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 Interpretation
Note that in the claims “λ” is recited. Although “λ” is not explicitly defined in the claim, in light of the specification and common knowledge in the art, “λ” will be determined by twice an average pitch λ/2 of the electrode fingers of an interdigital electrode structure, the pitch being a center-to-center distance between two adjacent fingers.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory 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 nonstatutory 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 nonstatutory 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 nonstatutory 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.
Claims 1, 3, 6 and 7 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 17 and 24 of U.S. Patent No. 11,171,627 B2 (Cited by Applicant).
As set forth below, the chart identifies which claims from the current application corresponds to conflicting claims found in the cited US Patent.
Current Application
USPAT 11,171,627 B2
1
17
3
17
6
17
7
24
As disclosed in the chart above, the US patent claims 17 and 24 substantially recite the same limitations recited in claims 1, 3, 6 and 7 of the current application as listed above. However, the following differences between the US patent claims and the current application claims are present as set forth below:
The US patent claims 17 and 24 has the additional limitation of “first apodization edge” and “second apodization edge”.
Therefore, claims 17 and 24 of the patent meets claims 1, 3, 6 and 7 of the present application under an “anticipation” analysis in an obviousness-type double patenting rejection.
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 17 of U.S. Patent No. 11,171,627 B2 (Cited by Applicant) in view of Moriya et al. (US2017/0033765 A1, Cited by Applicant).
As disclosed above, the US patent claim 17 meets the limitations recited in claim 1 of the present application. However: claim 17 of the US patent does not teach: in regards to claim 4, further comprising an intervening layer on the substrate, wherein the piezoelectric layer is on the intervening layer; and in regards to claim 5, wherein a thickness of the piezoelectric layer is less than 5λ.
However, Moriya et al. teaches in Fig. 1, an acoustic wave device comprising an IDT electrode (18) located on a composite piezoelectric substrate (10, 14 and 12). Based on Fig. 1, the composite piezoelectric substrate comprises: a piezoelectric layer (12) having a thickness T2, which is supported by a support substrate (10) having a thickness of T1 which is significantly larger than T2, and an intervening layer (14) located between the piezoelectric layer and the support substrate. Based on Paragraphs [0048]-[0049], Moriya et al. teaches that the thickness T2 of the piezoelectric layer is less than 1λ, λ being defined by twice the average pitch of the IDT, and having the support substrate made from sapphire having a thickness T2 provides the benefit of improving the temperature characteristic of the acoustic wave device.
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified claim 17 of the US patent and have replaced the generic piezoelectric layer and the generic support substrate with the specific composite piezoelectric substrate of Moriya et al. because such a modification would have been a well-known in the art substitution of art-recognized alternative/equivalent for a support substate that able to perform the same function and provide the benefit of improving the temperature characteristic of the acoustic wave device as suggested by Moriya et al. (See Paragraphs [0049]-[0049])..
Therefore, claim 17 of the patent in view of Moriya et al. meets claims 4 and 5 of the present application under obviousness-type double patenting rejection.
Claims 1 and 6 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 13 of U.S. Patent No. 12,107,562 B2 (Cited by Applicant).
The US patent claim 13 substantially recite the same limitations recited in claims 1 and 6 of the current application as listed above. However, the following differences between the US patent claims and the current application claims are present as set forth below:
The US patent claim 13 has the additional limitation of “first apodization edge” and “second apodization edge”.
Therefore, claim 13 of the patent meets claims 1 and 6 of the present application under an “anticipation” analysis in an obviousness-type double patenting rejection.
Claims 3-5 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 13 of U.S. Patent No. 12,107,562 B2 (Cited by Applicant) in view of Moriya et al. (US2017/0033765 A1, Cited by Applicant).
As disclosed above, the US patent claim 13 meets the limitations recited in claim 1 of the present application. However: claim 13 of the US patent does not teach: in regards to claim 3, further comprising a substrate, the piezoelectric layer on the substrate; in regards to claim 4, further comprising an intervening layer on the substrate, wherein the piezoelectric layer is on the intervening layer; and in regards to claim 5, wherein a thickness of the piezoelectric layer is less than 5λ.
