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)
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 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).
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).
Conclusion
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