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Applicant's election with traverse of Species I, claims 1-7, 9-17 and 19-20 (claims 8 and 18 withdrawn) in the reply filed on 10/28/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground that Species I is generic since it may be included in one of the arrangements shown in Species II-IV. Furthermore, the applicant made the remark that since Species I is generic, claims 1-7, 9-17 and 19-20 are also generic. This is not found persuasive because the inventive concept of Species I is mutually exclusive from the inventive concept disclosed in species II-IV, in which species II-IV is directed towards an extension of an electrode around another resonator to form a quad bar configuration (See restriction mailed on 8/28/2025 for explanation of the mutually exclusive features of Species II-IV), which is mutually exclusive from species I, in which species I is directed towards designing a parasitic capacitance among two resonators by overlapping electrodes without a piezoelectric therebetween. Therefore, the restriction requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL. Furthermore, the following claims have also been withdrawn for the following reasons:
Claim 5 is directed towards species II, III or VI since it directed towards the quad bar configuration (claims 6 and 7 depends from claim 5, so are therefore withdrawn as well);
Claim 11 is directed towards species II, III or VI in which an elongated member of an electrode extends around another resonator;
Claim 12 is directed towards species II, III or VI in which an additional elongated member of an electrode extends around another resonator (claim 13 depends from claim 12, so is therefore withdrawn as well); and
Claim 15 is directed towards species II, III or VI in which an elongated member of an electrode extends around another resonator (claims 16, 17, 19 and 20 depends from claim 15, so are therefore withdrawn as well).
Claims 5-8, 11-13 and 15-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 10/28/2025.
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 1-4, 9 and 14 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1, lines 12-15, note that the recitation of “wherein an area of the first region is determined based, at least in part, on a difference between the second parasitic capacitance and the respective parasitic capacitance of at least one of the one or more first resonators” causes ambiguity in the claim, because in the instance where there is only “one” first resonator, the first region can’t be determined based on a difference from itself (note that the claim recites “one or more first resonators” hence there is an instance where there is only “one” first resonator, and said “first” region can’t be determined based on a difference from a value determined by itself). Similar issue occurs in claim 14, lines 3-5. Correction is required. By virtue of dependency from claim 1, claims 2-4 and 9 have also been rejected under 35 USC 112(b). For the purpose of examination, the examiner will interpret for claims 1 and 14, wherein the first and second resonators have a respective “parasitic capacitance” value.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 9, 10 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Iwaki et al. (USPAT 7,567,023 B2).
In regards to claim 1, based on the 35 USC 112(b) interpretation above, Iwaki et al. teaches in in Fig. 16 a ladder filter (type of apparatus) comprising one or more first resonators (S1 or P1), and a second resonator (S2 or P2). Iwaki et al. teaches in column 7, lines 33-37, each of the resonators of the ladder filter (i.e. including S1, S2, P1 and P2) have a structure shown in related Figs. 2(a) and 2(b), therefore based on Figs. 2(a) and 2(b):
The first resonator (Fig. 16: S1 or P1) will have a parasitic capacitance formed in region (d); and
The second resonator (Fig. 16: S2 or P2) will have a second parasitic capacitance formed in region (d), The first and second resonators based on Figs. 2(a) and 2(b) comprising:
A substrate (10);
A bottom electrode (12) disposed on the substrate;
A piezoelectric layer (14) disposed on the bottom electrode;
A top electrode (16) disposed on the piezoelectric layer;
Wherein in a first region (d), the bottom electrode and top electrode overlap with no piezoelectric layer between the bottom electrode and top electrode forming the respective parasitic capacitance of the first and second resonators.
In regards to claim 9, based on Figs. 2(a) and 2(b), the first region (d) is a “dead”/non-active region since there is no overlap between the bottom electrode (12), piezoelectric layer (14) and top electrode (16).
In regards to claim 10, Iwaki et al. teaches based on Figs. 2(a) and 2(b) a resonator comprising:
A substrate (10) comprising a top surface;
A bottom electrode (12) disposed on the top surface of the substrate;
A piezoelectric layer (14) disposed on the bottom electrode;
A top electrode (16) disposed on the piezoelectric layer;
Wherein the bottom electrode includes a first elongated member (portion of bottom electrode located on the left non-resonance portion) configured to extend longitudinally along the top surface on a first side of the substrate.
In regards to claim 14, based on Figs. 2(a) and 2(b) wherein in a first region (region d), the bottom electrode and top electrode overlap with no piezoelectric layer present between the top and bottom electrodes, and wherein a surface area of the first region determines the resonator parasitic capacitance. Based on related Fig. 16 and column 7, lines 33-37, the resonator shown in figs. 2(a) and 2(b) is used in a ladder filter comprising a plurality of resonator, hence there will be a second resonator with a respective parasitic capacitance.
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.
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.
Claims 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwaki et al. (USPAT 7,567,023 B2) in view of Kida et al. (US2017/0019085 A1).
As discussed above, Iwaki et al. teaches the claimed invention as recited in claim 1. Iwaki et al. further teaches: in regards to claim 3, based on Fig. 16, wherein the at least one first resonator (P1) and second resonator (P2) are placed in a parallel configuration; and in regards to claim 4, based on Fig. 16, wherein the at least one first resonator (S1) and second resonator (P2) are placed in a series configuration. Iwaki et al. does not teach: in regards to claim 2, wherein at least one first resonator has a first piezoelectric orientation, wherein the second resonator has a second piezoelectric orientation that is opposite from the first piezoelectric orientation
Kida et al. teaches in Fig. 13 a ladder filter comprising a plurality of resonators (S1, S2, P1 and P2). Based on Fig. 13, each of the subsequent series resonators (S1 and S2) and subsequent parallel resonators (P1 and P2) have respective piezoelectric orientation that are opposite from each other (see indicted arrows for piezoelectric orientation). Kida et al. teaches in Paragraph [0073], that arranging the ladder filter with subsequent series resonators and the parallel resonator having opposite piezoelectric orientation from each other provides the benefit of reducing a second harmonic of the filter.
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the invention of Iwaki et al. and have designed the ladder filter so that each subsequent series resonators and parallel resonators have opposite piezoelectric orientation from each other because such a modification would have provided the benefit of reducing a second harmonic of the filter as suggested by Kida et al. (See Paragraph [0073]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JORGE L SALAZAR JR whose telephone number is (571)-272-9326. The examiner can normally be reached between 9am - 6pm Monday-Friday.
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 on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JORGE L SALAZAR JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2843