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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 11- of U.S. Patent No. 11451212 (hereinafter the ’12 patent)
As per claim 1-4, the ’12 patent discloses the limitations of claim 1-4, 7, & 9-10 of the current application in claims 11-16 using substantially similar language.
As per claims 11-14 discloses the methods of claims 11-14, 17, & 19-20 through the use of the apparatus of claims 11-16 using substantially similar language.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-10 of U.S. Patent No. 11451212 (hereinafter the ’12 patent) in view of Yokoyama (US PGPub 20170093372), as cited by applicant.
As per claim 1, the ’12 patent discloses the limitations of claim 1 of the application in claim 1 using substantially similar language, except the ’12 patent does not disclose “an interdigital transducer electrode aperture that concentrates a transverse spurious mode at one or more frequencies and increases skirt steepness of the acoustic wave filter,” thus excluding the interdigital transducer electrode aperture.
Yokoyama discloses the use of an interdigital transducer electrode aperture of a shunt resonator to cause to shift a transverse spurious mode (transverse mode ripple) outside of a passband ([0053]).
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use an interdigital transducer electrode aperture of the shunt resonator of claim 1 of the ’12 patent to concentrate a transverse spurious mode at one or more frequencies and increases skirt steepness of the acoustic wave filter” to provide the benefit of shifting a transverse spurious mode outside of the passband as taught by Yokoyama ([0053]).
As per claim 11, claim 11 of the application is directed to a method of using the apparatus of claim 1 of the application that is met by the function of the apparatus of claim 1, as rejected above.
As per claims 2-10 & 12-20, the ’12 patent discloses the limitations of claims 2-10 & 12-20 of the application in claims 2-10, using substantially similar language.
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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yokoyama (US PGPub 20170093372), as cited by applicant.
As per claim 1:
Yokoyama discloses in Figs. 1-4, 8 & 9:
An acoustic wave filter (ladder filter 1) comprising:
a plurality of shunt acoustic wave resonators (parallel arm resonators P1-P4) including a first shunt acoustic wave resonator (P4) having an interdigital transducer electrode aperture (region C in Fig. 1A) that concentrates a transverse spurious mode (transverse mode ripple E) at one or more frequencies; and
a plurality of series acoustic wave resonators (S1-S4), the plurality of shunt acoustic wave resonators and the plurality of series acoustic wave resonators together arranged to filter a radio frequency signal (as seen in Fig. 5).
Yokoyama does not disclose:
an interdigital transducer electrode aperture (region C in Fig. 1A) that concentrates a transverse spurious mode (transverse mode ripple E) at one or more frequencies and increases skirt steepness of the acoustic wave filter.
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use resonators similar to the resonator of P4 for parallel resonators P1-P3 to provide the benefit of increasing the top-to-valley ratio as taught by Yokoyama ([0039]).
It would be further obvious to set the distance of the overlap region so as to move the transverse mode to just outside of the edge of the passband so as to reject frequencies outside of the passband as is well understood in the art, thus increasing skirt steepness.
As per claims 2 & 12:
Yokoyama discloses in Figs. 1-4, 8 & 9:
a shunt acoustic wave resonator (P4) generates an acoustic wave having a wavelength of λ, and the interdigital transducer electrode aperture is less than 10λ ([0051]).
Yokoyama does not disclose:
the first shunt acoustic wave resonator generates an acoustic wave having a wavelength of λ, and the interdigital transducer electrode aperture is less than 10λ.
As a consequence of the combination of claim 1, the first shunt acoustic wave resonator generates an acoustic wave having a wavelength of λ, and the interdigital transducer electrode aperture is less than 10λ.
As per claims 3 & 13:
Yokoyama discloses in Figs. 1-4, 8 & 9:
an interdigital transducer electrode aperture is at least 1λ ([0051]).
Yokoyama does not disclose:
the interdigital transducer electrode aperture is at least 1λ.
As a consequence of the combination of claim 1, the interdigital transducer electrode aperture is at least 1λ.
As per claims 4 & 14:
Yokoyama discloses in Figs. 1-4, 8 & 9:
an interdigital transducer electrode aperture is less than 7λ. ([0051]).
Yokoyama does not disclose:
the interdigital transducer electrode aperture is less than 7λ.
As a consequence of the combination of claim 1, the interdigital transducer electrode aperture is less than 7λ.
As per claims 5 & 15:
Yokoyama discloses in Figs. 1-4, 8 & 9:
A shunt acoustic wave resonator having a respective interdigital transducer electrode apertures less than 10λ. ([0051]).
Yokoyama does not disclose:
the plurality of shunt acoustic wave resonators includes additional shunt acoustic wave resonators having respective interdigital transducer electrode apertures less than 10λ.
As a consequence of the combination of claim 1, the plurality of shunt acoustic wave resonators includes additional shunt acoustic wave resonators having respective interdigital transducer electrode apertures less than 10λ.
