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
Claims 1, 2, 4, 6-8 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 3; claims 2, 4 and 6, line 2 of each claim; claim 7, lines 2 and 4; and claim 8, lines 2-3: at each instance, the examiner suggests rewriting “the acoustic wave resonator” to --the at least one acoustic wave resonator-- to provide consistency in the claim language.
Claim 1, line 13, the examiner suggests replacing the period “.” with a semicolon --;-- so that the claim includes the recited formula (1) and (2) recited below this line.
Claim 1, line 16, the examiner suggests inserting a period --.-- after the recitation of “(2)” to properly end the claim.
Claim 2, lines 3-4, the examiner suggests rewriting “by using main resonance of the first acoustic wave filter” to --by using main resonance of the at least one acoustic wave resonator-- to provide a more proper description since “the at least one acoustic wave resonator” of “the first acoustic wave filter” provides the recited “main resonance.”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 8 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 8, lines 2-3, note that both recitation of “the anti-resonant frequency” and “the frequency of the sub-resonance” lacks proper antecedent basis, since no “anti-resonant” or “sub-resonance” frequency has been defined in the chain of dependency. 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, 2, 5, 6, 9, 12-14, 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nakagawa et al. (US2020/0328728 A1, Cited by Applicant).
In regards to claim 1, Nakagawa et al. teaches in Figs. 1, 2, 3A and 3B a filter device (1) comprising:
At least one acoustic wave resonator (any of shunt resonators 34, 36 or 38), wherein the acoustic wave resonator includes a piezoelectric film (See Fig. 3B: 6B) having a piezoelectric property, and an interdigital transducer electrode (7B) positioned on an upper surface of the piezoelectric film, the interdigital transducer electrode including a plurality of electrode fingers, and wherein, when a value double a pitch of the plurality of electrode fingers is defined as λ and a duty of the plurality of electrode fingers is defined as d (Based on Paragraph [0098], duty d is equal to 0.5), a thickness T of the piezoelectric film satisfies formula (1) below (Based on Paragraph [0143], the piezoelectric has a thickness of 0.2λ), and wherein the filter device has a second attenuation pole by using sub-resonance of the acoustic wave resonator on a high-frequency side of a passband of the filter device (based on Paragraph [0139] and related Fig. 16, the plurality of acoustic wave resonators, including shunt resonators 34, 36 and 38, will have additional attenuation poles created by sub-resonance/harmonics that are located above the passband on a “high frequency” side);
Formula (1) 0.154λd ≤ T ≤ 0.264λd
Wherein λd satisfies formula (2) below:
λd = λ/(-0.6111 x d2 - 0.1792 x d + 1.2449)
As disclosed above d is equal to 0.5 resulting in λd = λ/1.002525
Therefore formula (1) is equal to 0.153λ ≤ T ≤ 0.263λ, in which T as disclosed above is equal to 0.2λ, therefore T is within the range of formula (1).
In regards to claim 2, based on Fig. 1, the acoustic wave device further comprises: a first acoustic wave ladder filter (right boxed ladder filter including series resonators 33, 35, 37 and shunt resonators 34, 36 and 38) including the acoustic wave resonator (34, 36 and 38), wherein the filter device has a first attenuation pole by using main resonance of the first acoustic wave filter on a low-frequency side of the passband of the filter device (based on related Fig. 7, the acoustic wave device forms a bandpass filter due to the ladder configuration, in which all the shunt resonators, will necessarily have a main resonance on a low-frequency side of the passband).
In regards to claim 5, based on Figs. 1 and 7, the acoustic wave device further comprises a second acoustic wave filter (left boxed ladder filter includes series resonator 31 and shunt resonator 32), wherein the second acoustic wave filter is one selected from the group consisting of a band-pass filter, a high-pass filter, and a low-pass filter (second acoustic wave filter is a band-pass filter).
In regards to claim 6, based on Figs. 1 and 7, wherein the at least one acoustic wave resonator (shunt resonators 34, 36 or 38) is included in a band-pass filter.
In regards to claim 9, based on Paragraph [0085], the piezoelectric film is made from LiNbO3.
In regards to claim 12, based on Fig. 1, the first acoustic wave filter (right boxed ladder filter) does not include an inductor.
In regards to claim 13, based on Fig. 1, the first acoustic wave filter (right boxed ladder filter) does not include a capacitor.
In regards to claim 14, based on Fig. 1, the at least one acoustic wave resonator includes a plurality of acoustic wave resonators (multiple shunt resonators including 34, 36 and 38), the sub-resonance is ascribable/assigned to one of the plurality of acoustic wave resonators (i.e. all the shunt resonators have the same sub-resonance).
In regards to claim 16, based on Fig. 2, a splitter/multiplexer (100) comprising: an antenna terminal (101); a transmission filter (21 and 22) configured to filter a signal to be output to the antenna terminal; and a reception filter (11 and 12) configured to filter a signal to be input from the antenna terminal, wherein at least one of the transmission filter or the reception filter includes the filter device according to claim 1 (based on Paragraphs [0014] and [0015], the acoustic wave device of Fig. 1 is used to form each of the transmission and reception filters).
In regards to claim 17, based on Fig. 2, a communication device (labeled “communication device”) comprising: an antenna (200); the splitter/ multiplexer (100) according to claim 16, the antenna terminal (101) of the splitter being connected to the antenna (200); and an integrated circuit (401) connected to the transmission filter and the reception filter.
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.
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakagawa et al. (US2020/0328728 A1, Cited by Applicant) in view of Caron (US2020/0028487 A1).
As discussed above, Nakagawa et al. teaches the claimed invention as recited in claims 1 and 2. Nakagawa et al. further teaches in Paragraph [0084], that the acoustic wave resonators operate using SH waves (i.e. type of lamb wave). Nakagawa et al. does not teach the specific Lamb wave mode it operates in; therefore Nakagawa et al. does not teach: in regards to claim 10, wherein the main resonance includes resonance due to a Lamb wave A1 mode; and in regards to claim 11, wherein the sub-resonance includes resonance due to a Lamb wave S1 mode.
Caron teaches in Fig. 1 an acoustic wave device comprising an IDT (14) located over a piezoelectric layer (AIN). Caron teaches in Paragraph [0009], that the acoustic wave device can be designed to operate in either the A1 mode or S1 mode.
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the invention of Nakagawa et al. and have designed the acoustic wave resonators to operate either in the A1 mode or S1 mode as exemplary taught by Caron (See Paragraph [0009]) because such a modification would have been an obvious design consideration to achieve a desired operating mode for the acoustic wave resonators, in which each wave mode (i.e. A1 or S1) will inherently offer its own unique filter characteristic. As an obvious consequence of the modification, based on the selected A1 or S1 mode, the resulting resonance and sub-resonance of each of the acoustic wave resonators will also have the same wave mode (i.e. if A1 mode is selected, the acoustic wave resonators will have both an A1 main resonance and sub-resonance, and if S1 mode is selected, the acoustic wave resonators will have both a S1 main resonance and sub-resonance).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 4, 7 and 15 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.
Claim 8 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
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