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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5 January 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s argument is that Turner describes that resonant element BR is an acoustic resonator element, not an EM resonator. Accordingly, the network in FIG. 3 of Turner does not include the EM resonator network of claim 1, or non-acoustic-wave resonator of claim 22.
This is not persuasive because the claims require a first, second, third, and fourth acoustic wave (AW) resonator. As identified by applicant and noted in the rejection below, Turner discloses that elements 114 (BRi) of Figure 3 are in-shunt resonant elements in Paragraph 0061. Further, in Paragraph 0058, Turner discloses “the structural types of circuit elements to be used in the AW filter are selected; for example, the structural type of resonator (SAW, BAW, FBAR, MEMS, etc.) and the types of inductor, capacitor, and switch, along with the materials to be used to fabricate these circuit elements, including the packaging and assembly techniques for fabricating the filter”.
Further, the claim requires an electromagnetic network, but does not specifically require an electromagnetic resonator. Turner discloses, in Paragraph 0051, that the microwave filter in its disclosure is “advantageous in applications that have demanding electrical and/or environmental performance requirements and/or severe cost/size constraints, such as those found in the radio frequency (RF) frontends of mobile communications devices, including cellphones, smartphones, laptop computers, tablet computers, etc. or the RF frontends of fixed communications devices, including M2M devices, wireless base stations, satellite communications systems, etc”.
Therefore Turner discloses an electromagnetic resonator network utilizing acoustic wave resonators as required by Claim 1.
Regarding, Claim 22, as discussed in the rejection below, Turner discloses a circuit that includes a non-acoustic wave resonator element 118 (Bni). Turner discloses in Paragraph 0061 that elements 118 are in-shunt non-resonator elements that coupled nodes S and L to ground. As for the first and second acoustic wave resonators, Turner also discloses in Paragraph 0061 that elements 114 (BRi) of Figure 3 are in-shunt resonant elements. Therefore, Turner discloses the invention as claimed in Claim 22.
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) 1-2, 14-15, 22, and 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Turner et al. (US 2015/0220665).
In regard to Clam 1:
Turner discloses, in Figure 3, a filter comprising:
an electromagnetic (EM) resonator network having a first EM terminal (2), a second EM terminal (4), and a third EM terminal (3), the third EM terminal (3) coupled to a ground terminal (3 connected to ground via BN3);
a first acoustic wave (AW) resonator (BR2) coupled between the first EM terminal (2) and the ground terminal (ground);
a second AW resonator (BR4) coupled between the second EM terminal (4) and the ground terminal (ground);
a third AW resonator (BR1) coupled between a first filter terminal (S) and the first EM terminal (2); and
a fourth AW resonator (BRN) coupled between a second filter terminal (L) and the second EM terminal (4).
In regard to Clam 2:
Turner discloses, in Figure 3, the filter of claim 1, wherein the EM resonator network includes:
an EM resonator (BR3) having first (BR3 terminal connected to ground) and second (BR3 terminal connected to 3 via J33) EM resonator terminals, the second EM resonator terminal (BR3 terminal connected to 3 via J33) coupled to the third EM terminal (3);
a first admittance inverter (J13) coupled between the first EM terminal (2) and the first EM resonator terminal (BR3 terminal connected to ground); and
a second admittance inverter (J14) coupled between the second EM terminal (4) and the first EM resonator terminal (BR3 terminal connected to ground).
In regard to Clam 14:
Turner discloses, in Figure 3, the filter of claim 1, wherein the filter has a fractional bandwidth of at least 25% (Paragraph 0065).
In regard to Clam 15:
Turner discloses, in Figure 3, the filter of claim 1, wherein each of the first, second, third, and fourth AW resonators includes a respective bulk acoustic wave (BAW) resonator (Paragraph 0051).
In regard to Claim 22:
Turner discloses, in Figure 3, a filter including:
a circuit (100) coupled between a first filter terminal (S) and a second filter terminal (L), the circuit including a non-acoustic-wave resonator (BNS, BNL);
a first acoustic wave resonator (BR1) coupled to the first filter terminal (S); and
a second acoustic wave resonator (BRN) coupled to the second filter terminal (L).
In regard to Claim 26:
Turner discloses, in Figure 3, the filter of claim 22, wherein the non-acoustic-wave resonator includes at least one of: a cavity resonator, a dielectric resonator, a transmission line resonator, or a lumped element resonator (Figure 4: BNS of Figure 3 shown as a capacitor; Paragraph 0062).
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.
Claim(s) 5-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Turner et al. (US 2015/0220665).
In regard to Claim 5:
All of the claim limitations have been discussed with respect to Claim 1 above, except for wherein each of the first, second, third, and fourth AW resonators has a respective electromechanical coupling coefficient below 10%.
Turner discloses wherein each of the first, second, third, and fourth AW resonators has a respective electromechanical coupling coefficient below 10% (Paragraph 0071). Further, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have each of the first, second, third, and fourth AW resonators have a respective electromechanical coupling coefficient below 10%, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Additionally, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have the electromechanical coupling coefficient below 10% to obtain a lossless circuit that may have the target circuit response, but be smaller, less costly, and/or more realizable than the initial lossless circuit design (Turner Paragraph 0072).
