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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-10 and 12-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka (PG Pub 20200036360) and in view of Omura (PG Pub 20200220518).
Considering claim 1, Tanaka (Figure 3) teaches an acoustic wave device comprising: a support substrate made of quartz (6 + paragraph 0023); a piezoelectric layer (2 + paragraph 0020) on the support substrate and made of LiTaO3; an IDT electrode (3A + 3B + paragraph 0026) on the piezoelectric layer and including a plurality of electrode fingers (32a + 32b + paragraph 0029); a cut angle of the piezoelectric layer is equal to or less than about 49 degrees Y (2 + paragraph 0020) and an acoustic velocity of a slow transversal wave propagating through the support substrate is higher than an acoustic velocity of resonance of the acoustic wave device (It has been held that where the structure recited in a reference is the same as the claimed structure, claimed properties and functions are presumed to be inherent (In re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433)).
However, Tanaka does not teach the IDT electrode is on a positive side of the piezoelectric layer.
Omura (Figure 2) teaches the IDT electrode (7A + 7B) is on a positive side of the piezoelectric layer (5 + paragraph 0048).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the IDT electrode is on a positive side of the piezoelectric layer into Tanaka’s device for the benefit of maintaining excellent frequency characteristics.
Considering claim 2, Tanaka teaches wherein the acoustic velocity of the slow transversal wave propagating through the support substrate is equal to or higher than about 3950 m/s (It has been held that where the structure recited in a reference is the same as the claimed structure, claimed properties and functions are presumed to be inherent (In re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433)).
Considering claim 3, Tanaka teaches wherein the acoustic velocity of the slow transversal wave propagating through the support substrate is equal to or higher than about 4100 m/s (It has been held that where the structure recited in a reference is the same as the claimed structure, claimed properties and functions are presumed to be inherent (In re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433)).
Considering claims 4 and 12-13, Tanaka teaches wherein an angle between a Z-axis of the support substrate and an X-axis of the LiTaO3 is equal to or less than about + 20 degrees (It has been held that where the structure recited in a reference is the same as the claimed structure, claimed properties and functions are presumed to be inherent (In re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433)).
Considering claims 6 and 14-17, Tanaka teaches wherein the cut angle of the piezoelectric layer is equal to or more than about 38 degrees Y (2 + paragraph 0020).
Considering claim 7, Tanaka teaches wherein the cut angle of the piezoelectric layer is equal to or more than about 42 degrees Y (2 + paragraph 0020).
Considering claim 8, Tanaka teaches wherein the cut angle of the piezoelectric layer is equal to or more than about 44 degrees Y (2 + paragraph 0020).
Considering claim 9, Tanaka teaches wherein the cut angle of the piezoelectric layer is equal to or more than about 44 degrees Y (2 + paragraph 0020).
Considering claim 10, Tanaka (Figure 3) teaches wherein the piezoelectric layer (2 + paragraph 0020) is directly laminated on the support substrate (6 + paragraph 0023).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka (PG Pub 20200036360), in view of Omura (PG Pub 20200220518) and in view of Shimizu (PG Pub 20130049889).
Considering claim 5, Tanaka and in view of Omura teaches the acoustic wave device as described above.
However, Tanaka in view of Omura does not teach wherein an angle between Z-axis of the support substrate and an X-axis of the LiTaO3 are parallel or substantially parallel to each other.
Shimizu teaches an angle between Z-axis of the support substrate and an X-axis of the LiTaO3 are parallel or substantially parallel to each other (paragraph 0045).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include an angle between Z-axis of the support substrate and an X-axis of the LiTaO3 are parallel or substantially parallel to each other into Tanaka’s device for the benefit of reducing spurious responses.
Claim(s) 11 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka (PG Pub 20200036360), in view of Omura (PG Pub 20200220518) and in view of Nosaka (PG Pub 20190190496).
Considering claim 11, Tanaka in view of Omura teaches a high frequency front end circuit as described above.
However, Tanaka in view of Omura does not teach a filter that includes the acoustic wave device and allows a high frequency signal in a predetermined frequency band to pass through the filter and an amplifier circuit connected to the filter to amplify and amplitude of the high frequency signal.
Nosaka (Figure 13) teaches a filter that includes the acoustic wave device and allows a high frequency signal in a predetermined frequency band to pass through the filter (paragraph 0104) and an amplifier circuit connected to the filter to amplify (160 + paragraph 0167) and amplitude of the high frequency signal.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a filter that includes the acoustic wave device and allows a high frequency signal in a predetermined frequency band to pass through the filter and an amplifier circuit connected to the filter to amplify and amplitude of the high frequency signal into Tanaka’s device for the benefit of reducing or preventing the loss within the pass band.
Considering claim 18, Nosaka (Figure 13) teaches a communication device comprising: the high frequency front end circuit and a signal processing circuit to process the high frequency signal (paragraph 0104) and a signal processing circuit to process the high frequency signal (paragraph 0123).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. The examiner has found prior art reference Omura which in combination with Tanaka’s device teaches the applicant’s claimed limitations.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRYAN P GORDON whose telephone number is (571)272-5394. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 a.m. - 4:30 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, Dedei K Hammond can be reached at 571-270-7938. 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.
/BRYAN P GORDON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2837