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
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.
Claim(s) 1-2 & 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Igaki et al. (US PGPub 20090108960) in view of Yamaji et al. (US PGPub 20120188026)
As per claim 1:
Igaki et al. discloses in Figs. 1-2 & 17:
A surface acoustic wave filter ([0065]) comprising:
a plurality of series resonators (15) which are connected between an input terminal (21) and an output terminal (22); and
at least one parallel resonator (30) which connects between a ground terminal and two adjacent series resonators among the plurality of series resonators, wherein at least one of the plurality of series resonators includes:
first and second bus bars (seen connecting fingers 12 in Figs. 1-2 & 17), which extend parallel to each other in a first direction within first to third areas (left, central, and right regions of Fig. 1) sequentially arranged on a substrate (11);
a plurality of first interdigital (IDT) transducer electrodes (electrode fingers 12)) which extend in a second direction perpendicular to the first direction from the first bus bar; and
a plurality of second IDT electrodes which extend in the second direction from the second bus bar and are alternately arranged with the plurality of first IDT electrodes (as seen in Fig. 1, and as per interdigitated transducer electrodes),
wherein the plurality of first IDT electrodes and the plurality of second IDT electrodes are alternately arranged with a reference pitch (pitch in center, [0043]) in the second area, are alternately arranged in the first area with a pitch which gets smaller than a reference pitch in the direction of one end of the first bus bar ([0043]), and are alternately arranged in the third area with a pitch which gets smaller than a reference pitch in the direction of the other end of the first bus bar ([0043]); and
wherein, in a region extending from boundaries of the second area to respective end of each of the first area and third area, the pitch between the plurality of first IDT electrodes and the plurality of second IDT decreases at a constant rate to 88% or greater of the reference pitch ([0043, 0067]).
Igaki does not disclose:
said decrease in pitch creates one or more additional pairs of resonant and anti-resonant frequencies, where a resonant frequency and an anti-resonant frequency are located within or proximate to a transition region of a high frequency edge of a passband of the surface acoustic wave filter.
Yamaji et al. discloses in Fig. 2-4:
A surface acoustic wave resonator (101) wherein the IDT features first through third regions (end portion 424A, intermediate portion 424C, and end portion 424B), wherein, in a region extending from boundaries of the second area to respective end of each of the first area and third area, the pitch between the plurality of first IDT electrodes and the plurality of second IDT decreases at a constant rate to 88% or greater of the reference pitch ([0035]), and
said decrease in pitch creates one or more additional pairs of resonant and anti-resonant frequencies (auxiliary resonance RA1 [0036], wherein resonances inherently have a corresponding anti-resonance), where a resonant frequency and an anti-resonant frequency are located above and proximate to a main resonance of the surface acoustic wave resonator ([0036]).
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to configure the decrease in pitch of Igaki such that an auxiliary resonance and its respective anti-resonance created by the decrease of pitch is located within or proximate to a transition region of a high frequency edge of a passband of the surface acoustic wave filter to provide the benefit of shaping the passband and upper edge thereof through the use of resonant and anti-resonant frequencies of series resonators, as is well understood in the art.
As a consequence of the combination, the combination discloses said decrease in pitch creates one or more additional pairs of resonant and anti-resonant frequencies, where a resonant frequency and an anti-resonant frequency are located within or proximate to a transition region of a high frequency edge of a passband of the surface acoustic wave filter.
As per claim 2:
Igaki et al. discloses in Figs. 1-2 & 17:
the pitch at which the plurality of first IDT electrodes and the plurality of second IDT electrodes are arranged in the first and third areas decreases towards the one end or the other end of the first bus bar within a range of 88% to 97% of the reference pitch ([0067], wherein 2.29 µm is ~94% of 2.44 µm).
As per claim 11:
Igaki et al. discloses in Figs. 1-2 & 17:
at least one of the plurality of series resonators includes:
a first reflector (14) formed on the substrate to face the one end of the first bus bar; and
a second reflector (14) formed on the substrate to face the other end of the first bus bar.
