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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: Paragraph [0078] recited “105A” but such reference is not labeled in none of the figures. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The examiner suggests in Paragraph [0054], line 1, rewriting “U.S. Patent Application No._______” to --U.S. Patent No. 18/673,896-- to provide the patent application number of the related case.
The examiner suggests the following changes below to provide consistency between the drawings reference numbers and the specification:
Paragraphs [0077]-[0078], rewriting each instance of “125m” to --125-- and;
Paragraphs [0077]-[0078], rewriting each instance of “125p” to --125--.
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 1-3, 12, 16 and 18 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 3, 14 and 19 of co-pending application 18/673,896.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
As set forth below, the chart identifies which claims from the current application corresponds to conflicting claims found in the co-pending application
Current Application
Co-pending Application 18/673,896
1
3
2
3
3
3
12
3
16
14
18
19
As disclosed in the chart above, the co-pending claims 3, 14 and 19 substantially recite the same limitations recited in claims 1-3, 12, 16 and 18 of the current application as listed above. However, the following differences between the co-pending application and the current application claims are present as set forth below:
The co-pending application claims 3, 14 and 19 recites the additional limitation of “a packing structure having a coefficient of thermal expansion greater than 0 ppm/°C and equal to or less than 35 ppm/°C”.
Therefore, claims 3, 14 and 19 of the co-pending application meets claims 1-3, 12, 16 and 18 of the present application under an “anticipation” analysis in an obviousness-type double patenting rejection.
Claim Objections
Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informality:
Claim 19, line 1, the examiner suggests rewriting “claim 18further” to --claim 18 further-- to correct an obvious typographical error.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 5-9, 12 and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Goto et al. (US2022/0158612 A1, cited by applicant).
In regards to claim 1, Goto et al. teaches in Fig. 3 a packaged acoustic wave component comprising:
A wafer level packaging structure (210) having a shield structure base (216);
A multi-layer piezoelectric substrate including a piezoelectric layer (242) and a support substrate (246), a difference between a coefficient of thermal expansion of the shield structure base (216) and a coefficient of thermal expansion of the support substrate (246) being 13 ppm/deg or less (based on Paragraph [0048], both the shield structure base 216 and the support substrate 246 have the same thickness, TT3=TB3, and are made from the same material, therefore have the same coefficient of thermal explanation, hence a difference between the coefficient of thermal expansion of both layers will be equal to 0 which is 13 ppm/deg or less); and
An interdigital transducer electrode (248) in electrical communication with the piezoelectric layer.
In regards to claim 2, as discussed above, the difference between the coefficient of thermal expansion of the shield structure base and the coefficient of thermal expansion of the support substrate is zero, therefore a difference between the coefficient of thermal expansion of both layers will be 10 ppm/deg or less.
In regards to claim 3, as discussed above, the difference between the coefficient of thermal expansion of the shield structure base and the coefficient of thermal expansion of the support substrate is zero, therefore a difference between the coefficient of thermal expansion of both layers will be 4 ppm/deg or less.
In regards to claim 5, based on Paragraph [0049], the support substrate (246) is made from sapphire which inherently has a coefficient of thermal expansion of 6.8 ppm/deg (see evidence Reference #1 in the conclusion section below for proof of inherency), in which 6.8 ppm/deg is a value between 3.5 ppm/deg and 24 ppm /deg.
In regards to claim 6, based on Paragraph [0049], the support substrate (246) is made from sapphire which inherently has a coefficient of thermal expansion of 6.8 ppm/deg (see evidence Reference #1 in the conclusion section below for proof of inherency), in which 6.8 ppm/deg is a value between 4 ppm/deg and 20 ppm /deg.
In regards to claim 7, based on Paragraph [0049], the support substrate (246) includes sapphire.
In regards to claim 8, based on Paragraph [0037], the piezoelectric layer (242) includes lithium tantalate.
In regards to claim 9, based on Paragraph [0037], the piezoelectric layer includes (242) lithium niobate.
In regards to claim 12, based on Paragraph [0049], the support substrate (246) includes quartz.
