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.
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) 1-4 & 7-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Plesski et al. (US PGPub 20210126622), a reference of record.
As per claim 1:
Plesski et al. discloses in Figs. 5 & 12:
An acoustic wave device (abstract) comprising:
a band pass filter (500) having a plurality of series resonators (X1, X3, & X5) and a plurality of parallel resonators (X2, X4); and
a first series resonator and a second series resonator which are included in the plurality of series resonators (any two of the series resonators may be selected);
wherein the first series resonator (Fig. 12 shows the resonance of an example XBAR, 1210) has a first attenuation pole and a second attenuation pole (positions 1 & 4 in annotated Fig. 12 featured below), the first attenuation pole and the second attenuation pole are configured to define attenuation characteristics of the band pass filter (by virtue of being a series resonator in bandpass filter 500, the attenuation poles define attenuation characteristics of the band pass filter) and are intentionally arranged at respective frequencies (the intentional placement of attenuation poles appears to be at best, a product-by-process limitation and as such is not given patentable weight, see MPEP §2113), the second attenuation pole has an attenuation amount that is less than or equal to half of an attenuation amount of the first attenuation pole (the attenuation at position 4 is at -40 admittance on a logarithmic scale, with position 1 approaching -80), the first series resonator has a third attenuation pole (position 2 in annotated Fig. 12 featured below) and a fourth attenuation pole (position 5 in annotated Fig. 12 featured below, or in an alternative interpretation, position 3), the third attenuation pole and the fourth attenuation pole each has an attenuation amount less than that of the first attenuation pole and greater than that of the second attenuation pole (as seen in Fig. 12).
PNG
media_image1.png
444
524
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 12 with labeled positions 1-5.
Plesski does not disclose:
the second series resonator has a third attenuation pole and a fourth attenuation pole, the third attenuation pole and the fourth attenuation pole each has an attenuation amount less than that of the first attenuation pole and greater than that of the second attenuation pole.
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the series resonators of Plesski to use the XBAR design of curve 1210 for each of the series resonators to provide the benefit of reducing the number and amplitude of spurs as taught by Plesski et al. ([0070]) and for the series resonators to have the same or substantially similar resonance frequencies and frequency admittances across the operational frequencies such that the anti-resonant frequencies are above the passband and the resonant frequencies are within the passband as is well understood in the art, and as noted by Plesski ([0049]) to provide the benefit of forming the passband of the filter.
As a consequence of the combination, the second series resonator has a third attenuation pole and a fourth attenuation pole, the third attenuation pole and the fourth attenuation pole each has an attenuation amount less than that of the first attenuation pole and greater than that of the second attenuation pole.
As per claim 2:
Plesski et al. discloses in Figs. 5 & 12:
a frequency of the second attenuation pole (position 4 in annotated Fig. 12 featured above) is between a frequency of the third attenuation pole and a frequency of the fourth attenuation pole (positions 2 & 5, respectively, in annotated Fig. 12 featured above).
Plesski et al. does not disclose the resonators X1, X3, & X5 are the same or substantially similar.
As a consequence of the combination of claim 1, a frequency of the second attenuation pole is between a frequency of the third attenuation pole and a frequency of the fourth attenuation pole.
As per claim 3:
Plesski et al. discloses in Figs. 5 & 12:
the frequency of the second attenuation pole corresponds to a frequency having the smallest attenuation amount (~-40 dB) between the frequency of the third attenuation pole (~-55 dB) and the frequency of the fourth attenuation pole (~-45 dB).
Plesski et al. does not disclose the resonators X1, X3, & X5 are the same or substantially similar.
As a consequence of the combination of claim 1, the frequency of the second attenuation pole corresponds to a frequency having the smallest attenuation amount between the frequency of the third attenuation pole and the frequency of the fourth attenuation pole.
As per claim 4:
Plesski et al. discloses in Figs. 5 & 12:
a third series resonator (another of X1, X3, & X5) which is included in the plurality of series resonators.
Plesski et al. does not disclose:
wherein the third series resonator has a fifth attenuation pole and a sixth attenuation pole having an attenuation amount that is less than or equal to half of an attenuation amount of the fifth attenuation pole and a frequency of the sixth attenuation pole is higher than frequencies of the first to the fifth attenuation poles.
As a consequence of the combination of claim 1, the third series resonator has a fifth attenuation pole (position 1 of annotated Fig. 12 above, or in the alternative, position 2) and a sixth attenuation pole (position 3 of annotated Fig. 12 above) having an attenuation amount that is less than or equal to half of an attenuation amount of the fifth attenuation pole and a frequency of the sixth attenuation pole is higher than frequencies of the first to the fifth attenuation poles, as the third series resonator is the same or substantially similar to that of the first and second series resonators as per the combination of claim 1.
As per claim 7:
Plesski et al. discloses in Figs. 5 & 12:
the plurality of series resonators and the plurality of parallel resonators are formed on a piezoelectric substrate (530).