As per claim 10:
Yokoyama discloses in Figs. 1-5, 8 & 9:
an acoustic wave filter having a pass band (Fig. 5) and a resonant frequency of each shunt acoustic wave resonator.
Yokoyama does not disclose:
the acoustic wave filter has a pass band that is narrower than about 3% of a resonant frequency of the first shunt acoustic wave resonator.
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the acoustic wave filter to have a pass band that is narrower than about 3% of a resonant frequency of the first shunt acoustic wave resonator, as both the band width of the pass band and the resonant frequency of each of the shunt acoustic wave resonators are design parameters, wherein the specific pass band is set by the desired wireless standard used by the ladder filter, and the resonance of the shunt acoustic wave resonators is set by the desired area of attenuation, as is well understood in the art.
As per claim 11:
Yokoyama discloses in Figs. 1-4, 8 & 9:
A method of filtering a radio frequency signal with an acoustic wave filter (ladder filter 1), the method comprising:
receiving a radio frequency signal (input terminal 2) with a plurality of shunt acoustic wave resonators (parallel arm resonators P1-P4);
concentrating with in interdigital transducer electrode aperture (region C in Fig. 1A) of a first shunt acoustic wave resonator a transverse spurious mode (transverse mode ripple E) at one or more frequencies;
and processing the radio frequency signal with a plurality of series acoustic wave resonators (S1-S4), the plurality of shunt acoustic wave resonators and the plurality of series acoustic wave resonators together arranged to filter the radio frequency signal (being a ladder filter, and as seen in Fig. 5).
Yokoyama does not disclose:
increasing a skirt steepness of the acoustic wave filter with the transverse spurious mode;
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use resonators similar to the resonator of P4 for parallel resonators P1-P3 to provide the benefit of increasing the top-to-valley ratio as taught by Yokoyama ([0039]).
It would be further obvious to set the distance of the overlap region so as to move the transverse mode to just outside of the edge of the passband so as to reject frequencies outside of the passband as is well understood in the art, thus increasing skirt steepness.
Claim(s) 6, 8, 16, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the resultant combination of Yokoyama (US PGPub 20170093372), as cited by applicant, as applied to claims 1, 2, & 11-12 above, and further in view of Komiyama et al. (US PGPub 20190356297), as cited by applicant.
The resultant combination discloses the acoustic wave filter and method of claims 1, 2, & 11-12, as rejected above.
As per claim 6 & 16:
The resultant combination is silent regarding:
the plurality of series acoustic wave resonators each include an interdigital transducer electrode aperture of at least 15λ and no greater than 30λ.
Komiyama et al. discloses that art-known aperture lengths for resonators in a ladder filter may be in the range 25λ, with adjustments appropriately made for desired filter characteristics (paras [0042-0049]).
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious for the series acoustic wave resonators of the filter of the resultant combination to be a typical aperture length as known in the art, such as 25λ, and known in the art dimension ranges would be expected to be used by the series resonators of the resultant combination to provide the benefit of known filter behavior as taught by Komiyama et al.
As per claim 8 & 18:
The resultant combination discloses:
The first shunt acoustic wave generates an acoustic wave having a wavelength of λ, and the interdigital transducer electrode aperture is less than 7λ ([0051])..
The resultant combination is silent regarding:
the plurality of series acoustic wave resonators each include an interdigital transducer electrode aperture that is greater than an interdigital transducer electrode aperture of the first shunt acoustic wave resonator.
Komiyama et al. discloses that art-known aperture lengths for resonators in a ladder filter may be in the range 25λ, with adjustments appropriately made for desired filter characteristics (paras [0042-0049]).
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious for the series acoustic wave resonators of the filter of the resultant combination to be a typical aperture length as known in the art, such as 25λ, and known in the art dimension ranges would be expected to be used by the series resonators of the resultant combination to provide the benefit of known filter behavior as taught by Komiyama et al.
As a consequence of the combination, the plurality of series acoustic wave resonators each include an interdigital transducer electrode aperture that is greater than an interdigital transducer electrode aperture of the first shunt acoustic wave resonator (25λ vs <7λ).
Claim(s) 7, 9, 17, & 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the resultant combination of Yokoyama (US PGPub 20170093372), as cited by applicant, as applied to claims 1 & 11 above, and further in view of Lee et al. (US PGPub 20170264269).
The resultant combination discloses the acoustic wave filter and method of claims 1 & 11, as rejected above.
As per claims 7, 9, 17, & 19:
The resultant combination is silent regarding:
the first shunt acoustic wave resonator is a temperature compensated surface acoustic wave resonator without a piston mode structure.
Lee et al. discloses in Fig. 1:
Providing temperature compensation to a surface acoustic wave resonator through providing a temperature compensation layer (13) over the IDT (metal structures 12) (abstract), without adding a piston mode structure.
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the temperature compensation layer of Lee et al. to provide the benefit of temperature compensation as taught by Lee et al. (abstract)
As a consequence of the combination, the first shunt acoustic wave resonator is a temperature compensated surface acoustic wave resonator without a piston mode structure.
Conclusion
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