Claim(s) 4-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the resultant combination of Igaki et al. (US PGPub 20090108960) in view of Yamaji et al. (US PGPub 20120188026) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Dyer et al. (US PGPub 20220247382), a reference of record.
The resultant combination discloses the surface acoustic wave filter of claim 1, as rejected above.
As per claim 4:
The resultant combination does not disclose:
a first capacitor which is connected in parallel with a first series resonator among the plurality of series resonators.
Dyer et al. discloses in Fig. 5:
An acoustic wave filter comprising a plurality of series and parallel resonators, wherein capacitors (C1-C5) are connected in parallel with each of the acoustic wave resonators (X1-X5).
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to connect capacitors as per Dyer et al. in parallel with each of the resonators of The resultant combination to provide the benefit of controlling the relative resonance to anti-resonance frequency difference of each resonator, as taught by Dyer et al. ([0060]).
As a consequence of the combination, a first capacitor is connected in parallel with a first series resonator among the plurality of series resonators.
As per claim 5:
The resultant combination does not disclose:
the first capacitor has a metal-insulator-metal (MIM) structure.
Dyer et al. discloses in Fig. 5:
the capacitors have a metal-insulator-metal (MIM) structure ([0070]).
As a consequence of the combination of claims 4 & 12, the first capacitor has a metal-insulator-metal (MIM) structure.
As per claim 6:
The resultant combination does not disclose:
the first series resonator has the highest resonant frequency among the plurality of series resonators.
Dyer et al. discloses in Fig. 5:
Resonance frequencies of series resonators in a ladder filter may be the same or different ([0065])
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for each of the resonators of the ladder filter of The resultant combination to be different, such that the first series resonator is determined to be the highest resonant frequency among the plurality of series resonators, as a known configuration of resonators in a ladder filter as taught by Dyer et al. ([0065]) that provides the benefit of being a design parameter for determining the electrical performance of the passband of the filter, as is well-understood in the art.
As per claim 7:
The resultant combination does not disclose:
the first capacitor decreases the electromechanical coupling coefficient (K2) of the first series resonator.
Dyer et al. discloses in Fig. 5:
An acoustic wave filter comprising a plurality of series and parallel resonators, wherein capacitors (C1-C5) are connected in parallel with each of the acoustic wave resonators (X1-X5).
As a consequence of the combination of claims 4 & 12, the first capacitor decreases the electromechanical coupling coefficient (K2) of the first series resonator, as a consequence of the same structure as per the current application.
As per claim 8:
The resultant combination does not disclose:
a second capacitor which is connected in parallel with a second series resonator among the plurality of series resonators.
Dyer et al. discloses in Fig. 5:
An acoustic wave filter comprising a plurality of series and parallel resonators, wherein capacitors (C1-C5) are connected in parallel with each of the acoustic wave resonators (X1-X5).
As a consequence of the combination of claims 4 & 12, the combination discloses a second capacitor which is connected in parallel with a second series resonator among the plurality of series resonators.
As per claim 9:
The resultant combination does not disclose:
the second series resonator has the second highest resonant frequency among the plurality of series resonators, after the resonance frequency of the first series resonator.
Dyer et al. discloses in Fig. 5:
Resonance frequencies of series resonators in a ladder filter may be the same or different ([0065])
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for each of the resonators of the ladder filter of The resultant combination to be different, such that the first series resonator is determined to be the highest resonant frequency among the plurality of series resonators and the second series resonator is determined to be the second highest resonant frequency among the plurality of series resonators, after the resonance frequency of the first resonator, as a known configuration of resonators in a ladder filter as taught by Dyer et al. ([0065]) that provides the benefit of being a design parameter for determining the electrical performance of the passband of the filter, as is well-understood in the art.
As per claim 10:
The resultant combination does not disclose:
the second capacitor has an IDT capacitor structure or an MIM structure.
Dyer et al. discloses in Fig. 5:
the capacitors have a metal-insulator-metal (MIM) structure ([0070]).
