DETAILED ACTION
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 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-32 of U.S. Patent No. 12126319, claims 1-30 of U.S. Patent No. 12126320, and claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12431861. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the patents’ claims and application’s claims recite similar limitations.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 12, 16, 17, 19 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Plesski et al. (US 10491192) in view of Aigner et al. (US 20050012568).
As to claim 1, Plesski et al.’s figure 14 shows an apparatus comprising: a millimeter wave filter (col 6, lines 30-35, teaches that “high piezoelectric coupling enables the design and implementation of microwave and millimeter-wave filters with appreciable bandwidth”. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to use the filter circuit figure 14 for filtering millimeter- wave for the purpose of selecting/deselecting desired bandwidth) having a millimeter wave filter band, the millimeter wave filter including at least a first acoustic millimeter wave resonator (1410A). The figure fails to show the internal structure of the first acoustic millimeter wave resonator or the shown resonators in 1430. However, Aigner et al.’s figures 1-2 show a BAW resonator comprising first and second piezoelectric layers (106 and 108). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art use Aigner et al.’s resonator for each of Plesski et al.’s resonators for the purpose of increasing the available frequency ranges for the use of the BAW resonators. Therefore, the modified Plesski et al.’s figure 14 shows that the first acoustic millimeter wave resonator including at least a first piezoelectric stack of a first plurality of piezoelectric layers in which: the first plurality of piezoelectric layers of the first piezoelectric stack includes at least a first piezoelectric layer (Aigner et al.’s 106) having a first piezoelectric axis orientation, and a second piezoelectric layer (Aigner et al.’s 108) having a second piezoelectric axis orientation; the second piezoelectric axis orientation substantially opposes the first piezoelectric axis orientation; and the first piezoelectric layer and the second piezoelectric layer have respective thicknesses to facilitate the first acoustic millimeter wave resonator having a first main resonant millimeter wave frequency in the millimeter wave filter band.
As to claim 2, it is seen as an obvious design preference to select the first main resonant millimeter wave frequency to be in one of a Ku band, a K band, a V band and a W band in order to ensure optimal performance, see MPEP 2144.05.
As to claim 3, the modified Plesski et al.’s figure 14 shows that the millimeter wave filter includes at least a second acoustic millimeter wave resonator (1401B or 14020A).
As to claim 12, the modified Plesski et al.’s figure 14 shows that the first plurality of piezoelectric layers of the first piezoelectric stack includes at least a third piezoelectric layer (Aigner’s 134).
Claim 16 recites similar limitations in claims above. Therefore, it is rejected for the same reasons.
As to claim 17, the modified Plesski et al.’s figure 14 shows that the millimeter wave filter having the millimeter wave filter band is a millimeter wave band pass filter having a millimeter wave filter pass band; the millimeter wave filter pass band has a center frequency. The figure fails to show that the millimeter wave filter pass band has a -3 decibel width of less than about 5 percent of the center frequency of the millimeter wave pass band. Selecting the values as claimed is seen as an obvious design preference to ensure optimum performance, MPEP 2144.05.
Claim 19 recites similar limitations in claims above. Therefore, it is rejected for the same reasons.
As to claim 20, Aigner et al.’s figure 2B shows plurality of piezoelectric layer pairs (including N layers, ¶0041). Selecting N such that the number of piezoelectric layer pair to be more than 9 is seen as an obvious design preference to ensure optimum performance, i.e., higher resonance frequency.
Claim(s) 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Plesski et al. (US 10491192) in view of Aigner et al. (US 20050012568) and Uno et al. (US 20070096851) and/or Song et al. (US 20190363694).
