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 Group I in the reply filed on 09 March 2026 is acknowledged. 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 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Ruby (PG Pub 20060071736) . Considering claim 1, Ruby (Figures 3-4) teaches an acoustic device comprising a plurality of bulk acoustic resonance structures, wherein each of the plurality of bulk acoustic resonance structures comprises: a substrate (42 + paragraph 0029); a reflective structure (44), a first electrode layer (46), a piezoelectric layer (48) and a second electrode layer (50 + paragraph 0029) stacked on the substrate in sequence; and a plurality of protruding blocks (60 + 62 + paragraph 0032) located on the piezoelectric layer and circumferentially arranged around the second electrode layer, wherein the plurality of protruding blocks have a preset distance from the second electrode layer, and the preset distance depends on a connection manner between the each bulk acoustic resonance structure and other ones of the plurality of bulk acoustic resonance structures (50A-50e + paragraph 0037). Considering claim 5, Ruby (Figures 3-4) teaches wherein distance between the plurality of protruding blocks (60 + 62 + paragraph 0032) and the second electrode layer (50 + paragraph 0029) are the same or different (implicit that distances between to elements would be the same or different). 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. Claim (s) 2 -3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ruby (PG Pub 20060071736) and in view of Inoue (PG Pub 20050146242). Considering claim 2, Ruby teaches the bulk acoustic resonance structure as described above. However, Ruby does not teach the bulk acoustic resonance structure is connected to a branch of the acoustic device in series, the preset distance is less than or equal to a first distance or in a case that the bulk acoustic resonance structure is connected to the branch of the acoustic device in parallel, the preset distance is greater than the first distance. Inoue (Figure 3) teaches the bulk acoustic resonance structure is connected to a branch of the acoustic device in series (paragraph 0048), the preset distance is less than or equal to a first distance or in a case that the bulk acoustic resonance structure is connected to the branch of the acoustic device in parallel, the preset distance is greater than the first distance. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the bulk acoustic resonance structure is connected to a branch of the acoustic device in series, the preset distance is less than or equal to a first distance or in a case that the bulk acoustic resonance structure is connected to the branch of the acoustic device in parallel, the preset distance is greater than the first distance into Ruby’s device for the benefit of generating a new resonance mode. Considering claim 3, Ruby teaches wherein the first distance is greater than or equal to zero (obvious that a first distance would be greater than or equal to zero) and is less than a spacing between an outer contour of the piezoelectric layer and an outer contour of the second electrode layer. Claim (s) 4 and 6 -7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ruby (PG Pub 20060071736) . Considering claim 4, Ruby discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the first distance is 4 microns. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the first distance is 4 microns, since it has been held that the provision of adjustability, where needed, involves only routine skill in the art. Considering claim 6, Ruby discloses wherein the first direction is a direction from an edge of the second electrode layer (50 + paragraph 0029) to a middle of the second electrode layer, the second direction is perpendicular to the first direction and parallel to a surface of the substrate (42 + paragraph 0029), and the third direction is perpendicular to the surface of the substrate the claimed invention except for wherein each of the plurality of protruding blocks has a size of 0.5 microns to 4 microns in a first direction, a size of 10 microns to 40 microns in a second direction, and a size of 0.1 microns to 1 microns in a third direction . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to wherein each of the plurality of protruding blocks has a size of 0.5 microns to 4 microns in a first direction, a size of 10 microns to 40 microns in a second direction, and a size of 0.1 microns to 1 microns in a third direction, since it has been held that the provision of adjustability, where needed, involves only routine skill in the art. Considering claim 7, Ruby discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the each of the plurality of protruding blocks has a size of 2 microns in the first direction, a size of 10 microns in the second direction and a size of 0.5 microns in the third direction. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to wherein the each of the plurality of protruding blocks has a size of 2 microns in the first direction, a size of 10 microns in the second direction and a size of 0.5 microns in the third direction, since it has been held that the provision of adjustability, where needed, involves only routine skill in the art. Claim (s) 8 -11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ruby (PG Pub 20060071736) and in view of Ruby (PG Pub 20070279153). Considering claim 8, Ruby ‘736 teaches an outer contour of the second electrode as described above. However, Ruby ‘736 does not teach an outer contour of the second electrode layer is of a closed shape comprising a curve and two or more straight lines. Ruby ‘153 (Figure 4) teaches an outer contour of the second electrode layer is of a closed shape comprising a curve and two or more straight lines (300 + paragraph 0046). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include an outer contour of the second electrode layer is of a closed shape comprising a curve and two or more straight lines into Ruby’s ‘736 device for the benefit of improving the insertion loss as well as the quality factor. Considering claim 9, discloses the claimed invention except for the closed shape comprises the curve and the two straight lines of a same length, and the two straight lines form an angle of 0 degree to 180 degrees, wherein a maximum distance between the curve and an intersection of the two straight lines is L1, each of the two straight lines has a length of L2, and a ratio of L2 to (L1-L2) ranges from 1:0.1 to 1:6. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to the closed shape comprises the curve and the two straight lines of a same length, and the two straight lines form an angle of 0 degree to 180 degrees, wherein a maximum distance between the curve and an intersection of the two straight lines is L1, each of the two straight lines has a length of L2, and a ratio of L2 to (L1-L2) ranges from 1:0.1 to 1:6, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. Considering claim 10, discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the ratio of L2 to (L1-L2) is 1:3 and the two straight lines form an angle of 45 degrees to 135 degrees. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have the ratio of L2 to (L1-L2) is 1:3 and the two straight lines form an angle of 45 degrees to 135 degrees, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. Considering claim 11, Ruby ‘153 (Figure 4) discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the closed shape comprise the curve, a first straight line, a second straight line and a third straight line, the first straight line is connected to one end of the curve and one end of the third straight line, the second straight line is connected to another end of the curve and another end of the third straight line, the first straight line and the third straight line form an angle of 90 degrees, and the second straight line and the third straight line form an angle of 90 degrees, wherein a maximum distance between the curve and the third straight line is L3, each of first straight line and the second straight line has a length of L4, and a ratio of (L3-L4) to L4 ranges from 0.36:1 to 4.5:1. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the closed shape comprise the curve, a first straight line, a second straight line and a third straight line, the first straight line is connected to one end of the curve and one end of the third straight line, the second straight line is connected to another end of the curve and another end of the third straight line, the first straight line and the third straight line form an angle of 90 degrees, and the second straight line and the third straight line form an angle of 90 degrees, wherein a maximum distance between the curve and the third straight line is L3, each of first straight line and the second straight line has a length of L4, and a ratio of (L3-L4) to L4 ranges from 0.36:1 to 4.5:1, since it has been held that the provision of adjustability, where needed, involves only routine skill in the art. Claim (s) 12-1 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ruby (PG Pub 20060071736) and in view of Nakatsuka (JP 2005159402). Considering claim 12, Ruby (Figures 3-4) teaches a first electrode lead connected to the first electrode layer (50 + paragraph 0029) and located outside an active area and a second electrode lead connected to the second electrode layer (46 + paragraph 0029) and located outside the active area. However, Ruby does not teach a first conductive thickening layer located between the first electrode lead and the piezoelectric layer; and a second conductive thickening layer covering the second electrode lead. Nakatsuka (Figure 6) teaches a first conductive thickening layer (15 + page 21) located between the first electrode lead and the piezoelectric layer. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include a first conductive thickening layer located between the first electrode lead and the piezoelectric layer into Ruby’s device for the benefit of providing additional and secure connection. Furthermore, Nakatsuka disclosed the claimed invention except for a second conductive thickening layer covering the second electrode lead. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have a second conductive thickening layer covering the second electrode lead, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. Considering claim 13, Nakatsuka (Figure 6) teaches wherein the second conductive thickening layer has a same shape as that of the second electrode lead (15 + page 21). Considering claim 14, Nakatsuka teaches wherein a material of the first conductive thickening layer is the same as or different from a material of the first electrode lead (page 5 + first paragraph) and or a material of the second conductive thickening layer is the same as or different from a material of the second electrode lead. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT BRYAN P GORDON whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-5394 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Dedei K Hammond can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 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