DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Information Disclosure Statements
2. The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 08/06/24 and 01/15/25 have been considered by the examiner.
Specification
3. The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: on page 1 of the instant specification, reference to parent case 17/597,467 should be updated so as to reflect the fact that this application has now issued as U.S. Patent No. 12,074,582. Also in the specification, on the first line of paragraph [0003], the word "specify" should be changed to --provide--. On the penultimate line of paragraph [00016], the word "is" should be changed to --are--. On line 3 of paragraph [00018], "to increase" should be changed to --an increase of--. On line 3 of paragraph [00020], the "=" sign should be deleted. On the second line of paragraph [00022], "to reduce" should be changed to
--reduction in--. On the penultimate line of paragraph [00023], the word "also" should be deleted. On line 4 of paragraph [00024], "due to which" should be changed to --and because of this--. On line 3 of paragraph [00029], the word "also" should again be deleted. On the second line of paragraph [00033], the first occurrence of "a" should be changed to --an--. On lines 2 and 4 of paragraph [00034], "Figures" (all four occurrences) should be changed to --figures--. On line 5 of paragraph [00042], --velocity in-- should be inserted before the word "track", and also in this paragraph, on line 7 thereof, --mass load in-- should be inserted before the word "track". On the first line of paragraph [00043], --width in the-- should be inserted before the word "track", and on the second line of this paragraph, --width of the-- should be inserted before the word "track". On line 4 of paragraph [00043], --the height-- should be inserted at the beginning of the line, and on the penultimate line of this paragraph, --the velocity-- should be inserted after the word "than". On line 8 of paragraph [00045], --the height-- should be inserted after "than". On the second line of paragraph [00046], the word "now" should be changed to --of the invention--, and on line 3 of this paragraph, the word "also" should again be deleted.
Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
4. The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the limitations of claims 6 and 7 must be shown or the features canceled from the claims. As noted in the indefiniteness rejection of claims 6 and 7 below, the limitations of these two claims are not illustrated in the instant drawings. Specifically, with regard to what is recited in claim 6, the first plurality of fingers include both stub fingers and relatively long fingers, as shown in figure 1 of the instant drawings, and therefore to recite that a width of the first plurality of fingers is greater in the first trap region than in the track region is incorrect as it pertains to the stub fingers, note that the stub fingers do not extend to the first trap region and the width of the stub fingers is not greater in the first trap region than in the track region. With regard to what is recited in claim 7, as shown in instant figure 1, the at least one finger does not extend through the first barrier region and the track region to the first trap region, the at least one finger actually extends through the first barrier region and the first trap region to the track region. No new matter should be entered.
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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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.
Claim Objections
5. Claims 11-15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
On the first line of claim 11, "3" should not be in boldface text (note the first line of claims 3-10, 16, 18 and 19 which correctly show the claim number not indicated in boldfaced type), and note that the same change should also be made on the first line of each of claims 12-15, i.e., "2" should not be in boldfaced text either.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
6. 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.
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
As to claim 6, this claim is indefinite because it is misdescriptive of the invention, i.e., the first plurality of fingers include both stub fingers and relatively long fingers, as shown in figure 1 of the instant drawings, and therefore to recite that a width of the first plurality of fingers is greater in the first trap region than in the track region is incorrect as it pertains to the stub fingers, note that the stub fingers do not extend to the first trap region and the width of the stub fingers is not greater in the first trap region than in the track region.
As to claim 7, this claim is indefinite because it too is misdescriptive of the invention, i.e., as shown in instant figure 1, the at least one finger does not extend through the first barrier region and the track region to the first trap region, note that the at least one finger actually extends through the first barrier region and the first trap region to the track region.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
7. 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.
Claims 2-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ruile et al, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0051588, cited by applicant.