As to claim 4, the modified Plesski et al.’s figure 14 shows that the millimeter wave filter includes at least: a second acoustic millimeter wave resonator (1401B or 14020A) including at least a second piezoelectric stack of a second plurality of piezoelectric layers. The figure fails to show a planarization layer of the millimeter wave filter, in which at least a portion of the planarization layer is coupled between the first piezoelectric stack and the second piezoelectric stack. However, Uno et al.’s figures 5, 14 or 17 show a filter circuit that comprises a planarization layer (24, 19 or 14) coupled between first and second BAW resonators (61 and 62 or 66 and 67) or Song et al.’s figure 3 shows a filter circuit that comprises a planarization layer (330) coupled between first and second BAW resonators Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to add a planarization layer coupled between Pleasski et al.’s first and second resonators for the purpose of saving space or insulating the resonators. Thus, the modified Plesski et al.’s figure 14 shows show a planarization layer (Uno et al.’s 24, 19 and/or 14 or Song’s 330) of the millimeter wave filter, in which at least a portion of the planarization layer is coupled between the first piezoelectric stack and the second piezoelectric stack.
As to claim 5, the modified Plesski et al.’s figure 14 shows a planarization layer (Uno et al.’s 14); a second acoustic millimeter wave resonator (Plesski’s 1410B) including at least a second piezoelectric stack of a second plurality of piezoelectric layers; and a first via (that contains Uno et al.’s 24 and 19) arranged between the first piezoelectric stack and the second piezoelectric stack, in which at least a portion of the planarization layer is disposed in the first via and coupled between the first piezoelectric stack and the second piezoelectric stack.
Claim(s) 6-7, 9 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Plesski et al. (US 10491192) in view of Aigner et al. (US 20050012568) and Umeda et al. (US 20060119230).
As to claim 6, the modified Plesski et al.’s figure fails to show at least a first top electrode stack of a first plurality of top metal electrode layers, in which the first plurality of top metal electrode layers includes at least a first quartet of top metal layers electrically and acoustically coupled with the first piezoelectric layer and the second piezoelectric layer. However, Umeda et al.’s figure 2 shows that each of the top and bottom electrodes (50 and 40) of a BAW resonator comprises plurality of layers. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to use Umeda et al.’s top and bottom electrodes for the modified Plesski et al.’s top and bottom electrodes for the purpose of reducing energy loss.
As to claim 7, the modified Plesski et al.’s figure shows that the first acoustic millimeter wave resonator includes at least a first top electrode stack of a first plurality of top metal electrode layers (Umeda et al.’s top electrode), in which members of the first plurality of top metal electrode layers have respective thicknesses to facilitate a peak millimeter wave acoustic reflectivity of the first top electrode stack.
As to claim 9, the modified Plesski et al.’s figure shows that the first acoustic millimeter wave resonator includes at least a first bottom electrode stack of a first plurality of bottom metal electrode layers (Umeda et al.’s bottom electrode), in which the first plurality of bottom metal electrode layers includes at least a first quartet of bottom metal layers electrically and acoustically coupled with the first piezoelectric layer and the second piezoelectric layer.
As to claim 10, the modified Plesski et al.’s figure shows that the first acoustic millimeter wave resonator includes at least a first bottom electrode stack of a first plurality of bottom metal electrode layers (Umeda et al.’s bottom electrode), in which members of the first plurality of bottom metal electrode layers have respective thicknesses to facilitate a peak millimeter wave acoustic reflectivity of the first bottom electrode stack.
Claim(s) 8 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Plesski et al. (US 10491192) in view of Aigner et al. (US 20050012568), Umeda et al. (US 20060119230) and Uno et al. (US 20070096851) and/or Song et al. (US 20190363694).
