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.
Claim(s) 1-10, 14, 18-22, 27 and 29-30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ballandras et al. (US 20210265980).
As to claim 1, Ballanddras et al.’s figures 8a-8g show an apparatus comprising: a piezoelectric layer (104) comprising a shared surface; a first resonator (812) comprising a first interdigital transducer disposed over the shared surface of the piezoelectric layer; a second resonator (814) comprising a second interdigital transducer disposed over the shared surface of the piezoelectric layer; and a plurality of scattering elements (1006 and 1016 in figure 8a, 1222 in figure 8c, 1322 in figure 8d, 1522 in figures 8e-8g) positioned between the first resonator and the second resonator, wherein the plurality of scattering elements comprises recessed voids having a rectilinear shape within the piezoelectric layer; wherein a depth of the plurality of scattering elements is greater than a wavelength of a resonance frequency of the first resonator (¶0031 teaches that “the depth of the groove of the reflecting structure is of the order of λ or more, in particular, is of the order of 10λ or more, λ being the wavelength of the surface acoustic wave”. Therefore, selecting the depth of the plurality of scattering elements in figures 8a-8g to be greater than a wavelength of a resonance frequency of the first resonator is seen as an obvious design preference to ensure optimum performance).
As to claim 2, the figures show that the plurality of scattering elements are configured to disperse acoustic energy from an acoustic mode of the first resonator and to disperse acoustic energy from an acoustic mode of the second resonator.
As to claims 3-6, selecting claimed dimension is seen as an obvious design preference to ensure optimum performance, MPEP 2144.05.
As to claim 7, the figures show that the first resonator further comprises: a first busbar; and a second busbar; wherein the first interdigital transducer (IDT) comprises a first plurality of IDT electrode fingers comprising first IDT electrode fingers extending from the first busbar toward the second busbar and second IDT electrode fingers extending from the second busbar toward the first busbar in an interdigitated configuration (see figure 1a).
As to claim 8, the figures show that the plurality of scattering elements are aligned along a line perpendicular to the first busbar and the second busbar, such that an extension of a track of the first resonator intersects with the line.
As to claim 9, the figures show that the plurality of scattering elements are positioned in a path extending from a track of the first resonator.
As to claim 10, the figures show that the plurality of scattering elements are positioned in a vicinity of a resonator independent of a resonator orientation.
As to claim 14, figure 12 shows a metal contact (input/output wires) coupled to the first busbar, wherein the plurality of scattering elements are formed in a shared layer with the metal contact (Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to arrange the metal contact and scattering elements on the same layer for the purpose of saving space).
Claims 18-22, 27 and 29 and 30 recite similar limitations in claims above. Therefore, they are rejected for the same reasons.
Claim(s) 15, 16 and 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ballandras et al. (US 20210265980) in view of Mitchell (US 4204178).
As to claim 16 and 26, Ballandras et al.’s figures fail to show that the plurality of scattering elements comprise elements with two or more distinct geometries. However, Michell’s figure 3 shows that its plurality of scattering elements comprise elements with two or more distinct geometries. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to use different geometries for Ballandras et al.’s scattering elements for the purpose of achieving desired noise reduction.
As to claim 15, selecting circular geometries for the scattering elements is seen as an obvious design preference to ensure optimum performance, see Mitchell’s figure and MPEP 2144.04, IV.B.
Claim(s) 17 and 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ballandras et al. (US 20210265980) in view of Ichikawa (JP 2000106519A).
Ballandras et al.’s figures fail to show a second plurality of scattering elements positioned between the first resonator and an edge of the piezoelectric layer. However, Ichikawa’s figure 3 shows a similar device having plurality of scattering elements (8) positioned between the first resonator and an edge of the piezoelectric layer. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to include a second plurality of scattering elements positioned between the first resonator and an edge of the piezoelectric layer of Ballandras et al.’s device for the purpose of reducing noise.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANH-QUAN TRA whose telephone number is (571)272-1755. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri from 8:00 A.M.-5:00 P.M.
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, Lincoln Donovan 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.
/QUAN TRA/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2842