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 .
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 1-5 and 13 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3, 5 and 7 of U.S. Patent No. 11,381,221 B2 in view of Plesski et al. (USPAT 10,491,192 B1, 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 11,381,221 B2
1
5
2
7
3
1
4
3
5
1
13
1
As disclosed in the chart above, the US patent claims 1, 3, 5 and 7 substantially recite the same limitations recited in claims 1-5 and 13 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 1, 3 and 5 does not teach: in regards to the present application claims 1 and 3-5: wherein the first acoustic resonator is a first “bulk” acoustic resonator, and wherein the second acoustic resonator is a second “bulk” acoustic resonator; and in regards to the present application claim 13, wherein first and second resonators are “transversely-excited film bulk acoustic resonators”.
However, Plesski et al. teaches in Fig. 1 a transversely excited film bulk acoustic wave resonator (XBAR) comprising an IDT electrode (130) located on a piezoelectric layer (110), in which the IDT electrode comprising a plurality of fingers that extend over a cavity (125). Based on column 8, lines 64-67, the XBAR resonator provides the benefit of being able to high frequencies up to 60 GHz.
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the US Patent claims 1, 3 and 5 and have designed the acoustic wave resonators of both the first and second acoustic resonators to be transversely-excited film bulk acoustic resonators because such a modification would have provided the benefit of the acoustic wave device being able to handle frequencies up to 60 GHz as taught by Plesski et al. (see column 8, lines 64-67).
Therefore, claims 1, 3, 5 and 7 of the US patent in view of Plesski et al. meets claims 1-5 and 13 of the application under obviousness-type double patenting rejection.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-12 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.
Claims 14-24 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The most relevant prior art reference is Watanabe (US2018/0005950 A1). Watanabe teaches in Fig. 4 a filter device comprising the following:
A first chip (6H) comprising: a first piezoelectric wafer having a first thickness, a back/top surface of the first piezoelectric wafer attached to a first region (right side) of a base/resin (10), and a first conductor pattern (7) formed on a front/bottom surface of the first piezoelectric wafer, the first conductor pattern including an interdigital transducer (IDT) of one first acoustic resonator, the first acoustic resonator having interleaved/comb IDT fingers (not shown but disclosed in Paragraph [0008]);
A second chip (6L) comprising: a second piezoelectric wafer having a second thickness less than the first thickness (See Fig. 4 and Paragraph [0111]), a back/top surface of the second piezoelectric wafer attached to a second region (left side) of the base/resin (10), and a second conductor pattern (7) formed on a front/bottom surface of the second piezoelectric wafer, the second conductor pattern including an interdigital transducers (IDT) of one second acoustic resonator, the second acoustic resonator having an interleaved/comb IDT fingers (not shown but disclosed in Paragraph [0008]); and a circuit card (1) coupled to the first chip and the second chip, the circuit card comprising at least one conductor (interconnection 3) for making an electrical connection between the first and second acoustic resonators.
However, Watanabe does not teach: in regards to claim 14, wherein the first and second acoustic resonators are bulk acoustic wave resonators. Therefore, the applicants’ claimed invention has been determined to be novel and non-obvious. By virtue of dependency from claim 14, claims 15-24 have also been determined to be novel and non-obvious.
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