As to claim 8, the modified Plesski et al.’s figure shows that the first acoustic millimeter wave resonator includes at least a first top electrode reflective of the first main resonant millimeter wave frequency (Umeda et al.’s top electrode); and the millimeter wave filter includes at least: a second acoustic millimeter wave resonator (Plesski et al.’s 1410B) having a second main resonant millimeter wave frequency, the second acoustic millimeter wave resonator including at least a second top electrode and a second piezoelectric stack of a second plurality of piezoelectric layers, in which the second top electrode is reflective of the second main resonant millimeter wave frequency. The figure fails to show a planarization layer of the millimeter wave filter, in which at least a portion of the planarization layer is coupled between the first piezoelectric stack and the second piezoelectric stack. However, Uno et al.’s figures 5, 14 or 17 show a filter circuit that comprises a planarization layer (24, 19 or 14) coupled between first and second BAW resonators (61 and 62 or 66 and 67), or Song et al.’s figure 3 shows a filter circuit that comprises a planarization layer (330) coupled between first and second BAW resonators. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to add a planarization layer coupled between Pleasski et al.’s first and second resonators for the purpose of saving space or insulating the resonators. Thus, the modified Plesski et al.’s figure 14 shows show a planarization layer (Uno et al.’s 24, 19 and/or 14 or Song’s 330) of the millimeter wave filter, in which at least a portion of the planarization layer is coupled between the first piezoelectric stack and the second piezoelectric stack; and a top electrical interconnect electrically coupled between first top electrode and the second top electrode (see 71 of Uno et al.’s figure 14), in which the top electrical interconnect extends over the portion of the planarization layer that is coupled between the first piezoelectric stack and the second piezoelectric stack.
As to claim 11, the modified Plesski et al.’s figure shows that the first acoustic millimeter wave resonator includes at least a first bottom electrode reflective of the first main resonant millimeter wave frequency; and the millimeter wave filter includes at least: a planarization layer (Song’s 330) of the millimeter wave filter, in which the planarization layer includes at least an acceptance location (that contains Song’s 342 or 346) extending from a top portion of the planarization layer and through the planarization layer to the first bottom electrode; and a bottom electrical interconnect disposed in the acceptance location extending from the top portion of the planarization layer and through the planarization layer to the first bottom electrode, in which the bottom electrical interconnect is electrically coupled with the first bottom electrode.
Claim(s) 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Plesski et al. (US 10491192) in view of Aigner et al. (US 20050012568) and Sadhu et al. (US 20190305752).
As to claim 13, the modified Plesski et al.’s figure shows that the first plurality of piezoelectric layers of the first piezoelectric stack includes at least a third piezoelectric layer (Aigner et al.’s 134). The figure fails to show that the third piezoelectric layer is doped. However, Sadhu et al.’s figure 3 shows a BAW resonator that comprises doped piezoelectric layer (¶0026). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to make at least the third piezoelectric layer doped for the purpose of improving the performance of the BAW resonator.
As to claim 14, it is seen as an obvious design preference to select a band edge having a transition region from -3 decibels past about -12 decibels, in which the transition region is no greater than about 110 MegaHertz to ensure optimum performance, MPEP 2144.05.
As to claim 15, it is seen as an obvious design preference to a roll off having a steepness of about minus eight hundredths of a decibel per Megahertz or steeper to ensure optimum performance, MPEP 2144.05.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Plesski et al. (US 10491192) in view of Aigner et al. (US 20050012568) and Khlat et al. (US 20170301992).
The modified Plesski et al.’s figure fails to show that the millimeter wave filter having the millimeter wave filter band is a millimeter wave notch filter having a millimeter wave filter notch band; the millimeter wave filter notch band has a center frequency; and the millimeter wave filter notch band has a -3 decibel width of less than about 5 percent of the center frequency of the millimeter wave filter notch band. However, Khlat et al.’s figure 8 shows a filter circuit comprising pass bands and notch bands. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to use the modified Plesski et al.’s filter in Khlat et al.’s filter circuit for the purpose of providing more precise filter circuit(s). Selecting the values for the filter notch band as claimed is seen as an obvious design preference to ensure optimum performance, MPEP 2144.05.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANH-QUAN TRA whose telephone number is (571)272-1755. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri from 8:00 A.M.-5:00 P.M.
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.
/QUAN TRA/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2842