶21, 23) having a lower acoustic velocity and higher permittivity than silicon oxide (inherent); and
an interdigital transducer electrode (IDT 3, ¶36) in electrical communication with the piezoelectric layer.
Claim 16
wherein the doped germanium oxide has an of an acoustic velocity less than 70% of silicon oxide (inherent).
Claim 17
wherein the doped germanium oxide has a permittivity that is more than 1.5 times a permittivity of the silicon oxide (inherent), and the temperature compensation structure has a thickness in a range of 300 nm to 800 nm (Smirnow, ¶27, “Absolute values of the mean thickness of the first and/or the second waveguide layer may be between 5 nm and 500 nm inclusive”).
Claim 18
wherein the temperature compensation structure has a multi-layer structure that includes a first layer (Smirnow, Fig. 1, layer 41 or 42) having the material the doped germanium oxide (Lin (¶¶21, 23) and a second layer (TCF compensating layer 5) is having silicon oxide (Smirnow, ¶32, 45, either layer 41, 42 or layer 5 may include SiO2).
Claim 19
further comprising a support substrate (Fig. 1, substrate 1, ¶3), wherein the temperature compensation structure is positioned between the support substrate and the piezoelectric layer (Fig. 1, waveguide layer 4 and TCF compensating layer 5 are between the substrate and the piezoelectric layer).
Claim 20
An acoustic wave filter (Smirnow, Fig. 1, Abstract, ¶¶1, 36, 40-49) comprising:
a surface acoustic wave device (Fig. 1, Abstract, ¶¶1, 36, 40-49) including a support substrate (substrate 1, ¶3), a piezoelectric layer (2) over the support substrate, a temperature compensation structure between the support substrate and the piezoelectric layer (layers 4 and 5), and an interdigital transducer electrode in electrical communication with the piezoelectric layer (IDT 3), the temperature compensation structure including doped germanium oxide (Lin (¶¶21, 23) having a lower acoustic velocity and higher permittivity than silicon oxide (inherent); and
one or more acoustic wave resonators electrically coupled to the surface acoustic wave device (Smirnow, ¶37).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0037146, published Feb. 3, 2022 (“Abel”) discloses low dielectric-constant (low-κ) films using fluorine-doped germanium oxide (GeOF) to improves device characteristics (¶¶13, 92).
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 VICTOR COLE, telephone number (571) 272-4686. The examiner can be reached Monday-Friday, 9AM-5PM ET.
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 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 www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and 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.
/VICTOR COLE/
Examiner, Art Unit 2843
/ANDREA LINDGREN BALTZELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2843
Prosecution Insights