The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: Pages 2, 4, in the respective heading therein, note that --OF THE INVENTION-- should be inserted after “SUMMARY” (i.e. page 2) and inserted after “DETAIL DESCRIPTION” (i.e. page 4), respectively for consistency with PTO guidelines. Page 3, in the heading therein, note that --THE-- should be inserted after “OF” for idiomatic clarity. Page 5, in paragraph [0030], 8th line therein, note that the recitation of “serves as a whole” is vague in meaning and thus should be rewritten for an appropriate characterization. Page 6, in paragraph [0033], second line therein, note that --(FIG. 5)-- should be inserted after “111” for consistency with the labeling in that drawing. Page 9, in paragraph [0039], 5th line therein, note that --in GHz-- should be inserted after “frequency” and --in dB-- should be inserted after “loss”, respectively for consistency with the labeling in FIG. 9; 7th line therein, note that it is unclear whether the reference to “FIGS. 7 to 9” would be consistent with the labeling subsequently described in this paragraph and thus appropriate clarification is needed; 21st line therein, note that --in FIG. 9-- should be inserted after “seen” for an appropriate characterization consistent with what is depicted in that drawing; 26th line therein, note that --as-- should be inserted prior to “compared” for an appropriate characterization. Page 14, in paragraph [0054], second line therein, note that a --,-- should be inserted after “OUTn” for grammatical clarity; 5th & 6th lines therein, note that the recitation of “and the rest can be done in the same way” should be rewritten for a more appropriate description. Appropriate correction is required.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: Note that the following reference labels appearing in the indicated drawing needs to be correspondingly described in the specification description of those drawings for clarity and completeness of description: FIG. 8 (111A, 111B, 120, D, D1, D2); FIG. 9 (GHz, dB); FIG. 10, “111”. Appropriate correction is required.
The drawings are objected to because of the following: In FIGS. 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, note that those drawings should be designated as --Related Art-- commensurate with the specification description of those drawings.
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 surface acoustic wave resonator and the film bulk acoustic resonator (i.e. claims 7, 20) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). 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.
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.
Claims 1-7, 10-13; 8, 9, 14-20 are 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.
In claims 1, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, note that it is unclear whether the term “embedded” would accurately characterizes the nature of such a “resonant unit” and thus appropriate clarification is needed.
In claims 1, 2, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 16, 17, 18, note that it is unclear whether the term “interface” would accurately characterize the nature of this aspect of the invention. In particular, it is unclear whether one or more node(s) can accurately characterize and “interface”. Appropriate clarification is needed.
In claims 2, 14, line 2 in each claim, note that it is unclear whether the recitation of “disposed in the middle of the resonant element” would be an accurate characterization of this aspect of the invention. Appropriate clarification is needed.
In claims 6, 19, note that the recitation of “same as or different from” is vague in meaning, especially since it is unclear as to what aspects of these “resonant units” would be considered “same” or “different” (e.g. the size, the shape, the operation, etc.). Appropriate clarification is needed.
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 1, 4, 6, 7, 10, 11; 8, 16, 19, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by Yosui.
Yosui (i.e. Fig. 11) discloses a resonator (i.e. inductor element 105), comprising: an LC resonant unit having first and second portions of a resonant element (i.e. a first portion having a coil shaped conductor pattern (31A); a second portion having a coiled shaped conductor pattern (31B), as evident from Fig. 11) and an embedded resonant unit (i.e. coiled shaped conductors (31B, 32B) that are embedded (i.e. sandwiched) between resin layers (11, 12), as evident from Fig. 11), where an interface (i.e. two via conductors) connects the first and second portions of the resonant elements (31A, 32A) through the embedded resonant unit (31B, 32B). Regarding claims 4, 16, as evident from Fig. 11, the embedded resonant unit (31B, 32B) is series connected between the first portion (31A) and the second portion (32A) through the two via conductors. Regarding claims 6, 19, as evident from Fig. 11, the embedded resonant element (31B, 32B) has a same shape as the first and second portions (31A, 32A) of the resonant element. Regarding claims 1, 7, 8, 20, as evident from related Fig. 1C, the coiled shaped conductor pattern is characterized as an inductive-capacitive circuit configured to provide resonance at a particular frequency.
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 of this title, 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 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yosui taken in combination with Tanaka et al.
Yosui discloses the claimed invention except for the resonator being usable in a multiplexer.
Tanaka et al (i.e. FIG. 15) discloses a diplexer (i.e. a specific form of a more generalized multiplexer) including filters (60, 62) coupled to a common antenna (i.e. ANT).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious in view of the references, taken as a whole, to have used the resonator devices in Yosui as a part of a multiplexer (i.e. diplexer) configuration, such as taught by Tanaka et al, thereby suggesting the obviousness of such a modification.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Toujo discloses a multilayer filter circuit including a filter element embedded in the substrate.
Any inquiry concerning this communication should be directed to Benny Lee at telephone number 571 272 1764.
/BENNY T LEE/PRIMARY EXAMINER
ART UNIT 2843
B. Lee
Prosecution Insights