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) 1-3 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aigner et al. (US 6864619) or further in view of Sinha et al. (US 20100277034).
As to claim 1, Aigner’s figures show a device (figure 7A), comprising: a first resonator (70) comprising a first layer (20, see other figures) coupled to and positioned between a first electrode (in 22’) and a second electrode (in 24’), the first layer comprising a first piezoelectric material, the first resonator being associated with a first thickness extension (TE) mode, the first TE mode comprises a TEn mode. The figures fail to show that n is an integer greater than or equal to 2 and a thickness difference at least 10% between the first electrode and the second electrode being associated with the TEn mode. However, col. 2, lines 8-19, teaches that “In order to shift or detune the resonator frequency of the first resonator 10 relative to the resonance frequency of the second resonator 10', different measures limited in space to the resonator 10 can be taken. The change of the thickness of the first electrode 22 of the piezoelectric resonator 10, as is shown in FIG. 1B, results in a change of the resonance frequency of the resonator...” Therefore, selecting the thickness of the electrodes as shown such that n is greater than or equal to 2 and a thickness difference at least 10% between the first electrode and the second electrode being associated with the TEn mode is seen as an obvious design preference to ensure optimum performance (MPEP 2144.05, col. 8, lines 2-25). The figures further show the first resonator being characterized by a thickness greater than two micrometer (col. 8, lines 2-25); a second resonator (72 in figure 7A) coupled to the first resonator at a first node (82); and a third resonator (76) coupled to the first node and a first ground terminal (86), the third resonator comprising a second layer(20) coupled to and positioned between a third electrode (28 or 26) and a fourth electrode (24), the second layer comprising a second piezoelectric material, the second resonator further comprising a third layer (26 or 30. Aigner’s col. 2, lines 10-18, also teaches that an additional metal layer is applied to electrode 22) coupled to the third electrode. Furthermore, Sinha et al.’s figure 1 show a resonator (20) comprising a mass load layer 22 is added over electrode 16 in order to decrease resonant frequency. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to add a mass load layer over Aigner’s third electrode for the purpose of reducing resonant frequency of the resonator. The modified Aigner’s figures further show that the first and second resonators are configured in series and operate at the same first TE mode, the first TE mode being greater than TE1 (as stated above, selecting n to be greater than or equal to 2 is seen as an obvious design preference), and wherein the third resonator and a fourth resonator (Aigner’s 74 or 78 in figure 7A) are configured in parallel and operate at a second TE mode (Applicant’s ¶0060 teaches that: “the first TE mode and the second TE mode may be the same or different”. The claim does not define that the first TE mode is different from the second TE mode. Therefore, the claimed first TE mode and the second TE mode may be the same).
As to claim 2, selecting the thickness of the electrodes and piezoelectric layer such that the first TE mode is associated with a frequency of at least 6 GHz is seen as an obvious design preference to ensure optimum performance, MPEP 2144.04.
As to claim 3, the modified Aigner et al.’s figures show that the third layer comprises a mass load.
As to claim 9, Aigner et al.’s figures show a fourth resonator (78) coupled to the second resonator and a second ground terminal.
Claim(s) 1-11 and 14-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aigner et al. (US 6864619) or further in view of Sinha et al. (US 20100277034) and Pollard (US 20220045664).
As to claims 1 and 2, Pollard’s figures show a similar device with Agner et al.’s figures, wherein the thicknesses of piezoelectric layer and electrode layers of respective resonator (not only parallel resonator is detuned, but series resonator can be selected to be detuned, ¶0038) is selected to achieve desired operation. Therefore, selecting the thickness of the electrodes and piezoelectric layer of Aigner et al.’s resonators such that the first TE mode is associated with a frequency of at least 6 GHz is seen as an obvious design preference to ensure optimum performance, MPEP 2144.04.
As to claim 3, the modified Aigner et al.’s figures show that the third layer comprises a mass load.
As to claim 4, selecting the thicknesses for the electrodes of the first resonator such that the filter being configured to suppress a TE1 frequency is seen as an obvious design preference to ensure optimum performance.
As to claim 5, selecting the thicknesses of first electrode and the second electrode to be characterized by a thickness difference of at least 30% is seen as an obvious design preference to ensure optimum performance, MPEP 2144.05.
As to claim 6, selecting the thicknesses of the third electrode and the fourth electrode to be characterized by a thickness difference of at least 30% is seen as an obvious design preference to ensure optimum performance.
As to claim 7, selecting the thicknesses of the third electrode and the fourth electrode to be characterized by a thickness difference of less than 10% is seen as an obvious design preference to ensure optimum performance.
As to claim 8, selecting the thicknesses of the first electrode and the second electrode to be characterized by a thickness difference of at least 150% and the first TE mode comprising a TE2 mode is seen as an obvious design preference to ensure optimum performance.
As to claim 9, Aigner et al.’s figures show a fourth resonator (78) coupled to the second resonator and a second ground terminal.
As to claim 10, selecting the thicknesses for the electrodes of the first to fourth resonator such that the first resonator and the second resonator are associated with the first TE mode, and the third resonator and the fourth resonator are associated with a second TE mode, the second TE mode is different from the first TE mode is seen as an obvious design preference to ensure optimum performance (Aigner et al.’s the parallel resonators and series resonators have different resonant frequencies.
As to claim 11, selecting the thicknesses of the electrodes such that the second TE mode comprises a TE1 mode is seen as an obvious design preference to ensure optimum performance.
Claims 14-20 recite similar limitations in claims above. Therefore, they are rejected for the same reasons.
Claim(s) 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aigner et al. (US 6864619) or further in view of Sinha et al. (US 20100277034), Pollard (US 20220045664) and Matsuda et al.’s (US 20100244979).
As to claim 12, the modified Aigner et al.’s figures fail show a filter coupled to the first resonator. However, Matsuda’s figure 15 shows a similar device (20) that is coupled between filters (30 and 84 in order to reduce noise. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to add filter circuit coupled to the first resonator for the purpose of reducing noise. Selecting the values of components in the filter circuit such that it is configured to suppress a TE1 frequency is seen as an obvious design preference to ensure optimum performance.
As to claim 13, the modified Aigner et al.’s figures show that the filter comprises an inductor and a capacitor.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s ¶0060 teaches that: “the first TE mode and the second TE mode may be the same or different”. The claim does not define that the first TE mode is different from the second TE mode. Therefore, the claimed first TE mode and the second TE mode may be the same.
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