In regard to Claim 6:
All of the claim limitations have been discussed with respect to Claim 5 above, except for wherein the first, second, third, and fourth AW resonators has an identical electromechanical coupling coefficient.
Turner further discloses wherein the first, second, third, and fourth AW resonators has an identical electromechanical coupling coefficient (Paragraph 0071).
In regard to Claim 7:
All of the claim limitations have been discussed with respect to Claim 5 above, except for wherein the first, second, third, and fourth AW resonators includes an identical piezoelectric material.
Turner further discloses wherein the first, second, third, and fourth AW resonators includes an identical piezoelectric material (Paragraph 0063).
In regard to Claim 8:
All of the claim limitations have been discussed with respect to Claim 5 above, except for wherein the first, second, third, and fourth AW resonators are implemented on a single die.
Turner further discloses wherein the first, second, third, and fourth AW resonators are implemented on a single die (Paragraph 0063)
In regard to Claim 9:
All of the claim limitations have been discussed with respect to Claim 5 above, except for wherein each of the first, second, third, and fourth AW resonators includes a respective piezoelectric material.
Turner further discloses wherein each of the first, second, third, and fourth AW resonators includes a respective piezoelectric material (Paragraph 0063).
In regard to Claim 10:
All of the claim limitations have been discussed with respect to Claim 9 above, except for wherein the piezoelectric material includes at least one of: Aluminum Nitride (AlN), Zinc Oxide (ZnO), or Cadmium sulfide (CdS).
Turner further discloses wherein the piezoelectric material includes at least one of: Aluminum Nitride (AlN) (Paragraph 0063), Zinc Oxide (ZnO), or Cadmium sulfide (CdS).
Claim(s) 11 and 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Turner et al. (US 2015/0220665), in view of Jachowski (US 2006/0273869).
In regard to Claim 11:
All of the claim limitations have been discussed with respect to Claim 1 above, except for further including a feedforward circuit coupled between the first and second filter terminals.
Jachowski discloses, in Figure 16a, further including a feedforward circuit (106) coupled between the first (102) and second (104) filter terminals.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to use the feedforward circuit taught by Jachowski with the filter taught by Turner in order to achieve an enhanced notch response of the absorptive notch filter (Jachowski Paragraph 0156).
In regard to Claim 16:
Turner discloses, in Figure 3, a filter comprising: a first acoustic wave (AW) resonator (BR2), a second AW resonator (BR4), a third AW resonator (BR1), a fourth AW resonator (BRN), and an electromagnetic (EM) resonator network (J13, J14, BR3) coupled between a first filter terminal (S) and a second filter terminal (L); but does not disclose a feedforward circuit coupled between the first filter terminal and the second filter terminal.
Jachowski discloses, in Figure 16a, further including a feedforward circuit (106) coupled between the first (102) and second (104) filter terminals.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to use the feedforward circuit taught by Jachowski with the filter taught by Turner in order to achieve an enhanced notch response of the absorptive notch filter (Jachowski Paragraph 0156).
In regard to Claim 17:
All of the claim limitations have been discussed with respect to Claim 16 above, except for wherein: the electromagnetic (EM) resonator network has a first EM terminal, a second EM terminal, and a third EM terminal, the third EM terminal coupled to a ground terminal; the first acoustic wave (AW) resonator is coupled between the first EM terminal and the ground terminal; the second AW resonator is coupled between the second EM terminal and the ground terminal; the third AW resonator is coupled between the first filter terminal and the first EM terminal; and the fourth AW resonator is coupled between the second filter terminal and the second EM terminal.
Turner further discloses, in Figure 3, wherein the electromagnetic (EM) resonator network having a first EM terminal (2), a second EM terminal (4), and a third EM terminal (3), the third EM terminal (3) coupled to a ground terminal (3 connected to ground via Bn3); a first acoustic wave (AW) resonator (BR2) coupled between the first EM terminal (2) and the ground terminal (ground); a second AW resonator (BR4) coupled between the second EM terminal (4) and the ground terminal (ground); a third AW resonator (BR1) coupled between a first filter terminal (S) and the first EM terminal (2); and a fourth AW resonator (BRN) coupled between a second filter terminal (L) and the second EM terminal (4).
In regard to Claim 18:
All of the claim limitations have been discussed with respect to Claim 17 above, except for wherein the EM resonator network includes: an EM resonator having first and second EM resonator terminals, the second EM resonator terminal coupled to the third EM terminal; a first admittance inverter coupled between the first EM terminal and the first EM resonator terminal; and a second admittance inverter coupled between the second EM terminal and the first EM resonator terminal.
Turner further discloses, in Figure 3, wherein the EM resonator network includes: an EM resonator (BR3) having first (BR3 terminal connected to ground) and second (BR3 terminal connected to 3 via J33) EM resonator terminals, the second EM resonator terminal (BR3 terminal connected to 3 via J33) coupled to the third EM terminal (3); a first admittance inverter (J13) coupled between the first EM terminal (2) and the first EM resonator terminal (BR3 terminal connected to ground); and a second admittance inverter (J14) coupled between the second EM terminal (4) and the first EM resonator terminal (BR3 terminal connected to ground).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-4, 12-13, 19-21, 23-25, and 27-28 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 John W Poos whose telephone number is (571)270-5077. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8-5.
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, Jessica Han can be reached on 571-272-2078. 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.
/JOHN W POOS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2896