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 Objection
Claim 254, line 3, “as” should be changed to “has”.
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.
Claim(s) 236-241, 244, 246-251, 253, 254, 317 and 318 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Markish et al. (US 9680232) in view of Caron (US 20180138893), Aigner et al. (US 20050012568), Feng et al. (US 20150244347) and Umeda et al. (US 7276836).
As to claim 236, Markish et al.’s figures 4 and 5 shows an antenna device comprising: a substrate (310); a plurality of antenna elements (421, 422) coupled with the substrate, the plurality of antenna elements including at least a first antenna element (421 or 422); an antenna ground layer (418 or 417) coupled with the substrate; and RF circuitry s coupled with the substrate, and electrically coupled between the first antenna element and the antenna ground layer. The figures fail to show that the RF circuitry comprises acoustic wave resonator. However, Caron’s figures 2A-8 show that RF circuitry comprises filters that coupled to antenna 177, wherein the filters comprise acoustic wave resonators. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to use acoustic wave resonators in Markish et al.’s RF circuitry for the purpose of saving space and providing more precise signals. Therefore, the modified Rodriguez et al.’s figures further show a first bulk millimeter acoustic wave resonator (in the modified filters. Since the antenna is millimeter wave antennas, the resonators in the filter must be millimeter wave acoustic resonators) has a first main resonant frequency in a millimeter wave band. The modified Markish et al.’s figures fail to show that the first bulk acoustic millimeter wave resonator includes at least a first piezoelectric layer, a second piezoelectric layer and third doped piezoelectric layer. However, Aigner et al.’s figure 1 shows a bulk acoustic wave resonator comprise a first piezoelectric layer (106) and a second piezoelectric layer (108) and third piezoelectric layer (134 or 136). Feng et al.’s figure 1 shows 2 shows a BAW resonator that comprises doped piezoelectric layer 108 in order to reduce the device thickness. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to use Aigner et al.’s bulk acoustic wave resonator for Caron’s acoustic wave resonator(s) for the purpose of improving the circuit operation at higher frequency range, and it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to used doped piezoelectric layer for at least Aigner et al.’s third piezoelectric layer for the purpose of reducing the device thickness. The modified Markish et al.’s figures further fail to show a first electrode stack including first to fourth metal electrode layers. However, Umeda et al.’s figure 2 shows a BAW resonator that each of its upper and lower electrodes (50 and 40) comprises first to fourth metal electrode layers. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to use a stack of first to fourth metal layers for each of Aigner et al.’s electrode (110 and 104) for the purpose of reducing loss of energy. Thus, the modified figures shows that the first electrode stack (one of the top and bottom electrodes), comprising first to fourth metal electrode layers, electrically coupled between the third doped piezoelectric layer and the first antenna element.
As to claim 237, the modified Markish et al.’s figures show the plurality of antenna elements comprise a plurality of patch antenna elements (patch antenna is well known in the art. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to use patch antennas for Markish et al.’s antennas for the purpose of saving space) arranged in an array having an array pitch (figure 2); and the first bulk millimeter acoustic wave resonator has a millimeter wave main resonant frequency.
As to claim 238, selecting the array pitch to be less than approximately one electrical wavelength of the first main resonant frequency is seen as an obvious design preference to ensure optimum performance, see MEPE 2144.05.
As to claim 239, arranging the first bulk millimeter acoustic wave resonator to be adjacent to the array pitch between lateral extremities of the array pitch is seen as an obvious design preference to achieve optimum space occupation reducing noise.
As to claim 240, arranging the first bulk millimeter acoustic wave resonator to be adjacent to the array pitch between a pair of members of the plurality of patch antennas is seen as an obvious design preference to achieve optimum space occupation reducing noise.
As to claim 241, selecting the first bulk millimeter acoustic wave resonator to have a lateral dimension that is less than the array pitch is seen as an obvious design preference to ensure optimum performance, see MPEP 2144.05.
