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.
Claims 1-6, 10-12 and 18-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ono (US 20170331456) in view of Iwaki et al. (US 9742377).
As to claim 1, Ono’s figures 1 and 4 show an acoustic wave device comprising: a first filter (30); a second filter (32); a ground terminal (Pg1); a common terminal (N2) connected to an output side of the first filter and an input side of the second filter; a first filter terminal connected to an input side of the first filter; a second filter terminal connected to an output side of the second filter; and an ultrasonic delay structure (coupled resonator 22). The figure fails to show the structure of the ultrasonic delay as claimed. However, Iwaki et al.’s figure 12D shows a compact coupled/connected resonator (col. 8, lines 1-9). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to use Iwaki et al.’s coupled resonator for Ono et al.’s coupled resonator for the purpose of saving space. Therefore, the modified Ono’s figures show an ultrasonic delay structure (upper electrodes 16b in Iwaki et al.’s coupled resonator) consisting of three electrodes, the three electrodes including a ground electrode (middle upper electrode 16b) connected to a ground metal body comprising the ground terminal or a wiring connected to the ground terminal; an input side ultrasonic delay electrode(leftmost upper electrode 16b) connected to an input side metal body arranged in parallel with the ground electrode on one side of the ground electrode and includes the first filter terminal or a wiring connected to the first filter terminal; and an output side ultrasonic delay electrode (rightmost upper electrode 16b) connected to an output side metal body arranged in parallel with the ground electrode on another side of the ground electrode and includes the common terminal or a wiring connected to the common terminal.
As to claim 2, Ono’s figure 13 further shows an acoustic wave device comprising: a first filter (30); a second filter (32); a ground terminal (Pg1); a common terminal (N1) connected to an output side of the first filter and an input side of the second filter; a first filter terminal connected to an input side of the first filter; a second filter terminal connected to an output side of the second filter; a ground electrode (in 20 that comprises ground electrode finger, see the rejection of claim 1 for the layout of 22) connected to a ground metal body comprising the ground terminal or a wiring connected to the ground terminal; an input side ultrasonic delay electrode connected to an input side metal body arranged in parallel with the ground electrode on one side of the ground electrode and includes the common terminal or a wiring connected to the common terminal; and an output side ultrasonic delay electrode connected to an output side metal body arranged in parallel with the ground electrode on another side of the ground electrode and includes the second filter terminal or a wiring connected to the second filter terminal.
As to claim 3, Ono’s figure 21a further shows an acoustic wave device comprising: a first filter (30); a second filter (32); a ground terminal (Pg1); a common terminal (coupled to Ant) connected to an output side of the first filter and an input side of the second filter; a first filter terminal connected to an input side of the first filter; a second filter terminal connected to an output side of the second filter; a ground electrode (in 20 that comprises ground electrode finger, see the rejection of claim 1 for the layout of the modified 22) connected to a ground metal body comprising the ground terminal or a wiring connected to the ground terminal; an input side ultrasonic delay electrode connected to an input side metal body arranged in parallel with the ground electrode on one side of the ground electrode and includes the first filter terminal or a wiring connected to the first filter terminal; and an output side ultrasonic delay electrode connected to an output side metal body arranged in parallel with the ground electrode on another side of the ground electrode and includes the second filter terminal or a wiring connected to the second filter terminal.
As to claims 4-6, Ono’s figures show that the input side ultrasonic delay electrode and the output side ultrasonic delay electrode are formed so that longitudinal direction thereof is orthogonal to the propagation direction of a wave which is the main mode of the first filter or the second filter.
As to claims 10-12, the figures show that the ground electrode, the input side ultrasonic delay electrode and the output side ultrasonic delay electrode are formed as a unit ultrasonic delay line comprising ultrasonic delay function.
As to claims 18-20, the figures show that one end and the other end of the ground electrode are respectively connected to the ground metal body.
As to claims 21-23, the figures show a surface wave absorber (reflectors on two ends of 22) adjacent to the input side ultrasonic delay electrode or the output side ultrasonic delay electrode.
Claims 7-9 and 15-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ono (US 20170331456) in view of Iwaki et al. (US 9742377) and Takahashi (US 20180131348).
As to claims 7-9, the modified Ono’s figures fail to show that a pitch of wavelength from the input side ultrasonic delay electrode to the output side ultrasonic delay electrode is formed so as to be 0.5 to 1 times the pitch of wavelengths of the wave in the main mode of the first filter or second filter. However, Takahashi’s figure 11 shows a similar ultrasonic delay that a pitch of wavelength from the input side ultrasonic delay electrode to the output side ultrasonic delay electrode is formed so as to be 0.5 to 1 times the pitch of 1 wavelengths of the wave in the main mode of the first filter or second filter (see figure 10). Therefore, selecting the pitch as claimed is seen as an obvious design preference to ensure optimum performance, MPEP 2144.05.
As to claims 15-17, the selecting the dimensions of the ultrasonic delay electrode such that the ground electrode, the input side ultrasonic delay electrode and the output side ultrasonic delay electrode are formed so as that a phase of a high-frequency signal passing through the output side metal body is delayed by an angle of an integral multiple of 360 degree and an angle of between 95 degrees and 265 degrees with respect to a phase of a high frequency signal passing through the input side metal body is seen as an obvious design preference to ensure optimum performance.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 24 and 25 are allowed.
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, Lincoln Donovan 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.
/QUAN TRA/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2842