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 .
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(s) 1-9 & 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dai (US Patent 8593237) in view of Satoh et al. (US Patent 4978879)
As per claim 1:
Dai discloses in Figs. 2d-2e & 6:
A multilayer filter device comprising:
a stack including a plurality of dielectric layers (LTCCs 12 & 13 with compensating material 14 & 15) stacked together; and
a resonator (passive component 11, col. 3 lines 64-65) configured using a conductor integrated into the stack (col. 5 line 15-35), wherein:
each of the plurality of dielectric layers is formed of a dielectric material (LTCC dielectrics, col. 3 lines 9-31, compensation materials, tables 1-3), and has a resonance frequency that changes depending on a temperature (as seen in table 3 and Fig. 6); and
in the dielectric material, the resonance frequency changes with respect to a change in the temperature when the temperature is within a first temperature range (the range at the end of Fig. 6 away from the normalized temperature of 20ºC, col. 5 lines 60-67), and the resonance frequency changes nonlinearly with respect to the change in the temperature when the temperature is within a second temperature range (local maximum in Fig. 6 is shown to be near 20ºC, wherein the region of and immediately surrounding the local maximum is a non-linear region, as seen in Fig. 6, wherein the embodiments of Figs. 2d&e are represented by the STO20 2 layers_1 measurement).
Dai et al. is silent regarding the resonance frequency changes linearly with respect to a change in the temperature when the temperature is within a first temperature range.
Satoh et al. discloses in Figs. 8B & 9:
the use of an oxide material as a temperature compensation material to provide a parabolic resonance frequency change (Fig. 8B & 9, col. 1 lines 32-51 & col. 5 line 63-col. 6 line 16) wherein, the resonance frequency changes linearly with respect to a change in the temperature when the temperature is within a first temperature range (the range at the end of Fig. 9 away from the local maximum), and the resonance frequency changes nonlinearly with respect to the change in the temperature when the temperature is within a second temperature range (at the local maximum of Fig. 9).
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the temperature compensation to be adjusted such that the resonance frequency changes linearly with respect to a change in the temperature when the temperature is within a first temperature range as Dai et al. discloses a parabolic shape in Fig. 6, and it is well understood in the art that the introduction of temperature compensation materials such as oxides can result in parabolic resonance frequency changes as taught by Satoh et al. (Fig. 8B & 9, col. 1 lines 32-51 & col. 5 line 63-col. 6 line 16), and that Dai et al. discloses the adjustment of temperature compensation material thickness to achieve a desired temperature behavior (col. 7 lines 15-23).
As per claim 2:
Dai discloses in Figs. 2d-2e & 6:
each of the plurality of dielectric layers is a ceramic sintered body including the dielectric material (LTCC dielectrics are sintered, col. 3 lines 9-31, compensation materials are sintered col. 5 lines 60-67).
As per claim 3:
Dai discloses in Figs. 2d-2e & 6:
an aspect of a change in the resonance frequency with respect to the change in the temperature when the temperature decreases from a specific temperature (local maximum near 20ºC) and an aspect of the change in the resonance frequency with respect to the change in the temperature when the temperature increases from the specific temperature are the same (as the specific temperature is the local maximum, the resonance frequency change is negative with a change in temperature, as seen for STO20 2layers_1 in Fig. 6).
As per claim 4:
Dai discloses in Figs. 2d-2e & 6:
the resonance frequency is smaller than the resonance frequency at the specific temperature (local maximum) in both cases where the temperature decreases from the specific temperature and where the temperature increases from the specific temperature (due to being a local maximum, and as seen for STO20 2layers_1 in Fig. 6).
As per claim 5:
Dai discloses in Figs. 2d-2e & 6:
the specific temperature is within the second temperature range (due to being a local maximum, and as seen for STO20 2layers_1 in Fig. 6).
As per claim 6:
Dai discloses in Figs. 2d-2e & 6:
the resonance frequency increases monotonically or decreases monotonically with respect to the change in the temperature within the first temperature range (linear regions are by definition, monotonic, and thus the first region increases or decreases monotonically as per claim 1).
As per claim 7:
Dai discloses in Figs. 2d-2e & 6:
the second temperature range is a temperature range including 20ºC (as seen for STO20 2layers_1 in Fig. 6).
As per claim 8:
Dai discloses in Figs. 2d-2e & 6:
the first temperature range includes a first sub-range lower than the second temperature range, and a second sub-range higher than the second temperature range (STO20 2layers_1 in Fig. 6 discloses a parabolic shape, with temperatures extending between -50 and 80 degrees C, whereas the second temperature range is centered at approximately 20ºC, as seen in Fig. 6, the two edge regions of -50 to -40 and 70 to 80 are shown to be linear, and above and below the second range); and the first sub-range is narrower than the second sub-range (the first sub-range may be determined to be a sub-section of -50 to -40, and the second sub-range can be determined to be the entirety of section 70 to 80, thus the first sub-range is narrower).
As per claim 9:
Dai is silent regarding:
a difference between a maximum value and a minimum value of the resonance frequency within the second temperature range is smaller than a difference between a maximum value and a minimum value of the resonance frequency within the first temperature range.
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select the width of each temperature range as arbitrary designations of ranges within a parabola such that a difference between a maximum value and a minimum value of the resonance frequency within the second temperature range is smaller than a difference between a maximum value and a minimum value of the resonance frequency within the first temperature range.
As per claim 11:
Dai discloses in Figs. 2d-2e & 6:
the resonator is a distributed constant resonator; and
the conductor includes a resonator conductor layer constituting the distributed constant resonator (Dai discloses the use of stripline ring resonators formed of at least one conductor layer, col. 4 lines 26-34 & col. 5. Lines 15-27, which are distributed constant resonators formed of a conductor layer)
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the resultant combination of Dai (US Patent 8593237) in view of Satoh et al. (US Patent 4978879) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hirai et al. (US Patent 5448209).
The resultant combination discloses the multilayer filter of claim 1 as rejected above.
As per claim 10:
Dai discloses the resonator as a generic resonator (embedded passive component 11, col. 3 line 60- col. 4 line 25, and that LTCCs are able to integrate passive components such as capacitors and inductors, col. 1 lines 19-37).
Dai does not disclose:
the resonator is an LC resonator including an inductor and a capacitor; and the conductor includes an inductor conductor layer constituting the inductor and a capacitor conductor layer constituting the capacitor.
Hirai discloses in Figs. 4-7:
a multilayer resonator (laminated ceramic dielectric material, col. 7 lines 37-46) that is an LC resonator including an inductor and a capacitor as seen in Fig. 7); and
a conductor (col. 7 lines 36-46) includes an inductor conductor layer constituting the inductor and a capacitor conductor layer constituting the capacitor (as seen in Fig. 6, wherein the inductors are resonant elements 14 & 18 formed in a layer, and electrode 80 provides a capacitor conductor layer).
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to replace the generic passive component of Dai with a resonator with the LC resonator of Hirai as a specific art-recognized resonator able to provide the same function.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAMUEL S OUTTEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7123. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:30AM-6:00PM.
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 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.
/Samuel S Outten/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2843
Prosecution Insights