However, Moriya et al. teaches in Fig. 1, an acoustic wave device comprising an IDT electrode (18) located on a composite piezoelectric substrate (10, 14 and 12). Based on Fig. 1, the composite piezoelectric substrate comprises: a piezoelectric layer (12) having a thickness T2, which is supported by a support substrate (10) having a thickness of T1 which is significantly larger than T2, and an intervening layer (14) located between the piezoelectric layer and the support substrate. Based on Paragraphs [0048]-[0049], Moriya et al. teaches that the thickness T2 of the piezoelectric layer is less than 1λ, λ being defined by twice the average pitch of the IDT, and having the support substrate made from sapphire having a thickness T2 provides the benefit of improving the temperature characteristic of the acoustic wave device.
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified claim 13 of the US patent and have replaced the generic piezoelectric layer with the specific composite piezoelectric substrate of Moriya et al. because such a modification would have been a well-known in the art substitution of art-recognized alternative/equivalent for a support substate that able to perform the same function and provide the benefit of improving the temperature characteristic of the acoustic wave device as suggested by Moriya et al. (See Paragraphs [0049]-[0049])..
Therefore, claim 13 of the patent in view of Moriya et al. meets claims 3-5 of the present application under obviousness-type double patenting rejection.
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 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Katusya (WO2019172374 A1, Cited by Applicant, Machine English Translation Provided in Parent Application 17/521,316).
In regards to claim 1, Katsuya teaches in Figs. 6 and 13 an acoustic resonator comprising: a piezoelectric layer (Fig. 6: 6); and
An interdigital electrode structure (Fig. 13: 57C) on the piezoelectric layer, which is periodically apodized (Based on Fig. 13: the IDT electrode structure has an upper apodized sinusoid pattern and a lower apodized sinusoid pattern) with a wave pattern having a length per period of the wave pattern between 6λ and 34λ on the piezoelectric layer (based on Paragraph [0032], a wavelength λ of the IDT electrode is determined by a pitch of the electrode fingers, which is the center to center distance between adjacent electrode fingers of the IDT electrode which is necessarily equal to λ/2, based on Fig. 13, each of the upper and lower sinusoid pattern have a period/cycle that span 8λ).
In regards to claim 2, based on Fig. 13, the IDT electrode (57C) does not contain any floating electrode or void in an active area of the acoustic resonator, the active area being the area located between an upper busbar (12) and lower busbar (15) of the IDT, therefore, the active area of the acoustic resonator takes up the entirety of the acoustic wave device (i.e. 100%) which is necessarily greater than 85%.
In regards to claim 3, based on Fig. 6, the acoustic wave device further comprises a composite substrate (22A) including the piezoelectric layer (6) and a support substrate (23), the piezoelectric layer on the substrate.
In regards to claim 4, based on Fig. 6, the composite substrate further comprises an intervening layer (5) on the support substrate (23), wherein the piezoelectric layer (6) is on the intervening layer.
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 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Katusya (WO2019172374 A1, Cited by Applicant, Machine English Translation Provided in Parent Application 17/521,316) in view of Moriya et al. (US2017/0033765 A1, Cited by Applicant).
As discussed above, Katusya teaches the claimed invention as recited in claim 1. However, Katusya does not teach: in regards to claim 5, wherein a thickness of the piezoelectric layer is less than 5λ.
Moriya et al. teaches in Fig. 1, an acoustic wave device comprising an IDT electrode (18) located on a composite substrate (10, 14 and 12). Based on Fig. 1, the composite substrate comprises: a piezoelectric layer (12) having a thickness T2, which is supported by a support substrate (10) having a thickness of T1 which is significantly larger than T2, and an intervening layer (14) located between the piezoelectric layer and the support substrate. Based on Paragraphs [0048]-[0049], Moriya et al. teaches that the thickness T2 of the piezoelectric layer is less than 1λ, λ being defined by twice the average pitch of the IDT, and having the support substrate made from sapphire having a thickness T2 provides the benefit of improving the temperature characteristic of the acoustic wave device.
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the invention of Katusya and have replaced the composite substrate of Katusya with the specific composite substrate of Moriya et al. because such a modification would have been a well-known in the art substitution of art-recognized alternative/equivalent for a support substate that able to perform the same function and provide the benefit of improving the temperature characteristic of the acoustic wave device as suggested by Moriya et al. (See Paragraphs [0049]-[0049]).
Claims 7-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Katusya (WO2019172374 A1, Cited by Applicant, Machine English Translation Provided in Parent Application 17/521,316) in view of Fujimoto et al. (USPAT 6,154,105).