As a consequence of the combination of claims 4, the second capacitor has an IDT capacitor structure or an MIM structure.
Claim(s) 12-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Igaki et al. (US PGPub 20090108960) in view of Yamaji et al. (US PGPub 20120188026) and Dyer et al. (US PGPub 20220247382), a reference of record.
As per claim 12
Igaki et al. discloses in Figs. 1-2 & 17:
A surface acoustic wave filter ([0065]) comprising:
a plurality of series resonators (15) which are connected between an input terminal (21) and an output terminal (22); and
at least one parallel resonator (30) which connects between a ground terminal and two adjacent series resonators among the plurality of series resonators,
wherein at least one of the plurality of series resonators includes:
first and second bus bars (seen connecting fingers 12 in Figs. 1-2 & 17), which extend parallel to each other in a first direction within first to third areas (left, central, and right regions of Fig. 1) sequentially arranged on a substrate (11);
a plurality of first interdigital (IDT) transducer electrodes (electrode fingers 12)) which extend in a second direction perpendicular to the first direction from the first bus bar; and
a plurality of second IDT electrodes which extend in the second direction from the second bus bar and are alternately arranged with the plurality of first IDT electrodes (as seen in Fig. 1, and as per interdigitated transducer electrodes),
wherein the plurality of first IDT electrodes and the plurality of second IDT electrodes are alternately arranged with a reference pitch (pitch in center, [0043]) in the second area, and are alternately arranged in the first area and the third area with a pitch different from the reference pitch ([0043]),
wherein, in a region extending from boundaries of the second area to respective end of each of the first area and third area, the pitch between the plurality of first IDT electrodes and the plurality of second IDT decreases at a constant rate to 88% or greater of the reference pitch ([0043, 0067]).
Igaki does not disclose:
a first capacitor which is connected in parallel with a first series resonator among the plurality of series resonators;
said decrease in pitch creates one or more additional pairs of resonant and anti-resonant frequencies, where a resonant frequency and an anti-resonant frequency are located within or proximate to a transition region of a high frequency edge of a passband of the surface acoustic wave filter; and
wherein the first series resonator has the highest resonant frequency among the plurality of series resonators.
Yamaji et al. discloses in Fig. 2-4:
A surface acoustic wave resonator (101) wherein the IDT features first through third regions (end portion 424A, intermediate portion 424C, and end portion 424B), wherein, in a region extending from boundaries of the second area to respective end of each of the first area and third area, the pitch between the plurality of first IDT electrodes and the plurality of second IDT decreases at a constant rate to 88% or greater of the reference pitch ([0035]), and
said decrease in pitch creates one or more additional pairs of resonant and anti-resonant frequencies (auxiliary resonance RA1 [0036], wherein resonances inherently have a corresponding anti-resonance), where a resonant frequency and an anti-resonant frequency are located above and proximate to a main resonance of the surface acoustic wave resonator ([0036]).
Dyer et al. discloses in Fig. 5:
An acoustic wave filter comprising a plurality of series and parallel resonators, wherein capacitors (C1-C5) are connected in parallel with each of the acoustic wave resonators (X1-X5), and
Resonance frequencies of series resonators in a ladder filter may be the same or different ([0065])
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to configure the decrease in pitch of Igaki such that an auxiliary resonance and its respective anti-resonance created by the decrease of pitch is located within or proximate to a transition region of a high frequency edge of a passband of the surface acoustic wave filter to provide the benefit of shaping the passband and upper edge thereof through the use of resonant and anti-resonant frequencies of series resonators, as is well understood in the art.
As a consequence of the combination, the combination discloses said decrease in pitch creates one or more additional pairs of resonant and anti-resonant frequencies, where a resonant frequency and an anti-resonant frequency are located within or proximate to a transition region of a high frequency edge of a passband of the surface acoustic wave filter.
It would have been further obvious to connect capacitors as per Dyer et al. in parallel with each of the resonators of Shimomura et al. to provide the benefit of controlling the relative resonance to anti-resonance frequency difference of each resonator, as taught by Dyer et al. ([0060]).
