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 Yamaji et al. (US 20210265970) or Kawamoto et al. (US 20110032051) in view of Ballandras et al. (US 20210265980).
As to claim 1, Yamaji et al.’s figure 3 or Kawamoto et al.’s 8 shows an apparatus comprising: a piezoelectric layer (Yamani et al.’s Abstract or Kawamoto et al.’s 11 in figure 2) comprising a shared surface; a first resonator (Yamani et al.’s P3 or Kawamoto et al.’s 8e) comprising a first interdigital transducer (Yamani et al.’s 22A or Kawamoto et al.’s 81e) disposed over the shared surface of the piezoelectric layer and a first set of acoustic reflectors (Yamani et al.’s 22A,24A or Kawamoto et al.’s 82e); a second resonator (Yamani et al.’s S4 or Kawamoto et al.’s 8f) comprising a second interdigital transducer (Yamani et al.’s 22B or Kawamoto et al.’s 81f) disposed over the shared surface of the piezoelectric layer and a second set of acoustic reflectors (Yamani et al.’s 23B,24B or Kawamoto et al.’s 82f); and a plurality of scattering elements (Yamani et al.’s 25b-25c) or Kawamoto et al.’s 88f-88e) positioned between the first resonator and the second resonator, the plurality of scattering elements configured to disperse (reflect) acoustic energy from an acoustic mode of the first resonator and from an acoustic mode of the second resonator that is different than the acoustic mode of the first resonator (Yamani et al.’s ¶0039 or Kawamoto et al.’s ¶0053). Yamani et al.’s or Kawamoto et al.’s figure fails to show that 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. However, Ballandras et al.’s figures 1b and 12b show a similar device. Ballandras et al.’s ¶0080 teaches that “the reflecting structure 116 and the Bragg mirrors 132, 134 may be built by etching grooves instead of depositing metallic strips 136, 210”, see figures 5a-9. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to build Yamani et al. or Kawamoto et al.’s scattering elements by etching grooves for the purpose of saving space (Ballandras et al.’s ¶0178-0181). Ballandras et al.’s ¶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 Ballandras’s figures 8a-8g, that is used for Yamani et al. or Kawamoto et al.’s scattering elements, 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 modified Yamani et al. or Kawamoto et al.’s figure shows that the plurality of scattering elements are configured to disperse acoustic energy from an acoustic mode of the first resonator and to disperse (reflect) 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 modified Yamani et al. or Kawamoto et al.’s figure shows 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.
As to claim 8, the modified Yamani et al. or Kawamoto et al.’s figure shows 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 modified Yamani et al. or Kawamoto et al.’s figure shows that the plurality of scattering elements are positioned in a path extending from a track of the first resonator.
As to claim 10, the modified Yamani et al. or Kawamoto et al.’s figure shows that the plurality of scattering elements are positioned in a vicinity of a resonator independent of a resonator orientation.
As to claim 14, the modified Yamani et al. or Kawamoto et al.’s figure shows a metal contact (input/output wires, see Yamani et al.’s figures 1-2A or Kawamoto et al.’s figures 1 and 3) 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 Yamaji et al. (US 20210265970) or Kawamoto et al. (US 20110032051) in view of Ballandras et al. (US 20210265980) and Mitchell (US 4204178).
As to claim 16 and 26, the modified Yamaji et al. or Kawamoto et al.’s figure fails 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 Yamaji et al. or Kawamoto 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 Yamaji et al. (US 20210265970) or Kawamoto et al. (US 20110032051) in view of Ballandras et al. (US 20210265980) and Ichikawa (JP 2000106519A).
The modified Yamaji et al. or Kawamoto et al.’s figure fails 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 Yamaji et al. or Kawamoto et al.’s device for the purpose of reducing noise.
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 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, 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.
/QUAN TRA/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2843
Prosecution Insights