In regards to claim 15, based on Fig. 3, the wafer level packaging structure further includes a pillar (via pillar 222) between the multi-layer piezoelectric substrate (240) and at least a portion of the shield structure base (216).
In regards to claim 16, Goto et al. teaches in Figs. 9 and 13A a radio frequency module with a packaged acoustic wave component (Fig. 9, 176) used in a RF front end (Fig. 13A: 422), which based on Paragraph [0067] and related Fig. 3, the package acoustic wave component comprises:
A wafer level packaging structure (210) having a shield structure base (216);
A multi-layer piezoelectric substrate including a piezoelectric layer (242) and a support substrate (246), a difference between a coefficient of thermal expansion of the shield structure base (216) and a coefficient of thermal expansion of the support substrate (246) being 13 ppm/deg or less (based on Paragraph [0048], both the shield structure base 216 and the support substrate 246 have the same thickness, TT3=TB3, and are made from the same material, therefore have the same coefficient of thermal explanation, hence a difference between the coefficient of thermal expansion of both layers will be equal to 0 which is 13 ppm/deg or less); and
An interdigital transducer electrode (248) in electrical communication with the piezoelectric layer.
In regards to claim 17, based on Fig. 13A, the radio frequency module is configured as a front-end module (422).
In regards to claim 18, Goto et al. teaches in Figs. 9 and 13A a wireless communication device comprising: a radio frequency module (Fig. 9, 176) used in a RF front end (Fig. 13A: 422) having an antenna (Fig 13A: 421) operatively coupled to the radio frequency module. Based on Paragraph [0067] and related Fig. 3, the package acoustic wave component comprises:
A wafer level packaging structure (210) having a shield structure base (216);
A multi-layer piezoelectric substrate including a piezoelectric layer (242) and a support substrate (246), a difference between a coefficient of thermal expansion of the shield structure base (216) and a coefficient of thermal expansion of the support substrate (246) being 13 ppm/deg or less (based on Paragraph [0048], both the shield structure base 216 and the support substrate 246 have the same thickness, TT3=TB3, and are made from the same material, therefore have the same coefficient of thermal explanation, hence a difference between the coefficient of thermal expansion of both layers will be equal to 0 which is 13 ppm/deg or less); and
An interdigital transducer electrode (248) in electrical communication with the piezoelectric layer.
In regards to claim 19, based on related Fig. 12A, a radio frequency amplifier (412) is operatively coupled to the radio frequency module and configured to amplify a radio frequency signal.
In regards to claim 20, based on Fig. 13A, a transceiver (424) is in communication with the radio frequency amplifier which is part of the RF front end (422).
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.
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goto et al. (US2022/0158612 A1, cited by applicant) in view of Yamane et al. (US2022/0216845 A1).
As discussed above, Goto et al. teaches the claimed invention as recited in claim 1. However, as discussed above, Goto et al. teaches wherein the support substrate and shield structure base includes sapphire or quartz, therefore does not teach; in regards to claim 10, wherein the support substrate includes glass; and in regards to claim 11, wherein the support substrate includes spinel.
Yamane et al. teaches in Fig. 2 a packaged acoustic wave component comprising a plurality of interdigital transducer electrodes (RS3 and RS4) located above a support substrate (2). Based on paragraph [0046], the support substrate can either be sapphire, quartz, glass or spinel.
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the invention of Goto et al. and have replaced the sapphire or quartz material of both the support substrate and shield structure based material of Goto et al. with either glass or spinel because such a modification would have been a well-known in the art substitution of art-recognized alternative/equivalent for a support substrate/shield structure based material that able to perform the same function as taught by Yamane et al. (see paragraph [0046]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 13 and 14 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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Evidence Reference #1: Song et al. (US2025/0294839 A1) discloses in Paragraph [0018] that sapphire inherently has a coefficient of thermal expansion of 6.8 ppm/deg.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JORGE L SALAZAR JR whose telephone number is (571)-272-9326. The examiner can normally be reached between 9am - 6pm Monday-Friday.
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 on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JORGE L SALAZAR JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2843