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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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) 1-8, 10-27, 31 and 33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mastromatteo (PG Pub 20100163410) and in view of Aigner (PG Pub 20050012568).
Considering claim 1, Mastromatteo (Figure 3) teaches a system comprising: a sensing region including at least a functionalized layer (34 + paragraph 0045) to facilitate sensing of a target variable (35 + paragraph 0045); a substrate (23 + paragraph 0041); a top electrode, in which the sensing region including at least the functionalized layer is coupled with the second piezoelectric layer via the top electrode (30 + paragraph 0042) of the bulk acoustic millimeter wave resonator.
However, Mastromatteo does not teach a bulk acoustic millimeter wave resonator arranged over the substrate, the bulk acoustic millimeter wave resonator including at least a first piezoelectric layer; a second piezoelectric layer.
Aigner (Figure 1A) teaches a bulk acoustic millimeter wave (paragraph 0029) resonator arranged over the substrate, the bulk acoustic millimeter wave resonator including at least a first piezoelectric layer (106 + paragraph 0029); and a second piezoelectric layer (108 + paragraph 0029).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include a bulk acoustic millimeter wave resonator arranged over the substrate, the bulk acoustic millimeter wave resonator including at least a first piezoelectric layer; a second piezoelectric layer into Mastromatteo’s device for the benefit of increasing the available frequency ranges used in BAW resonators.
Considering claim 2, Mastromatteo teaches in which the bulk acoustic millimeter wave resonator coupled with the sensing region has a main resonant frequency in a millimeter wave band to facilitate an enhanced sensitivity associated with the sensing region of the system (paragraph 0048).
Considering claim 3, Mastromatteo teaches in which the system has sufficient sensitivity to detect within a range from approximately one half part per million per one hundred attograms to approximately fifty parts per million per one hundred attograms (obvious since the same structure is taught + the limitations is the goal of the invention).
Considering claim 4, Mastromatteo teaches in which the system has sufficient sensitivity to detect within a range from one KiloHertz CentiMeter Squared per NanoGram to approximately two hundred KiloHertz CentiMeter Squared per NanoGram (obvious since the same structure is taught + the limitations is the goal of the invention).
Considering claim 5, Aigner (Figure 1A) teaches the first piezoelectric layer (106 + paragraph 0030) has a first piezoelectric axis orientation and the second piezoelectric layer has a second piezoelectric axis orientation substantially (108 + paragraph 0030) opposing the first piezoelectric axis orientation of the first piezoelectric layer.
Considering claim 6, Aigner (Figure 4A) teaches in which the bulk acoustic millimeter wave resonator includes at least a third piezoelectric (134 + paragraph 0037), in which the sensing region including at least the functionalized layer is coupled with third piezoelectric layer via the top electrode (178 + paragraph 0053).
Considering claim 7, Mastromatteo in view of Aigner teaches in which the bulk acoustic millimeter wave resonator coupled with the sensing region has a quality factor within a range from approximately three hundred to approximately fifteen hundred (limitation is met since the same structure is taught).
Considering claim 8, Mastromatteo teaches in which the top electrode (30 + paragraph 0042) approximates a harmonic electrode to facilitate suppressing parasitic lateral resonances (obvious since the same structure is taught and therefore claimed properties and structures are also taught).
Considering claim 10, Mastromatteo teaches in which the top electrode has sheet resistance of less than one Ohm per square (obvious since the same structure is taught and therefore claimed properties and structures are also taught).
Considering claim 11, Mastromatteo teaches in which a total qualify factor of the bulk acoustic millimeter wave resonator including a sheet resistance of the top electrode is within a range from approximately three hundred to approximately fifteen hundred (obvious since the same structure is taught and therefore claimed properties and structures are also taught).
Considering claim 12, Mastromatteo in view of Aigner discloses the claimed invention except for the functionalized layer comprises a nanostructured layer coupled with the second piezoelectric layer via the top electrode of the bulk acoustic millimeter wave resonator. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the functionalized layer comprises a nanostructured layer coupled with the second piezoelectric layer via the top electrode of the bulk acoustic millimeter wave resonator, since it has been held to be within the generally skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice.
Considering claim 13, Mastromatteo in view of Aigner discloses the claimed invention except for the functionalized layer comprises a nanoporous layer coupled with the second piezoelectric layer via the top electrode of the bulk acoustic millimeter wave resonator. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the functionalized layer comprises a nanoporous layer coupled with the second piezoelectric layer via the top electrode of the bulk acoustic millimeter wave resonator, since it has been held to be within the generally skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice.
Considering claim 14, Mastromatteo in view of Aigner discloses the claimed invention except for the functionalized layer comprises a nanocomposite coupled with the second piezoelectric layer via the top electrode of the bulk acoustic millimeter wave resonator. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the functionalized layer comprises a nanocomposite coupled with the second piezoelectric layer via the top electrode of the bulk acoustic millimeter wave resonator, since it has been held to be within the generally skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice.
