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
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) 1 – 10, 14, 15, 18 – 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamashita (US 2013/0049882) in view of Taniguchi et al (US 2022/0376675).
Yamashita discloses, regarding,
Claim 1, An acoustic wave device (see abstract) comprising: a transmit filter 220 including a first plurality of surface acoustic wave resonators (see Fig. 14), at least a portion of the first plurality of surface acoustic wave resonators including a first interdigital transducer electrode 208A comprising a first material (Ti; see Fig. 5; paragraph 0038); and a receive filter including a second plurality of surface acoustic wave resonators (see Fig. 14), at least a proportion of the second plurality of surface acoustic wave resonators including a second interdigital transducer electrode 208B comprising a second material (Al; see Fig 5; paragraph 0038), a density of the first material (Ti) being greater than a density of the second material (Al) [since it is well known that titanium is denser than aluminum].
Taniguchi et al is being cited for explicitly showing that a transmit and receive off an acoustic wave device has a plurality of resonators (see Figs. 1, 6).
The Prior Art further discloses, regarding,
Claim 2, the receive filter comprises a multi-mode surface acoustic wave filter including a third plurality of surface acoustic wave resonators (Taniguchi et al, Fig. 1), at least a portion of the third plurality of surface acoustic wave resonators including a third interdigital transducer electrode comprising the second material (Yamashita, Fig. 5).
Claim 3, the density of the first material is greater than 12.1 g/cm3, since it has been held that discovering the optimum value of result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F. 2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Claim 4, the density of the first material is greater than 18.0 g/cm3 since it has been held that discovering the optimum value of result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F. 2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Claim 5, the first material is selected from one or more of platinum, iridium, gold and tungsten, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Claim 6, the second material is selected from one or more of molybdenum, silver, copper and ruthenium, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Claim 7, each of the first plurality of surface acoustic wave resonators of the transmit filter includes a multilayer interdigital transducer electrode comprising a first layer of the first material and a second layer comprising a third material (see Fig. 5).
Claim 8, the third material is aluminum, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Claim 9, at least a proportion of the second plurality of surface acoustic wave resonators of the receive filter include a multilayer interdigital transducer electrode comprising a first layer of the second material and a second layer comprising a fourth material (Yamashita, Fig. 4).
Claim 10, the fourth material is aluminum since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Claim 14, the first and second plurality of surface acoustic wave resonators are arranged on a same die (Yamashita, Fig. 3).
Claim 15, A filter assembly comprising: a plurality of transmit filters, each of the plurality of transmit filters including a first plurality of surface acoustic wave resonators (Taniguchi et al, Fig. 1), each of the first plurality of surface acoustic wave resonators including at least a first interdigital transducer electrode comprising a first material (Yamashita, Fig. 5); and a plurality of receive filters, each of the plurality of receive filters including a second plurality of surface acoustic wave resonators, at least a proportion of the second plurality of surface acoustic wave resonators of each receive filter including at least a second interdigital transducer electrode comprising a second material (Yamashita, Fig. 5), a density of the first material being greater than a density of the second material (since Ti is denser than Al; see rejection for claim 1 above).
Claim 18, the plurality of transmit filters and the plurality of receive filters are co-packaged on a same die (Yamashita, Fig. 3).
Claim 19, the first material is selected from one or more of platinum, iridium, gold and tungsten since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Claim 20, the second material is selected from one or more of molybdenum, silver, copper and ruthenium since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to design the device/filter as disclosed by Yamashita and to disclose the limitations pertaining to Taniguchi et al for the purpose of improving the reception sensitivity of a filter.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamashita and Taniguchi et al as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tang et al (US 2021/0050842).
The combined device discloses all of the elements above. However, the combined device does not disclose the elements below.On the other hand, Tang et al discloses, regarding,
Claim 11, a low velocity layer 123 disposed between a support substrate 122 and a piezoelectric layer 10 (see Fig. 4F), the low velocity layer having an acoustic velocity lower than an acoustic velocity of the piezoelectric layer (since it is well-known that low velocity layers have a lower acoustic value).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to design the combined device/filter as disclosed above and to modify the invention pertaining to the limitations disclosed by Tang et al for the purpose of providing a low loss filter.
Claim(s) 12, 13, 16, 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamashita and Taniguchi et al as applied to claims 1, 15 above, and further in view of Ross et al (US 2017/0091143).
The combined device discloses all of the elements above. However, the combined device does not disclose the elements below.On the other hand, Ross et al discloses, regarding,
Claim 12, the first plurality of surface acoustic wave resonators of the transmit filter are arranged on a first die and the second plurality of surface acoustic wave resonators of the receive filter are arranged on a second die [0017, 0028].
Claim 13, the first interdigital transducer electrode having the first material is arranged on a first die and the second interdigital transducer electrode having the second material is arranged on a second die [0017, 0028].
Claim 16, the plurality of transmit filters are co-packaged on a first die and the plurality of receive filters are co-packaged on a second die [0017, 0028].
Claim 17, the first plurality of surface acoustic wave resonators having the first interdigital transducer electrode of the first material are arranged on a first die and the second plurality of surface acoustic wave resonators having the second interdigital transducer electrode of the second material are arranged on a second die [0017, 0028].
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to design the combined device/filter as disclosed above and to modify the invention pertaining to the limitations disclosed by Ross et al for the purpose of reducing the cost of communication devices.
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
March 10, 2026