As a consequence of the combination, a first capacitor is connected in parallel with a first series resonator among the plurality of series resonators.
It would have been further obvious for each of the resonators of the ladder filter of Shimomura et al. to be different, such that the first series resonator is determined to be the highest resonant frequency among the plurality of series resonators, as a known configuration of resonators in a ladder filter as taught by Dyer et al. ([0065]) that provides the benefit of being a design parameter for determining the electrical performance of the passband of the filter, as is well-understood in the art.
As per claim 13:
Igaki et al. discloses in Figs. 1-2 & 17:
the plurality of first IDT electrodes and the plurality of second IDT electrodes are alternately arranged in the first area with a pitch which gets smaller than a reference pitch in the direction of one end of the first bus bar, and are alternately arranged in the third area with a pitch which gets smaller than the reference pitch in the direction of the other end of the first bus bar ([0043, 0067]).
As per claim 14:
Igaki et al. discloses in Figs. 1-2 & 17:
the pitch at which the plurality of first IDT electrodes and the plurality of second IDT electrodes are arranged in the first and third areas decreases towards the one end or the other end of the first bus bar within a range of 88% to 97% of the reference pitch ([0067], wherein 2.29 µm is ~94% of 2.44 µm).
As per claim 15:
The resultant combination does not disclose:
the first capacitor has a metal-insulator-metal (MIM) structure.
Dyer et al. discloses in Fig. 5:
the capacitors have a metal-insulator-metal (MIM) structure ([0070]).
As a consequence of the combination of claims 4 & 12, the first capacitor has a metal-insulator-metal (MIM) structure.
As per claim 16:
The resultant combination does not disclose:
the first capacitor decreases the electromechanical coupling coefficient (K2) of the first series resonator.
Dyer et al. discloses in Fig. 5:
An acoustic wave filter comprising a plurality of series and parallel resonators, wherein capacitors (C1-C5) are connected in parallel with each of the acoustic wave resonators (X1-X5).
As a consequence of the combination of claims 4 & 12, the first capacitor decreases the electromechanical coupling coefficient (K2) of the first series resonator, as a consequence of the same structure as per the current application.
As per claim 17:
The resultant combination does not disclose:
a second capacitor which is connected in parallel with a second series resonator among the plurality of series resonators.
Dyer et al. discloses in Fig. 5:
An acoustic wave filter comprising a plurality of series and parallel resonators, wherein capacitors (C1-C5) are connected in parallel with each of the acoustic wave resonators (X1-X5).
As a consequence of the combination of claims 4 & 12, the combination discloses a second capacitor which is connected in parallel with a second series resonator among the plurality of series resonators.
As per claim 18:
The resultant combination does not disclose:
the second series resonator has the second highest resonant frequency among the plurality of series resonators, after the resonance frequency of the first series resonator.
Dyer et al. discloses in Fig. 5:
Resonance frequencies of series resonators in a ladder filter may be the same or different ([0065])
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for each of the resonators of the ladder filter of The resultant combination to be different, such that the first series resonator is determined to be the highest resonant frequency among the plurality of series resonators and the second series resonator is determined to be the second highest resonant frequency among the plurality of series resonators, after the resonance frequency of the first resonator, as a known configuration of resonators in a ladder filter as taught by Dyer et al. ([0065]) that provides the benefit of being a design parameter for determining the electrical performance of the passband of the filter, as is well-understood in the art.
As per claim 19:
The resultant combination does not disclose:
the second capacitor has an IDT capacitor structure or an MIM structure.
Dyer et al. discloses in Fig. 5:
the capacitors have a metal-insulator-metal (MIM) structure ([0070]).
As a consequence of the combination of claims 12, the second capacitor has an IDT capacitor structure or an MIM structure.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see applicant’s response, filed 01/21/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-19 under Shimomura with or without Dyer have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Igaki and Yamaji with Dyer.
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 SAMUEL S OUTTEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7123. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:30AM-6:00PM.
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) 272-1988. 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.
/Samuel S Outten/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2843