Considering claim 15, Mastromatteo in view of Aigner discloses the claimed invention except for the functionalized layer comprises a nanofibers coupled with the second piezoelectric layer via the top electrode of the bulk acoustic millimeter wave resonator. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the functionalized layer comprises a nanofibers coupled with the second piezoelectric layer via the top electrode of the bulk acoustic millimeter wave resonator, since it has been held to be within the generally skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice.
Considering claim 16, Mastromatteo in view of Aigner discloses the claimed invention except for the functionalized layer comprises a metal-organic framework coupled with the second piezoelectric layer via the top electrode of the bulk acoustic millimeter wave resonator. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the functionalized layer comprises a metal-organic framework coupled with the second piezoelectric layer via the top electrode of the bulk acoustic millimeter wave resonator, since it has been held to be within the generally skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice.
Considering claim 17, Mastromatteo in view of Aigner discloses the claimed invention except for the functionalized layer comprises a molecularly imprinted polymer coupled with the second piezoelectric layer via the top electrode of the bulk acoustic millimeter wave resonator. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the functionalized layer comprises a molecularly imprinted polymer coupled with the second piezoelectric layer via the top electrode of the bulk acoustic millimeter wave resonator, since it has been held to be within the generally skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice.
Considering claim 18, Mastromatteo in view of Aigner teaches the functionalized layer (34 + paragraph 0048) has an analyte binding affinity to facilitate binding to an analyte (abstract) and the sensing region of the functionalized layer is coupled with the second piezoelectric layer (106 + paragraph 0029) via the top electrode of the bulk acoustic millimeter wave resonator to facilitate sensing of the analyte.
Considering claim 19, Mastromatteo (Figure 3) teaches in which the target variable includes at least at target analyte (34 + paragraph 0048 + abstract) and the functionalized layer has a selective affinity for the target analyte (paragraph 0048).
Considering claim 20, Mastromatteo (Figure 3) teaches in which the functionalized layer has an affinity for tetrahydrocannabinol (paragraphs 0005 + 0080) and the sensing region of the functionalized layer (34 + paragraph 0048) is coupled with the second piezoelectric layer via the top electrode of the bulk acoustic millimeter wave resonator to facilitate sensing tetrahydrocannabinol (abstract).
Considering claim 21, Mastromatteo (Figure 3) in view of Aigner teaches the functionalized layer has an affinity for alcohol (paragraphs 0005 + 0080) and the sensing region of the functionalized layer (34 + paragraph 0048) is coupled with the second piezoelectric layer via the top electrode of the bulk acoustic millimeter wave resonator to facilitate sensing alcohol.
Considering claim 22, Mastromatteo (Figure 3) in view of Aigner teaches the functionalized layer has an affinity for an analyte associated with intoxication (paragraphs 0005 + 0080) and the sensing region of the functionalized layer (34 + paragraph 0048) is coupled with the second piezoelectric layer via the top electrode of the bulk acoustic millimeter wave resonator to facilitate sensing the analyte associated with intoxication.
Considering claim 23, Mastromatteo (Figure 3) in view of Aigner teaches the functionalized layer has an affinity for a constituent of breath (paragraphs 0005 + 0080); and the sensing region of the functionalized layer (34 + paragraph 0048) is coupled with the second piezoelectric layer via the top electrode of the bulk acoustic millimeter wave resonator to facilitate sensing the constituent of breath.
Considering claim 24, Mastromatteo (Figure 3) in view of Aigner teaches the functionalized layer has an affinity for a constituent of an interstitial fluid (paragraphs 0005 + 0080); and the sensing region of the functionalized layer (34 + paragraph 0048) is coupled with the second piezoelectric layer via the top electrode of the bulk acoustic millimeter wave resonator to facilitate sensing the constituent of an interstitial fluid.
Considering claim 25, Mastromatteo (Figure 3) in view of Aigner teaches the functionalized layer has an affinity for a constituent of blood (paragraphs 0005 + 0080) and the sensing region of the functionalized layer (34 + paragraph 0048) is coupled with the second piezoelectric layer via the top electrode of the bulk acoustic millimeter wave resonator facilitate sensing the constituent of blood.
Considering claim 26, Mastromatteo (Figure 3) in view of Aigner teaches the functionalized layer has an affinity for a toxin (paragraphs 0005 + 0080) and the sensing region of the functionalized layer (34 + paragraph 0048) is coupled with the second piezoelectric layer via the top electrode of the bulk acoustic millimeter wave resonator to facilitate sensing the toxin.
Considering claim 27, Mastromatteo (Figures 3 + 7) teaches a system comprising a plurality of bulk acoustic millimeter wave resonators respectively coupled with respective sensing regions (20 + paragraph 0066) and at least a functionalized layer to facilitate sensing of a target variable (paragraph 0005 + 0080).
However, Mastromatteo does not teach at least one of the bulk acoustic millimeter wave resonators includes at least a first piezoelectric layer, a second piezoelectric layer and a top electrode and at least one of the sensing regions includes, in which the functionalized layer is coupled with the top electrode and the second piezoelectric layer.