In regards to claims 7-10, 15 and 16:
In regards to claim 7, Katsuya teaches in Figs. 6 and 13 an acoustic resonator comprising:
A piezoelectric layer (Fig. 6: 6); and
An interdigital electrode structure (Fig. 13: 57C) on the piezoelectric layer, the interdigital electrode structure comprising:
A first bus bar (Fig. 13: 12) extending along a length of the interdigital electrode structure;
A second bus bar (Fig. 13: 15) parallel to the first bus bar;
A first set of electrode fingers (Present in Fig. 13 but not labeled) coupled to the first bus bar and extending towards the second bus bar to a first apodization edge (lower apodization edge);
A second set of electrode fingers (Present in Fig. 13 but not labeled) coupled to the second bus bar and extending towards the first bus bar to a second apodization edge (upper apodization edge) such that: the first set of electrode fingers and the second set of electrode fingers are interleaved; and
At least one of the first apodization edge and the second apodization edge provides a wave pattern along the length of the interdigital electrode structure (based on Fig. 13, both the first and second apodization edge provide a sinusoidal pattern).
In regards to claims 8 and 9, based on Fig. 13, both the at least one of the first apodization edge (lower apodization edge) and the second apodization edge (upper apodization edge) are defined by a pattern including at least one period of a sinusoid along the length of the interdigital electrode structure.
In regards to claim 10, based on Fig. 13, the first apodization edge (lower apodization edge) is parallel to the second apodization edge (upper apodization edge).
In regards to claim 15, based on Fig. 13, a length of the interdigital electrode structure per period of the sinusoidal pattern is between 6λ and 34λ. (based on Paragraph [0032], a wavelength λ of the IDT electrode is determined by a pitch of the electrode fingers, which is the center to center distance between adjacent electrode fingers of the IDT electrode, which is necessarily equal to λ/2, based on Fig. 13, each of the upper and lower sinusoid pattern have a period/cycle that span 8λ).
In regards to claim 16, based on Fig. 13, a first set of dummy electrodes (17) are coupled to the second bus bar (15) and extending towards the first apodization edge (lower apodization edge) such that a first dummy electrode gap (G1) exists between each one of the first set of dummy electrodes and the first apodization edge; and a second set of dummy electrodes (14) coupled to the first bus bar (12) and extending towards the second apodization edge (upper apodization edge) such that a second dummy electrode gap (G2) exists between each one of the second set of dummy electrodes and the second apodization edge.
Katsuya does not disclose a dimension for an aperture length of the IDT electrode (i.e. overlap length between the first and second set of fingers), therefore does not teach: in regards to claim 7, wherein a minimum overlap between the first set of electrode fingers and the second set of electrode fingers is greater than 1λ.
However, Fujimoto et al. discloses in Fig. 1 an acoustic wave device comprising an IDT electrode (3) having a plurality of first and second electrode fingers. Fujimoto teaches in Column 1, lines 66-67 and Column 2, lines 1-4, that an aperture length of the IDT electrode is set to 40λ to reduce unwanted spurious responses.
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the invention of Katusya and have designed the aperture length of the IDT electrode (i.e. overlap length between the first and second set of fingers) to be 40λ, because such a modification would have provided the benefit of reducing unwanted spurious responses as taught by Fujimoto et al. (See Column 1, lines 66-67 and Column 2, lines 1-4).
In regards to claims 11-14:
The combination of Katusya and Fujimoto et al. as disclosed above does not teach: in regards to claim 11, wherein an amplitude of the sinusoidal pattern provided by the first apodization edge is different from an amplitude of the sinusoidal pattern provided by the second apodization edge in regards to claim 12, wherein a period of the sinusoidal pattern provided by the first apodization edge is different from a period of the sinusoidal pattern provided by the second apodization edge; in regards to claim 13, the first apodization edge does not provide a pattern; and in regards to claim 14, wherein an oscillation between a first peak and a first trough of the first apodization edge is not smooth.
However, Katusya further teaches in Paragraph [0028], that the first and second wave shape/envelope are not limited by the examples provided and can include random bends/wave shape pattern or no pattern through the length of the interdigital structure to suppress transverse mode (i.e. the random/non-uniform envelops/wave form suppresses transverse modes in the resonator).
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the combination of Katusya and Fujimoto et al., and have designed the first and second apodization edge wave shape/envelops patterns to have different amplitudes and different period patterns from each other (e.g. the second wave shape having a larger amplitude and greater period than the first wave shape, the first wave shape having no pattern) because such a modification would have been one of the available options when designing the first and second wave shape as suggested by Katusya (see Paragraph [0028]) to suppress transverse modes.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 17 is 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.
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