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 Objections
Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informality:
Claim 20, line 8, the examiner suggests rewriting “the at least one switch unit” to --the switch unit-- to provide consistency in the claim language (see claim 20, line 5).
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 (New)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 14 depends from cancel claimed 12, therefore causes the claim to be indefinite. Correction is required. For the purpose of examination, the examiner will interpret that claim 14 depends from claim 11.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 (Maintained)
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 11, 14-17, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mori et al. (USPAT 10,886,886 B2, Reference of Record).
In regards to claims 11 and 14, Mori et al. teaches in Figs. 1A and 1B a high-frequency filter device, comprising:
A signal input (101) which is configured to receive a high-frequency radio frequency signal;
A plurality of filter units (110 and 120) which are configured to filter the high-frequency signal received by the signal input; and
At least one switch unit (MEMS switch SW11 and SW12, see column 12, lines 41-44), which can be actuated by a switch signal (see Column 12, lines 61-65, in which the switch signal is created by an external RFIC) in order to modify a filter characteristic of the high-frequency filter device by connecting the filter units (See Related Fig. 1E, which based on the switch condition/position, a desired passband is selected);
A signal output (102), which is configured to output the filtered high-frequency signal;
Although not explicitly stated, the MEMS switch unit will necessarily be actuated electrostatically and/or piezoelectrically by the switch signal (i.e. only available options); and
Based on Column 11, lines 57-61, the plurality of filter units are surface acoustic wave resonators (SAW), therefore the MEMS switch unit (SW11 and SW12, which will each necessarily include at least one metal electrode layer) will include a same material (i.e. metal layer) as a layer of the filter units since a SAW resonator will also necessarily include a metal layer on a surface of a piezoelectric layer.
In regards to claim 15, based on related Fig. 1E, the modified filter characteristic is at least one of a passband width of the high-frequency filter device.
In regards to claim 16, based on Column 12, lines 61-65, a control line is configured to receive an externally generated switch signal from an RFIC to transmit it to the switch unit for actuating the switch unit.
In regards to claim 17, based on Column 11, lines 57-61, each of the filter units includes at least one of surface acoustic wave resonator.
In regards to claim 19, Mori et al. teaches in Figs. 1A and 1B a high-frequency module, comprising:
at least one high-frequency filter device (11) including:
A signal input (101) which is configured to receive a high-frequency radio frequency signal, a plurality of filter units (110 and 120) which are configured to filter the high-frequency signal received by the signal input, and at least one switch unit (MEMS switch SW11 and SW12, see column 12, lines 41-44), which can be actuated by a switch signal (see Column 12, lines 61-65, in which the switch signal is created by an external RFIC) in order to modify a filter characteristic of the high-frequency filter device by connecting the filter units (See Related Fig. 1E, which based on the switch condition/position, a desired passband is selected) and a signal output (102), which is configured to output the filtered high-frequency signal;
A control unit (see Column 12, lines 61-65, RFIC) configured to actuate the switch unit of the high-frequency filter device using the switch signal; and
Although not explicitly stated, the MEMS switch unit will necessarily be actuated electrostatically and/or piezoelectrically by the switch signal (i.e. only available options).
In regards to claim 20, Mori et al. teaches in Figs. 1A and 1B A high-frequency filter method, comprising the following steps:
receiving a high-frequency signal from at input port (101);
Filtering the high-frequency signal using a plurality of filter units (110 and 120); and
Outputting the filtered high-frequency signal via output port (102); wherein, by actuating a switch (MEMS switch SW11 and SW12, see column 12, lines 41-44) unit by a switch signal (see Column 12, lines 61-65, in which the switch signal is created by an external RFIC), the filter units are connected in such a way that a filter characteristic of the high-frequency filter device is modified (See Related Fig. 1E, which based on the switch condition/position, a desired passband is selected); and
Although not explicitly stated, the MEMS switch unit will necessarily be actuated electrostatically and/or piezoelectrically by the switch signal (i.e. only available options).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 (Maintained)
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.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mori et al. (USPAT 10,886,886 B2, Reference of Record) in view of Takai et al. (USPAT 10,491,187 B2, Reference of Record).
As discussed above, Mori et al. teaches the claimed invention as recited in claim 11. However, the surface acoustic wave resonators of the filter units are generic, therefore Mori et al. does not teach: in regards to claim 18, wherein each of the filter units has a piezo element configured as a multi-layer piezo stack.
Takai et al. teaches in Fig. 1 a surface acoustic wave resonator comprising an interdigital electrode (6) located on a multilayer-piezo stack (combined layers of 2, 3 and 4).
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to because to have modified the invention of Mori et al. and have replaced each of the generic surface acoustic wave resonators with the specific surface acoustic wave resonator of Takai et al. (See Fig. 1) because such a modification would have been a well-known in the art substitution of art-recognized alternative/equivalent for a surface acoustic wave resonator that able to perform the same function.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/30/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 5, the applicant made the remark that the subject matter of claims 12 and 13 were added to each of the independent claims 11, 19 and 20 and stated:
In contrast, nowhere do the cited references disclose or suggest this feature. For example, Mori et al. may disclose a mechanical switch constituted by MEMS, but nowhere do Mori et al. disclose or suggest how the MEMS switches are actuated, any electrode composition, or any relationship to the filter material.
The examiner finds this remark unpersuasive. As discussed above, Mori et al. teaches that the switch unit is formed by MEMS switches, in which a MEMS switch must necessarily be actuated electrostatically and/or piezoelectrically by the switch signal, since those are the only two available options to actuate a MEMS switch. Furthermore, as stated above, Mori et al. teaches that the filter uses surface acoustic wave resonators which includes a metal, and the MEMS switch unit will also include a metal (i.e. both uses a metal, note that the claim doesn’t recite a specific type of material). Therefore, the examiner has maintained the rejection of record. Note that a new rejection of record has been made under 35 USC 112(b) for claim 14, which was necessitated by amendment.
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 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