Aigner (Figure 1A) at least one of the bulk acoustic millimeter wave resonators includes at least a first piezoelectric layer (106 + paragraph 0029), a second piezoelectric layer (108 + paragraph 0029) and a top electrode (110 + paragraph 0029) and at least one of the sensing regions includes, in which the functionalized layer is coupled with the top electrode and the second piezoelectric layer.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include at least one of the bulk acoustic millimeter wave resonators includes at least a first piezoelectric layer, a second piezoelectric layer and a top electrode and at least one of the sensing regions includes, in which the functionalized layer is coupled with the top electrode and the second piezoelectric layer for the benefit of reducing the costs of producing an resonator which can be rather bulky.
Considering claim 31, Mastromatteo (Figure 3) teaches an acoustic millimeter wave device comprising: a sensing region including at least a functionalized layer (34 + paragraph 0048).
However, Mastromatteo does not teach a first piezoelectric layer having a first piezoelectric axis orientation; and a second piezoelectric layer acoustically coupled to the first piezoelectric layer, the second piezoelectric layer having a second piezoelectric axis orientation that is antiparallel to the first piezoelectric axis orientation, in which the sensing region including at least functionalized layer is coupled with the second piezoelectric layer.
Aigner (Figure 1A) a first piezoelectric layer having a first piezoelectric axis orientation (106 + paragraph 0030); and a second piezoelectric layer (108 + paragraph 0030) acoustically coupled to the first piezoelectric layer, the second piezoelectric layer having a second piezoelectric axis orientation that is antiparallel to the first piezoelectric axis orientation (paragraph 0030), in which the sensing region including at least functionalized layer is coupled with the second piezoelectric layer.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include a first piezoelectric layer having a first piezoelectric axis orientation; and a second piezoelectric layer acoustically coupled to the first piezoelectric layer, the second piezoelectric layer having a second piezoelectric axis orientation that is antiparallel to the first piezoelectric axis orientation, in which the sensing region including at least functionalized layer is coupled with the second piezoelectric layer into Mastromatteo’s device for the benefit of reducing the costs of producing an resonator which can be rather bulky.
Considering claim 33, Aigner (Figure 2A) teaches a third piezoelectric layer (134 + paragraph 0040) disposed between the first piezoelectric layer (108 + paragraph 0040) and the second piezoelectric layer (136 + paragraph 0040) and coupled with the first piezoelectric layer and the second piezoelectric layer.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mastromatteo (PG Pub 20100163410), in view of Aigner (PG Pub 20050012568) and in view of Matsumoto (PG Pub 20060267710).
Considering claim 9, Mastromatteo in view of Aigner teaches in which the bulk acoustic millimeter wave resonator coupled with the sensing region as described above.
However, Mastromatteo in view of Aigner does not teach the sensing region has a main resonant frequency in an Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers (IEEE) band in one of a Ku band, a K band, a Ka band, a V band and W band.
Matsumoto teaches the sensing region has a main resonant frequency in an Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers (IEEE) band in one of a Ku band (paragraph 0003), a K band, a Ka band, a V band and W band.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include a main resonant frequency in an Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers (IEEE) band in one of a Ku band, a K band, a Ka band, a V band and W band into Mastromatteo’s device for the benefit of choosing the frequency range based on it’s suitability for intended use as a matter of obvious design choice.
Claim(s) 28-30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mastromatteo (PG Pub 20100163410), in view of Aigner (PG Pub 20050012568) and in view of Takamine (PG Pub 20180241418).
Considering claim 28, Mastromatteo in view of Aigner teaches the system as described above.
However, Mastromatteo in view of Aigner does not teach a frequency seep signals transmitter wirelessly coupled with the plurality of bulk acoustic millimeter wave resonators.
Takamine teaches a frequency sweep signals transmitter wirelessly coupled with the plurality of bulk acoustic millimeter wave resonators (paragraph 0170).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include a frequency sweep signals transmitter wirelessly coupled with the plurality of bulk acoustic millimeter wave resonators into Mastromatteo’s device for the benefit of delivering signals wirelessly.
Considering claim 29, Takamine teaches a resonant signals received wirelessly coupled with the plurality of bulk acoustic millimeter wave resonators (paragraph 0170).
Considering claim 30, Takamine teaches a computing system that includes at least a wireless communication capability (paragraph 0003 + 0026).
Claim(s) 32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mastromatteo (PG Pub 20100163410), in view of Aigner (PG Pub 20050012568) and in view of Segovia Fernandez (PG Pub 20200021272).
Considering claim 32, Mastromatteo in view of Aigner teaches the acoustic millimeter as described above.
However, Mastromatteo in view of Aigner does not teach a first metal acoustic wave reflector electrically interfacing with the first piezoelectric layer, the first metal acoustic wave reflector comprising a first pair of metal layer.
Segovia Fernandez (Figure 3) teaches a first metal acoustic wave reflector (232 + 233 + paragraph 0039) electrically interfacing with the first piezoelectric layer, the first metal acoustic wave reflector comprising a first pair of metal layer (paragraph 0039).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRYAN P GORDON whose telephone number is (571)272-5394. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 a.m. - 4:30 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, Dedei K Hammond can be reached at 571-270-7938. 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.
/BRYAN P GORDON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2837