DETAILED ACTION
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted 11/26/2025 and 12/30/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 2/19/2026 (“Amendment”) has been entered. The applicant has amended claims 1, 3, 13, 14 and 20 and has cancelled claim 5. Claims 1-4, 6-20 remain pending in the application. The amendments of claims 1, 3, 13, 14 and 20 have overcome the 103 rejections set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 11/28/2025 (“FAOM”), which are hereby withdrawn. The cancellation of claim 5 renders moot the objection to the drawings and the rejections of claim 5.
Response to Argument
Applicant's arguments, pages 8-13 of the Amendment, with respect to the rejections of claim 8 have been fully considered but found not persuasive.
Claim 8 was rejected under 35 U.S.C.§ 112(a) and 112(b) because the terms “c-type piezoelectric layer” and “f-type piezoelectric layer” are not described or defined in the specification and are not common terms readily understood by one of ordinary skill in the art, particularly when used as in this claim (FAOM at 4-5).
In response to the 112(a) rejection, the applicant argues (Amendment at 8-9):
In a non-limiting example, “the first piezoelectric layer 48 can be a c-type piezoelectric layer and the second piezoelectric layer 50 can be an f-type piezoelectric layer.” Application, ¶0035. As such, Applicant respectfully maintains claim 8 is supported by the description and complies with complies with [sic] 35 U.S.C.§ 112(a).
The examiner respectfully disagrees. The solitary quote from paragraph 35 of the specification merely repeats the claim language and at most provides an antecedent basis for the claim language, but still does not define or describes the terms, as required by 35 U.S.C.§ 112(a). Contrary to the applicant’s argument, these terms are not common terms readily understood by one of ordinary skill in the art, particularly when used as in this claim (FAOM at 3-5).
In response to the 112(b) rejection, the applicant argues (Amendment at 9):
Applicant respectfully submits the meaning of “c-type piezoelectric layer” and “f-type piezoelectric layer” are well-known to persons skilled in the field of acoustic filters. As an example, according to Google Gemini, the “terms c-type and f-type generally refer to the crystalline orientation or the doping characteristics of the piezoelectric thin films.” “The c-type designation typically refers to c-axis oriented piezoelectric films.” “The f-type designation is increasingly used in industry to describe ferroelectric or Scandium-doped (ScAIN) layers.”
The examiner respectfully disagrees. The applicant’s reliance on Google Gemini is not persuasive for at least the following reasons:
First, the applicant does not provide any acceptable evidence pre-dating or contemporaneous with the effective filing date of the application (June 6, 2023), supporting the argument. Just because an AI platform, which was apparently released after the effective filing date, can provide a particular definition of a term does not mean that (a) the definition existed in the relevant time frame and (b) it was “well-known to persons skilled in the field of acoustic filters.”
Second, the undated and unsupported “definitions” of “c-type piezoelectric material” and “f-type piezoelectric material” provided by Google Gemini differ, for example, from the descriptions of these terms found in another patent application by the named inventor PGPUB 20230412149, published 12/21/2023:
Initially note that a resonator may be based on an aluminum nitride (AlN) material although other materials may also be used. A resonator may be a positive polarity acoustic material that, when a positive radio frequency (RF) voltage is placed across the terminals of a thin piezoelectric, results in a compression in the acoustic thickness of the piezo-material. This material is generally called a c-type piezoelectric material. Likewise, applying a negative voltage to the material results in an expansion of the thickness of the piezo-material. An inverted polarity piezoelectric does the opposite where positive voltage results in expansion and negative voltage results in compression. This material is generally called an f-type piezoelectric material. Note that AlN can be both an f-type and a c-type material. (Fig. 1, ¶¶34-35).
Because these terms were not described or defined in the application, the examiner had to rely on the above description for examination purposes (FAOM at 5). The applicant has not raised any issues with this approach. But even the above description does not appear common or well-known in the art, which renders claim 8 indefinite.
For the foregoing reasons, the 112(a) and 112(b) rejections of claim 8 are maintained, as set forth below.
The Amendment is not fully responsive to the FAOM because the applicant has failed to respond properly to the provisional double patenting rejection (FAOM at 5-7). According to the MPEP:
A complete response to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection is either a reply by applicant showing that the claims subject to the rejection are patentably distinct from the reference claims, or the filing of a terminal disclaimer in accordance with 37 CFR 1.321 in the pending application(s) with a reply to the Office action (see MPEP § 1490 for a discussion of terminal disclaimers). Such a response is required even when the nonstatutory double patenting rejection is provisional.