As per claim 8:
Plesski et al. discloses in Figs. 5 & 12:
the piezoelectric substrate is a substrate formed of a single crystal of lithium tantalate or lithium niobate ([0029]).
As per claim 9:
Plesski et al. discloses in Figs. 5 & 12:
a support substrate (320, shown in related Figs. 3A-B) which is bonded to the piezoelectric substrate, wherein the support substrate is a substrate formed of sapphire, silicon, alumina, spinel, quartz or glass ([0043]).
As per claim 10:
Plesski et al. discloses in Figs. 5 & 12:
A module comprising the acoustic wave device according to claim 1 ([0006] or communication device, [0047]).
Claim(s) 5 & 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the resultant combination of Plesski et al. (US PGPub 20210126622) as applied to claims 1 & 4 above, and further in view of Mori (US PGPub 20210250111), both references of record.
The resultant combination discloses the acoustic wave device of claims 1 & 4, as rejected above.
As per claim 5:
The resultant combination does not disclose:
a second band pass filter, wherein frequencies of the second to the fourth attenuation poles are within a pass band of the second band pass filter.
Mori discloses in Figs. 1 & 3:
A first band pass filter (12) comprising the n79 passband ([0066]), and a second band pass filter (11), comprising a passband from 5150-6000 MHz (as seen in Fig. 3A).
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the band pass filter of Plesski et al. for the first band pass filter of Mori as an art-recognized, alternative/equivalent band pass filter for the n79 band ([0047] of Plesski), able to provide the same function.
As a consequence of the combination, the combination discloses a second band pass filter (passband of 5150-6000 MHz), wherein frequencies of the second to the fourth attenuation poles (the third attenuation pole and the fourth attenuation pole in the alternative, with positions of 2 and 3, respectively in annotated Fig. 12) are within a pass band of the second band pass filter (within 5150-6000 MHz as shown in Fig. 12).
As per claim 6:
The resultant combination does not disclose:
a second band pass filter, wherein frequencies of the first to the fifth attenuation poles are within a pass band of the second band pass filter.
Mori discloses in Figs. 1 & 3:
A first band pass filter (12) comprising the n79 passband ([0066]), and a second band pass filter (11), comprising a passband from 5150-6000 MHz (as seen in Fig. 3A).
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the band pass filter of Plesski et al. for the first band pass filter of Mori as an art-recognized, alternative/equivalent band pass filter for the n79 band ([0047] of Plesski), able to provide the same function.
As a consequence of the combination, the combination discloses a second band pass filter (passband of 5150-6000 MHz), wherein frequencies of the first to the fifth attenuation poles (the first attenuation pole with position 1 in annotated Fig. 12, the third attenuation pole and the fourth attenuation pole in the alternative, with positions of 2 and 3, respectively in annotated Fig. 12, and the fifth attenuation pole, with position 1 or 2, in the alternative, annotated in Fig. 12) are within a pass band of the second band pass filter (within 5150-6000 MHz as shown in Fig. 12).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/27/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In pages 5-7 of the applicant’s remarks, the applicant argues:
Without conceding the propriety of the rejection, claim 1 has been amended to recite in part "wherein the first series resonator has a first attenuation pole and a second attenuation pole, the first attenuation pole and the second attenuation pole are configured to define attenuation characteristics of the band pass filter and are intentionally arranged at respective frequencies" and "the second attenuation pole has an attenuation amount that is less than or equal to half of an attenuation amount of the first attenuation pole, the second series resonator has a third attenuation pole and a fourth attenuation pole, the third attenuation pole and the fourth attenuation pole each has an attenuation amount less than that of the first attenuation pole and greater than that of the second attenuation pole." Plesski fails to disclose or suggest at least these recitations of amended claim 1.
In rejecting previously pending claim 1, the Examiner points to annotated Fig. 12 of Plesski and argues that it shows XBAR, 1210 (compared with the "first series resonator") having position 1 and 4, which purportedly correspond to the "first attenuation pole" and the "second attenuation pole" recited in the claim. However, as shown in the chart 800 of simulated frequency versus admittance of an XBAR, Plesski's attenuation dips are merely parasitic phenomena caused by spurious modes and are targets to be suppressed, not design targets. See FIGS. 8-11 and paragraphs [0064]-[0067]. Stated differently, Plesski is directed to reducing spurious modes, and these attenuation dips are caused by such spurious phenomena. Furthermore, nowhere in Plesski discloses controlling the positions and magnitudes of the attenuation dips. Accordingly, Plesski fails to disclose or suggest "wherein the first series resonator has a first attenuation pole and a second attenuation pole, the first attenuation pole and the second attenuation pole are configured to define attenuation characteristics of the band pass filter and are intentionally arranged at respective frequencies" as recited in amended claim 1.
