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 with traverse of Group I (claims 1 – 10) in the reply filed on 2/3/26 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that an amendment was made to independent claim 11 and thus Group II is allegedly no longer patentably distinct. This is not found persuasive because Group II discloses a first and second electrode interacting with a plurality of fingers that are interacting with a first and second bus bar, which is not required by Group I. Moreover, the raise structure arrangement (claim 12) is not required by Group I. There are also other requirements of Group II, as recited in claims 15 – 22 that are not required by Group I.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Information Disclosure Statement
In the instant application, several Information Disclosure Sheets (IDS) have been submitted to date citing a usual high number of documents.
It is desirable to avoid the submission of long lists of documents if it can be avoided. Clearly irrelevant and marginally pertinent cumulative information should be eliminated. If a long list is submitted, those documents which have been specifically brought to applicant's attention and/or are known to be of most significance should be highlighted. See Penn Yan Boats, Inc. v. Sea Lark Boats, Inc., 359 F. Supp. 948, 175 USPQ 260 (S.D. Fla. 1972), affd, 479 F.2d 1338, 178 USPQ 577 (5th Cir. 1973), cert, denied, 414 U.S. 874 (1974). But of. Molins PLC v. Textron Inc., 48 F.3d 1172, 33 USPQ2d 1823 (Fed. Cir. 1995). See MPEP 2004.
Applicant's duty of disclosure of material and information is not satisfied by presenting a patent examiner with "a mountain of largely irrelevant [material] from which he is presumed to have been able, with his expertise and with adequate time, to have found the critical [material]. It ignores the real world conditions under which examiners examines. Applicant has a duty not just to disclose pertinent prior art references but to make a disclosure in such a way as not to "bury" it within other disclosures of less relevant prior art; See Golden Valley Microwave Foods Inc. v. Weaver Popcorn Co. Inc., 24 USPQ2d 1801 (N.D. Ind. 1992); Molins PLC v. Textron Inc., 26 USPQe2d 1889, at 1899 (D.Del 1992); Penn Yan Boats, Inc. v. Sea Lark Boats, Inc. et al., 175 USPQ 260, at 272 (S.D. Fl. 1972).
The examiner is not afforded the time to thoroughly review each reference, given the number of references cited. By his initialing each of the cited references on the accompanying 1449 form(s), the examiner is relying that the Applicant has actually submitted these documents or that the USPTO internal systems has accurately generated string(s) that represent the US references submitted. The Examiner is not afforded enough time to even check that the references cited on the accompanying 1449 form(s) are being reviewed (see search list(s) for the US documents actually reviewed and IFW of the instant application for the foreign references, non-patent literature and the international search reports and written opinions that have been filed). With this vast number of references, the Examiner is able to perform at best, only a cursory review of the cited references. The Examiner believes that the Applicant spent more time generating the 1449 forms in the instant application, then the Examiner is allotted to review the references cited on these 1449 forms.
The Examiner has reviewed cursorily each reference cited. Due to the high number of documents presented and the limited time provided for examination, the Examiner was unable to determined how material or not, each of the references is specifically related to the invention(s) claimed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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, 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tanaka (US 2016/0261038).
Tanaka discloses, regarding,
Claim 1, An acoustic wave device (see title) comprising: a substrate 10; a piezoelectric layer 30 ;an interdigital transducer electrode 23B, 23A including a plurality of fingers separated by gaps (see Fig. 1), the piezoelectric layer 30 disposed between the substrate 10 and the interdigital transducer electrode 23B, 23B (see Fig. 8); and a raised frame structure 11, the interdigital transducer electrode 23B, 23A disposed between the piezoelectric layer 30 and the raised frame structure 11 (see Fig. 8).
Claim 8, the interdigital transducer electrode 23B, 23A includes a main bus bar 7 portion and a secondary bus bar portion 5 that is spaced apart from the main bus bar portion 7, a first set of the plurality of fingers extending from the secondary bus bar portion 5 (see Fig. 1).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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) 2 – 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka in view of Inoue et al (US 2003/0117240).
Tanaka discloses all of the elements above. However, Tanaka does not disclose some of the elements below.On the other hand, Inoue et al discloses, regarding,
Claim 2, including an active region where the plurality of fingers overlap (see Fig. 13), a first raised frame structure 27 extending along a first side of the active region (see Figs. 16A, 16B), and a second raised frame structure 27 extending along a second side of the active region opposite the first side (see Fig. 16B).
Claim 3, a width of an inner region between the first raised frame structure and the second raised frame structure is larger than a combined width of the first raised frame structure and the second raised frame structure (see Fig. 17B).
Claim 4, the fingers occupy a first area of the active region, the gaps between the fingers occupy a second area of the active region, and the first area is larger than the second area (see Fig. 14).
Claim 5, a width of one of the fingers divided by a combined width of the finger and one of the gaps provides a duty function that is between about 0.5 and about 0.75, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claim 6, the raised frame structure has a height that is between about 1% and about 8% of a combined width of one of the fingers and one of the gaps, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claim 7, the raised frame structure has a width that is between about 80% and about 300% of a combined width of one of the fingers and one of the gaps, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claim 8, the interdigital transducer electrode includes a main bus bar portion and a secondary bus bar portion that is spaced apart from the main bus bar portion, a first set of the plurality of fingers extending from the secondary bus bar portion (see Figs. 1415A, 16A).
Claim 9, at least one gap line extends between and electrically interconnect the main bus bar portion and the secondary bus bar portion, the gap line having a width that is smaller than a width of one of the plurality of fingers (see Fig. 19).
Claim 10, the interdigital transducer electrode includes a plurality of dummy fingers that are shorter than the plurality of fingers (see Fig. 18).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to design the device as disclosed by Tanaka and to modify the invention per the limitations disclosed by Inoue et al for the purpose of improving the shape factor of acoustic wave resonators.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Julio C. Gonzalez whose telephone number is (571)272-2024. The examiner can normally be reached M-F.
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, Abdullah Riyami can be reached at 5712703119. 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.
/Julio C. Gonzalez/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2831
February 26, 2026