As to claim 244, selecting the first main resonant frequency to be comprise at least one of approximately 24 GigaHertz, approximately 28 GigaHertz, approximately 39 GigaHertz, approximately 42 GigaHertz, approximately 60 GigaHertz, approximately 77 GigaHertz, and approximately 100 GigaHertz is seen as an obvious design preference to ensure optimum performance, see MPEP 2144.05.
As to claim 246, the modified Rodriguez et al.’s figures show a second doped bulk millimeter acoustic wave resonator (in another filter of the plurality filters).
As to claim 247, Markish et al.’s figures show more than two antennas. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to includes third and fourth doped bulk millimeter acoustic wave resonators coupled to the third and fourth antennas for the purpose of reducing noise.
As to claim 248, selecting the first main resonant frequency in a lower portion of a 3GPP n258 band is seen as an obvious design preference to ensure optimum performance, see MPEP 2144.05.
As to claim 249, selecting the second bulk millimeter acoustic wave resonator to have a second main resonant frequency in an upper portion of a 3GPP n258 band is seen as an obvious design preference to ensure optimum performance, MPEP 2144.05.
As to claim 250, selecting the third bulk millimeter acoustic wave resonator to have third main resonant frequency in a lower portion of a 3GPP n261 band is seen as an obvious design preference to ensure optimum performance, MPEP 2144.05.
As to claim 251, the modified circuit shows that the first bulk acoustic millimeter wave resonator includes at least an additional piezoelectric layer (see Aigner et al.’s figure 2).
As to claim 253, arranging the first and second bulk millimeter acoustic wave resonators to be below the array pitch between a pair of the patch antennas is seen as an obvious design preference to achieve optimum space occupation and reducing noise.
As to claim 254, the modified Markish et al.’s figures show that the first metal electrode layer has a first acoustic impedance, the second metal electrode layer has a second acoustic impedance that is different than the first acoustic impedance of the first metal electrode layer; the third metal electrode layer has a third acoustic impedance, the fourth metal electrode layer has a second acoustic impedance that is different than the first acoustic impedance of the first metal electrode layer (Umeda’s col.9, lines 57-65, col. 10, lines 28-42 and col. 11, lines 9-20).
Claims 317-318 recite similar limitations in claims above. Therefore, they are rejected for the same reasons.
Claim(s) 280-282 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Markish et al. (US 9680232) in view of Caron (US 20180138893), Aigner et al. (US 20050012568), Feng et al. (US 20150244347), Umeda et al. (US 7276836) and Turner et al. (US 20140266511).
As to claim 280, the modified Markish et al.’s figures show a system comprising: an oscillator circuit (transceiver(s), col. 2, lines 5-15); and a millimeter acoustic wave integrated circuit (Caron’s figures further show that the acoustic resonators are formed in a die) comprising: an integrated circuit substrate; and a bulk acoustic millimeter wave resonator over the integrated circuit substrate (see Caron’s figures 11a-11c). The modified figures fail to show that the millimeter acoustic wave integrated circuit comprises an integrated millimeter wave inductor electrically coupled with the bulk acoustic millimeter wave resonator. However, Turner et al.’s figure 2 shows a filter circuit comprises an integrated millimeter wave inductor and capacitor electrically coupled with the bulk millimeter acoustic wave resonator. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to use Turner et al.’s filter for Markish et al.’s filter or include inductor and capacitor coupled to Caron’s resonator(s) for the purpose of achieving desired filtering frequency.
As to claim 281, the modified Markish et al.’s figures to show that the millimeter acoustic wave integrated circuit includes at least a second integrated millimeter wave inductor electrically coupled with the bulk millimeter acoustic wave resonator.
As to claim 282, the modified Markish et al.’s figures show that the millimeter acoustic wave integrated circuit includes at least a first integrated millimeter wave capacitor (Turner et al.’s capacitor) electrically coupled with the first integrated millimeter wave inductor and the bulk millimeter acoustic millimeter wave resonator.
Conclusion
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 ANH-QUAN TRA whose telephone number is (571)272-1755. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri from 8:00 A.M.-5:00 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, Lincoln Donovan can be reached on 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.
/QUAN TRA/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2842
Prosecution Insights