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 1-3 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 3 of U.S. Patent No. 11,923,822 B2 (Cited by Applicant).
The US patent claim 3 substantially recite the same limitations recited in claims 1-3 of the current application as listed above. However, the following differences between the US patent claim and the current application claims are present as set forth below:
The US patent claim 3 has the additional limitation of “a temperature compensation layer” while the current application claim 1 recites “a layer”.
Therefore, claim 3 of the patent meets claims 1-3 of the present application under an “anticipation” analysis in an obviousness-type double patenting rejection.
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 combination of “an air cavity” and “a solid acoustic mirror” 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.
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 1-5, 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hangzhou Sappland Microelectronics Tech Co LTD (CN109217841A, Cited by Applicant, Machine English Translation Provided by Applicant).
In regards to claims 1 and 2, Hangzhou Sappland Microelectronics Tech Co LTD teaches in Fig. 1(a) a stacked acoustic wave device structure comprising:
A surface acoustic wave device including a first piezoelectric layer (100) with an interdigital transducer electrode (200) on the first piezoelectric layer that generate a surface acoustic wave;
A temperature compensation layer (300) above the surface acoustic wave device along which the surface acoustic wave propagates; and
A bulk acoustic wave resonator (500, 600 and 700) supported by the temperature compensation layer (300), the bulk acoustic wave resonator including an air cavity (410) in contact with the temperature compensation layer (300), the bulk acoustic wave resonator further includes a second piezoelectric layer (600) above the air cavity (410) and electrodes (500 and 700) on opposing sides of the second piezoelectric layer.
In regards to claim 3, based on Fig. 1(a) the air cavity (410) has a shape that is impacted/formed by the temperature compensation layer (300).
In regards to claim 4, based on Fig. 1(a), at least a portion of the bulk acoustic wave resonator (bottom layer 500) is in direct contact with at least a portion of the temperature compensation layer (300).
In regards to claim 5, based on Fig. 1(a), the air cavity (410) is above the interdigital transducer electrode (200) of the surface acoustic wave device.
In regards to claim 8, based on Fig. 1(a), the bulk acoustic wave resonator (500, 600 and 700) has edges which isn’t aligned with edges of the surface acoustic wave device interdigital transducer electrode (200); therefore, the bulk acoustic wave resonator is laterally offset from the interdigital transducer electrode (200) of the surface acoustic wave device.
In regards to claim 9, based on Fig. 1(a), wherein at least one of the electrodes (500 and 700) of the bulk acoustic wave resonator extends over at least a portion of the interdigital transducer electrode (200).
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 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hangzhou Sappland Microelectronics Tech Co LTD (CN109217841A, Cited by Applicant, Machine English Translation Provided by Applicant) in view of Kando et al. (US2014/0203893 A1, Cited by Applicant).
As discussed above, Hangzhou Sappland Microelectronics Tech Co LTD teaches the claimed invention as recited in claim 1. Hangzhou Sappland Microelectronics Tech Co LTD teaches a generic surface acoustic wave device, therefore, does not teach: in regards to claim 6, wherein the surface acoustic wave device is a boundary wave resonator.
However, it is well-known in the art that surface acoustic wave device which produce elastic waves, can be designed to operate as a boundary wave resonator by changing properties of the acoustic wave piezoelectric layer. Kando et al. Paragraph [0053]-[0054] teaches that elastic waves includes surface acoustic wave resonator/device, boundary acoustic wave resonator/device and plate wave resonator/device, in which the operation mode depends on the properties of the piezoelectric layer.
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the invention of Hangzhou Sappland Microelectronics Tech Co LTD and have designed the piezoelectric layer of the surface acoustic wave device to operate as a boundary acoustic wave resonator because such a modification would have been a well-known in the art design consideration to provide a desired operating mode of the device as taught by Kando et al. (see Paragraph [0053]-[0054]).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hangzhou Sappland Microelectronics Tech Co LTD (CN109217841A, Cited by Applicant, Machine English Translation Provided by Applicant) in view of Saji et al. (US2019/0149128 A1).
As discussed above, Hangzhou Sappland Microelectronics Tech Co LTD teaches the claimed invention as recited in claim 1. Hangzhou Sappland Microelectronics Tech Co LTD does not teach: in regards to claim 10, a low velocity layer located between the first piezoelectric layer and a support structure.
Saji et al. teaches in Fig. 1 an acoustic wave device comprising an IDT (6) disposed on a piezoelectric layer (5), and a low velocity layer (4) located between the piezoelectric layer (5) and a support structure (3). Saji et al. teaches in paragraph [0012] that the combination of the low velocity layer and support substrate provide the benefit of confining acoustic wave energy within the piezoelectric layer.
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the invention of Hangzhou Sappland Microelectronics Tech Co LTD and have added a low velocity layer and support substrate below the first piezoelectric layer of the surface acoustic wave device because such a modification would have provided the benefit of confining acoustic wave energy within the first piezoelectric layer as taught by Saji et al. (see paragraph [0012]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 7 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.
Claims 11-20 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
In regards to claim 11, the most relevant prior art reference is Hangzhou Sappland Microelectronics Tech Co LTD as discussed above. However, Hangzhou Sappland Microelectronics Tech Co LTD does not teach in regards to claim 11, a second surface acoustic wave device above the first surface acoustic wave device, the second surface acoustic wave device including a second piezoelectric layer with a second interdigital transducer electrode on the second piezoelectric layer that generate a second surface acoustic wave, and a first layer above the second surface acoustic wave device along which at least the second surface acoustic wave propagates. Therefore, the applicants’ claimed invention has been determined to be novel and non-obvious. By virtue of dependency from claim 11, claims 12-20 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
Prosecution Insights