As to claims 2, 15 and 16, Ruile et al discloses, in figure 14a,
an electroacoustic resonator, comprising:
a piezoelectric substrate (see paragraphs [0009], [0014] and [0026] of Ruile et al);
a first electrode (the top electrode shown in figure 14a of Ruile et al) including a first busbar (the horizontal portion of the top electrode), wherein the first electrode is part of an electrode structure formed on the piezoelectric substrate; and
a first plurality of fingers (the six fingers which extend downward from the above-noted first busbar, i.e., the three stub fingers and the three longer fingers) including at least one stub finger coupled to the first electrode in a first barrier region (the first barrier region is either upper ARB region or the combination of the upper ARB and TG regions) of the electrode structure and at least one finger coupled to the first electrode and extending to a first trap region (the first trap region is the upper IRB region) of the electrode structure, the at least one stub finger in the first barrier region having a reduced width as compared to that at least one finger extending to the first trap region (note that the three stub fingers extending downward from the above-noted first busbar are relatively thin vis-a-vis the portion of the above-noted at least one finger located in the above-noted first trap region, i.e., upper IRB region in Ruile et al's figure 14a).
As to claim 3, the claimed second electrode is the bottom electrode in figure 14a of Ruile et al, note that it includes a second busbar, i.e., the horizontal portion at the bottom of figure 14a, and the claimed second plurality of fingers are the six fingers extending upward from the second busbar, the claimed second barrier region is the lower ARB region by itself or in combination with the lower TG region.
As to claim 4, note that the first trap region, i.e., upper IRB region, in Ruile et al's figure 14a is located between the above-noted first barrier region and the above-noted second barrier region.
As to claim 5, the claimed second trap region reads on the lower IRB region in Ruile et al's figure 14a, and the claimed track region reads on the region between the upper and lower IRB regions in this figure.
As to claim 6, note that the width of the relatively long fingers is greater in the above-noted first trap region than in the above-noted track region.
As to claim 7, note that the relatively long fingers extending downward from the above-noted first busbar extend through the above-noted first barrier region and the above-noted trap region to the above-noted track region.
As to claim 8, note that each of the relatively long fingers comprise a barrier portion in the first barrier region of Ruile et al's figure 14a, and also comprise a first trap portion in the first trap region, and a track portion in the track region.
As to claim 9, note that a width of the barrier portion of the relatively long fingers is the same as a width of the track portion, i.e., both relatively thin.
As to claim 10, note that each of the relatively long fingers shown in Ruile et al's figure 14a comprises a second trap portion in a second trap region of the electrode structure, i.e., the second trap region is the lower IRB region.
As to claim 11, note that the six fingers of the upper electrode are electrically isolated from the six fingers of the lower electrode in Ruile et al's figure 14a.
As to claim 12, note that the three stub fingers have reduced lengths as compared to the three longer fingers of Ruile et al's top electrode.
As to claim 13, note that Ruile et al's figure 14a electrode structure is formed on a top side of the piezoelectric substrate.
As to claim 14, note that the three stub fingers extending from the above-noted first busbar are associated only with the above-noted first barrier region closest to the first busbar assigned to these three stub fingers.
As to claims 17-19, the limitations of these claims are rejected using the same analysis as set forth above with regard to claims 2-16 (the claimed gap recited on lines 12-13 of claim 17 is the gap between the end of each stub finger and the end of each corresponding relatively long finger extending toward it from the opposite direction).
Double Patenting
8. Claims 2-19 are also rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over the claims of U.S. Patent No. 12,074,582. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the present application are fully anticipated by, or obvious in view of, the claims of applicant’s prior patent, note in particular claim 5 of '582 patent (which includes all of the limitations of base claim 1), where claim 5 recites that the stub fingers are thinner and/or narrower than the track portions of the fingers, i.e., any person having ordinary skill in the art would understand this to mean that the stub fingers recited in claim 5 of the '582 patent have a reduced width compared to the one relatively long finger extending to the first trap region.
The non-statutory 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 non-statutory 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 non-statutory 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 non-statutory 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.
Prior Art Not Relied Upon
9. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Figure 2 of Olsson et al, figure 6 of Ebner et al, figure 2 of Bergmann et al and figure 1 of Mayer et al show additional examples of electroacoustic resonators including stub fingers which are relatively thin vis-a-vis adjacent relatively thick and long fingers.
Conclusion
10. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENNETH B WELLS whose telephone number is (571)272-1757. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30am-5pm.
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, LINCOLN DONOVAN 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.
/KENNETH B WELLS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2842 December 27, 2025