MPEP 804.I.B.1 (emphasis added). Rather then providing a complete response, the applicant has deliberately chosen to “reserve the right to file a Terminal Disclaimer or otherwise address the rejection” (Amendment at 9-10). Such a response is not proper.
Since the period for reply set forth in the prior Office action has expired, this application will become abandoned unless applicant corrects the deficiency and obtains an extension of time under 37 CFR 1.136(a).
The date on which the petition under 37 CFR 1.136(a) and the appropriate nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) have been filed is the date for purposes of determining the period of extension and the corresponding amount of the fee. In no case may an applicant reply outside the SIX (6) MONTH statutory period or obtain an extension for more than FIVE (5) MONTHS beyond the date for reply set forth in an Office action. A fully responsive reply must be timely filed to avoid abandonment of this application.
Accordingly, the provisional double-patenting rejection of claims 12-13 is maintained, as set forth below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The text of those sections of Title 35 not included in this action can be found in the FAOM.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 8 recites “the tunable CRF structure of claim 7, wherein the first piezoelectric layer is a c-type piezoelectric layer, and the second piezoelectric layer is an f-type piezoelectric layer.” The terms “c-type piezoelectric layer” and “f-type piezoelectric layer” are not described or defined in the specification. These terms are not common terms readily understood by one of ordinary skill in the art, particularly when recited as in this claim because “c-type” generally describes a cubic crystal system, while “f-type” generally describes an arrangement of lattice points within a crystal system (cubic, tetragonal, orthorhombic, and so on).
For examination purposes, these terms will be understood to mean “c-type piezoelectric material” and “f-type piezoelectric material,” as those are defined in another patent application by the named inventor (PGPUB 20230412149, ¶34).
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 8 recites “the tunable CRF structure of claim 7, wherein the first piezoelectric layer is a c-type piezoelectric layer, and the second piezoelectric layer is an f-type piezoelectric layer.” It is unclear what the terms “c-type piezoelectric layer” and “f-type piezoelectric layer” actually mean because they are not described or defined in the specification. These terms are not common terms readily understood by one of ordinary skill in the art, particularly when recited as in this claim because “c-type” generally describes a cubic crystal system, while “f-type” generally describes an arrangement of lattice points within a crystal system (cubic, tetragonal, orthorhombic, and so on).
For examination purposes, these terms will be understood to mean “c-type piezoelectric material” and “f-type piezoelectric material,” respectively, as those are defined in another patent application by the named inventor (PGPUB 20230412149, ¶34).
Appropriate correction is required.
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 12-13 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 13, 17-18 of co-pending Application No. 18/747,555 (“Reference Application”). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the identified claims of the reference application recite substantially the same limitations recited in the identified claims of the present application. The following chart identifies which claims from the present application correspond to conflicting claims of the reference application.
Present Application
Reference Application
12
13, 17
13
18
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented. The identified claims of the reference application recite additional limitation(s) and therefore meet the identified claims of the present application under an “anticipation” analysis in a provisional obviousness-type double patenting rejection.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-4, 6-7, 9-11 and 20 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: applicant’s amendments of claims 1, 11 and 20 overcome the closest prior art references of Sinha (PGPUB 2009/0289526) and Maruthamuthu (PGPUB 20150333401), both of record, by requiring the feature of "a ferroelectric coupling layer configured to be polarized relative to the ferroelectric input shunt resonator and the ferroelectric output shunt resonator to thereby modify the parallel resonance frequency to prevent a secondary frequency caused by an electrical-static capacitance of the ferroelectric series resonator from overlapping with the parallel resonance frequency," in combination with the remaining limitations of the respective claims.
Claims 2-4, 6-7, 9-10 are allowable as dependent on the allowable claims.
Claim 8 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112 set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claims and any intervening claims.
Claims 14-19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 VICTOR COLE, telephone number (571) 272-4686. The examiner can be reached Monday-Friday, 9AM-5PM ET.
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 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 www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and 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.
/VICTOR COLE/
Examiner, Art Unit 2843
/ANDREA LINDGREN BALTZELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2843