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 (Claims 1-16) in the reply filed on May 22, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 17-18 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on May 22, 2026.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 16 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, Lines 7-8, “one IDT electrode” should be rewritten as –one IDT electrode of the pair of outermost IDT electrodes --;
Claim 16, Line 2, “each of the pair of reflectors” should be rewritten as –each reflector of the pair of reflectors--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claims 2-4, 7-12, and 16 depend upon rejected claim 1 and inherit the deficiency thereby.
Claim 1, Lines 4-5, “an even number of four or more IDT electrodes” is unclear to one of ordinary skill in the art as to what this phrase is intended to convey, specifically what the “even number” is intended to encompass, thereby leaving the boundaries of the claim unclear.
Claim 5, Line 4; and Claim 6, Line 4, “at least one resonator” is unclear to one of ordinary skill in the art as to how this recitation is related to the “longitudinally coupled resonator” as previously defined in claim 1, from which this claim depends (i.e. the same resonator, separate and distinct resonators, etc.), thereby leaving the boundaries of the claim unclear.
Claim 13, Line 2; and Claim 14, Line 2, “the IDT electrode” is unclear to one of ordinary skill in the art as to how this “the IDT electrode” is related to “the even number of IDT electrodes” as previously defined in claim 1, from which these claims depend (i.e. the same IDT electrode, a separate and distinct IDT electrode, etc.”), thereby leaving the boundaries of the claim unclear.
Claim 15, Line 2, “each of the IDT electrodes” is unclear to one of ordinary skill in the art as to which recitation of “IDT electrodes” from claim 1, from which this claim depends, is in reference to, thereby leaving the boundaries of the claim unclear.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5, 8, 13, and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Swamy (US 11070194).
As per Claims 1-3, 5, 8, 13, and 15-16:
Swamy discloses in Figure 4A:
An acoustic wave device (“ladder-type SAW device”, 32A1) with a longitudinally coupled resonator (“SAW resonator”, 10, as shown in related Figure 1) on a main surface of a piezoelectric substrate (“piezoelectric layer” 14, as shown in related Figure 1) made of LiNbO3 (as per Claim 8, 14 is made of lithium niobate, [Col. 6, Lines 53-55]) and including an even number of four or more IDT electrodes (“first shunt IDTs” 36A, 36B and “first series IDTs” 38A and 38B) with a pair of outermost IDT electrodes (36A, 38B) and each including Al (as per Claim 15, IDT electrode 16, as shown in related Figure 1, contains aluminum, [Col. 6, Lines 62-63], therefore 36A, 36B, 38A, and 38B inherently contain the same material) and a number of electrode fingers of one IDT electrode is two (36A has 2 electrode fingers, as is evident by Figure 4A) and a number of electrode fingers of a different IDT electrode is three or more, but not more than 50 (as per Claims 3 and 13, “first series IDT” 38A has 4 electrode fingers, as shown in Figure 4A), further including (as per Claim 2) a pair of reflectors (“reflective structures”, 34A and 34B) including Al (as per Claim 16, reflective structures 18A and 18B, as shown in related Figure 1, contain aluminum, [Col. 6, Lines 62-63], therefore 34A and 34B inherently contain the same material) on the main surface of the piezoelectric substrate (14, as is evident by Figure 1) on outer sides of the even number of IDT electrodes (34A and 34B are on the outer sides of 36A and 38B, as shown in Figure 4A), and (as per Claim 5) at least one resonator (“first shunt SAW resonator”, 10-1, as shown in related Figure 2A) connected between a path connecting the longitudinally coupled resonator (10, as shown in Figure 1 corresponding to “series SAW resonator”, 10-4, as shown in Figure 2A) and one of a pair of input-output terminals (“antenna”, ANT) and a reference potential (corresponding to ground, 10-1 is connected to ground as shown in Figure 2A).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABIGAIL YALDO whose telephone number is (703)756-1784. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7 AM - 4 PM.
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, Andrea Lindgren Baltzell can be reached at (571) 272-5918. 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.
/ABIGAIL AMIR YALDO/Examiner, Art Unit 2843
/ANDREA LINDGREN BALTZELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2843
Prosecution Insights