Moreover, in rejecting previously pending claim 1, the Examiner agrees that Plesski does not disclose "the second series resonator has a third attenuation pole and a fourth attenuation pole, the third attenuation pole and the fourth attenuation pole each has an attenuation amount less than that of the first attenuation pole and greater than that of the second attenuation pole" but instead argues that these recitations are obvious for the series resonators of Plesski. However, Plesski nowhere targets, or even discusses the relative magnitudes of its spurious dips as design parameters. The magnitudes of the spurious features visible in Figure 12 are merely incidental consequences of electrode geometry selected to minimize spurious modes generally. They are not chosen to satisfy any relational constraint. Plesski has no concept of relative magnitudes of attenuation of the attenuation poles, relative positional relationships among the attenuation poles, or even the intentional arrangement of the attenuation poles. Therefore, Plesski fails to disclose or suggest "the second attenuation pole has an attenuation amount that is less than or equal to half of an attenuation amount of the first attenuation pole, the second series resonator has a third attenuation pole and a fourth attenuation pole, the third attenuation pole and the fourth attenuation pole each has an attenuation amount less than that of the first attenuation pole and greater than that of the second attenuation pole" recited in claim 1.
Again, Plesski's disclosure relates to suppressing spurious modes, which typically have low predictability and poor reproductivity. A person skilled in the art would not consider utilizing spurious phenomena, which are to be suppressed, for filter design. Therefore, there is no motivation to construct relationships among attenuation poles based on such phenomena.
Plesski fail to disclose or suggest "wherein the first series resonator has a first attenuation pole and a second attenuation pole, the first attenuation pole and the second attenuation pole are configured to define attenuation characteristics of the band pass filter and are intentionally arranged at respective frequencies" and "the second attenuation pole has an attenuation amount that is less than or equal to half of an attenuation amount of the first attenuation pole, the second series resonator has a third attenuation pole and a fourth attenuation pole, the third attenuation pole and the fourth attenuation pole each has an attenuation amount less than that of the first attenuation pole and greater than that of the second attenuation pole" as recited in amended claim 1.
For at least these reasons, amended claim 1 is patentable over Plesski. Reconsideration and withdrawal of the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claim 1 is respectfully requested.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. The applicant appears to argue that the attenuation poles identified by the examiner for meeting the limitations of claim 1 are “merely parasitic phenomena” and “not design targets.” As such, the applicant appears to argue that the limitations of "the second attenuation pole has an attenuation amount that is less than or equal to half of an attenuation amount of the first attenuation pole, the second series resonator has a third attenuation pole and a fourth attenuation pole, the third attenuation pole and the fourth attenuation pole each has an attenuation amount less than that of the first attenuation pole and greater than that of the second attenuation pole" are not met. The examiner has identified attenuation poles 1-5 in annotated Fig. 12, as per the rejection of claim 1 above. While characterizing the attenuation poles identified by the examiner as “merely parasitic phenomena,” the applicant does not appear to argue that examiner incorrectly identifies attenuation poles, thus appearing the concede that the examiner identified attenuation poles 1-5 are, in fact attenuation poles. The applicant further argues that the attenuation poles are not design targets, and thus do not meet the limitations of claim 1. The examiner notes that claim 1 is an apparatus claim, wherein the limitations cite attenuation poles. Furthermore, the examiner has made no changes in the obviousness conclusion to the attenuation values of the attenuation poles, and as such has not constructed relationships that would not be present from the combination, as the applicant’s arguments appear to imply. The applicant has amended claim 1 to include the language of “the first attenuation pole and the second attenuation pole … are intentionally arranged at respective frequencies.” This limitation requiring intentional arrangement is a product-by-process limitation (See MPEP §2113), and does not impose structure on the invention, such that the requirement of intentional arrangement does not carry patentable weight. Applicant’s arguments against Plesski not disclosing the intentional placement of the attenuation poles is therefore not persuasive. Furthermore, the relational attenuation values of the attenuation poles is a consequence of the combination, where the attenuation poles identified by the examiner are in each resonator, thereby meeting the limitations of "the second attenuation pole has an attenuation amount that is less than or equal to half of an attenuation amount of the first attenuation pole, the second series resonator has a third attenuation pole and a fourth attenuation pole, the third attenuation pole and the fourth attenuation pole each has an attenuation amount less than that of the first attenuation pole and greater than that of the second attenuation pole," as required in claim 1. It should be further noted that applicant’s amendment of claim 1 with the limitation of “the first attenuation pole and the second attenuation pole are configured to define attenuation characteristics of the band pass filter” is inherently met, as the first series resonator featuring the first and second attenuation poles is a series resonator in the band pass filter, and thus define attenuation characteristics of the filter, as is well understood in the art and rejected above.
Arguments pertaining to claims 2-10 are based on the arguments addressed above, and are therefore not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive, and the rejections of claims 1-10 are sustained.
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 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
Prosecution Insights