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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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, 5-6, 13-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Komatsu et al. (US 20140144237) in view of Ianelli et al. (US 6788204).
As to claim 1, Komatsu et al.’s figures 1A and 1B show a piezoelectric isolator, comprising: a substrate (602) comprising a piezoelectric material; a piezoelectric transmitter (603) disposed on the substrate; a piezoelectric receiver (604) disposed on the substrate, wherein the piezoelectric transmitter is acoustically coupled to the piezoelectric receiver at least partially through the piezoelectric material; and a dielectric material region (606) disposed between the piezoelectric transmitter and the piezoelectric receiver, wherein: the piezoelectric material has a first dielectric strength, and the dielectric material region has a second dielectric strength greater than the first dielectric strength (¶0058 and ¶0060 teach similar materials with Applicant’s piezoelectric material and dielectric material). The figures fail to show a first circuit included in or electrically coupled to the piezoelectric transmitter (it is inherent that the transmitter receives signal from a not shown driver) is galvanically isolated from a second circuit included in or electrically coupled to the piezoelectric receiver (it is inherent that the receiver provides signal to a not shown load), the first circuit and the second circuit are configured to operate at different reference voltage levels. However, Ianelli et al.’s figure 11 shows a similar device that its first circuit (Chirp Pulse Generator) included in or electrically coupled to the piezoelectric transmitter (16) is galvanically isolated from a second circuit (Zload) included in or electrically coupled to the piezoelectric receiver (9). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to galvanically isolate the not shown driver and not shown load in Komatsu et al.’s figures for the purpose of achieving desired output signal amplitude and reducing interference. Ianelli et al.’s figures further shows that the first circuit (16) and the second circuit (9) are configured to operate at different reference voltage levels (see figures 11b and 11c). Therefore, one skilled in the art would have configure Komatsu et al.’s first circuit and the second circuit to be operate at different reference voltage levels for the purpose of achieving desired output voltage and amplitude.
As to claim 2, Komatsu et al.’s figure fails to show that the dielectric material region has a thickness that is between 1 micron and 5 microns. However, selecting the thickness as claimed is seen as an obvious design preference to ensure optimum performance, MPEP 2144.05.
As to claim 3, ¶0060 teaches that the dielectric material region comprises silicon dioxide (SiO2).
As to claim 5, ¶0058 teaches that the piezoelectric material is made of lithium niobate or zinc oxide or gallium nitride or aluminum nitride or lithium tantalate or quartz.
As to claim 6, the figure shows that the piezoelectric transmitter comprises a first interdigitated transducer (IDT) and the piezoelectric receiver comprises a second IDT.
Claims 13-20 recite similar limitations in claims above. Therefore, they are rejected for the same reasons.
Claim(s) 4 and 11-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Komatsu et al. (US 20140144237) in view of Ianelli et al. (US 6788204) and Kogai et al. (JP 2011180036 A).
As to claim 4, the modified Komatsu et al.’s figure fails to show that the dielectric material region comprises a well formed into the piezoelectric material. However, Kogai et al.’s figures show a similar device that its transmission region 14 is well formed into the piezoelectric material (11). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to form Komatsu et al.’s 606 into the piezoelectric material for the purpose of saving space and achieving optimum performance.
As to claim 11, Komatsu et al.’s figure shows that the piezoelectric transmitter defines a primary axis of acoustic propagation that is parallel to a direction of maximum piezoelectric coupling of the substrate (similar device, similar operations).
As to claim 12, Komatsu et al.’s figure shows that the substrate defines a direction of maximum piezoelectric coupling of the substrate and the piezoelectric transmitter defines a primary axis of acoustic propagation, wherein the direction of maximum piezoelectric coupling and the primary axis of acoustic propagation are transverse relative to one another.
Claims 13-20 recite similar limitations in claims above. Therefore, they are rejected for the same reasons.
Claim(s) 7-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Komatsu et al. (US 20140144237) in view of Ianelli et al. (US 6788204) and Onishi et al. (US 5721519).
As to claim 7, Komatsu et al.’s figure fails to show an acoustic reflector, wherein the piezoelectric transmitter is disposed between the acoustic reflector and the piezoelectric receiver. However, Onishi et al.’s figure 4 shows a similar device that transmitter resonator and receiver resonator arranged within reflectors 14 in order to reduce noise. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to arrange Komatsu et al.’s transmitter and receiver within reflectors for the purpose of reducing noise. Therefore, the modified Komatsu et al.’s figure further shows an acoustic reflector (Onishi et al.’s left 14), wherein the piezoelectric transmitter is disposed between the acoustic reflector and the piezoelectric receiver.
As to claim 8, the modified Komatsu et al.’s figure shows an acoustic absorber (Onishi et al.’s right 14), wherein the piezoelectric receiver is disposed between the acoustic absorber and the piezoelectric transmitter.
As to claim 9, Komatsu et al.’s figure fails to show that the piezoelectric transmitter is a first piezoelectric transmitter, and wherein the piezoelectric isolator further comprises a second piezoelectric transmitter. However, Onishi et al.’s figure 6 shows a receive resonator 2 arranged between two transmit resonators 1 and 10. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to further add another piezoelectric resonator coupled to the current piezoelectric receiver of Komatsu et al. device for the purpose of converting differential signal to single ended signal.
As to claim 10, the modified Komatsu et al.’s figure shows the piezoelectric receiver is disposed between the first piezoelectric transmitter and the second piezoelectric transmitter (see Onishi et al.’s figure 6).
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