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.
Claim(s) 1-9 & 14-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hatakeyama et al. (US PGPub 20170346463) in view of Tsutsumi et al. (US PGPub 20110254639)
As per claim 1:
Hatakeyama et al. discloses in Figs. 5 & 14-15:
An acoustic wave filter (duplexer comprising transmit and receive filters [0036]), comprising:
a first substrate (10) including a first main surface (top) and a second main surface (bottom) opposite to the first main surface, and including the first main surface at which a first series-arm resonator (S11 or S21 in the alternative) and a second series-arm resonator (S12 or S23 in the alternative) are disposed;
a second substrate (20) including a third main surface (bottom) facing the first main surface of the first substrate, and disposed to define a space (air gap 26) between the third main surface and the first main surface;
a first external connection terminal (common pad Pa1 or Pa21 in the alternative) connected to an antenna connection terminal (common terminal Ant [0035], which can connect to an antenna);
a second external connection terminal (transmit pad Pt1 or receive pad Pr2 in the alternative, connected to a transmit or receive terminal in the alternative ([0035]);
a first wire (pad 35 of Pa1 or connection of S21 to Pa22 in the alternative) that electrically connects the first external connection terminal to the first series-arm resonator;
a second wire that electrically connects the second external connection terminal to the second series-arm resonator (wiring line 34a or wiring line 27 between S23 & S24 in the alternative); and
a shield (37) disposed at the third main surface ([0064]), wherein the shield at least partially overlaps the second wire without overlapping the first wire in plan view (as seen in Fig. 14).
Hatakeyama discloses that the reception filter may be formed on substrate 10, with the transmit filter on substrate 20 ([0067]).
Hatakeyama does not disclose:
a second external connection terminal connected to an amplifier.
In the alternative interpretation, Hatakeyama does not disclose:
the shield at least partially overlaps the second wire without overlapping the first wire in plan view.
Tsutsumi et al. discloses in Figs. 1 & 3:
A radio frequency block of a cellular phone comprising: a power amplifier (66) connected to a transmission path ([0019]) and a transmission filter (10) of a duplexer (60/100), a low noise amplifier (74) connected to the reception path ([0020]) and a reception filter (20) of a duplexer, wherein the duplexer is connected at a common port to an antenna (62).
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the duplexer of Hatakeyama in a radio frequency block as an art-recognized alternative/equivalent duplexer able to provide the same function.
As a consequence of the combination, the combination discloses the second external connection terminal connected to an amplifier, and the antenna terminal connected to an antenna.
For the alternative interpretation, it would be obvious for the shield to at least partially overlap the second wire without overlapping the first wire in plan view to prevent capacitive coupling between the transmit and receive filters near the transmit and receive terminals as taught by Hatakeyama ([0053, 0054, & 0068])
As per claim 2:
Hatakeyama et al. discloses in Figs. 14-15:
the shield does not overlap the first series-arm resonator in the plan view.
As per claim 3:
Hatakeyama et al. discloses in Figs. 14-15:
the shield at least partially overlaps the second series-arm resonator in the plan view.
As per claim 4:
Hatakeyama et al. discloses in Figs. 14-15:
the shield has a mesh shape in the plan view (as seen in related Figs. 11A-C, [0050]).
As per claim 5:
Hatakeyama et al. discloses in Figs. 14-15:
the acoustic wave filter is a surface acoustic wave filter ([0068]).
As per claim 6:
Hatakeyama et al. discloses in Figs. 14-15:
the acoustic wave filter is a bulk acoustic wave filter (piezoelectric thin film resonator [0068]).
As per claim 7:
Hatakeyama et al. discloses in Figs. 14-15:
the first series-arm resonator (which may be a piezoelectric thin film resonator, [0068]) includes a lower electrode and an upper electrode ([0030]), and a piezoelectric member disposed between the lower electrode and the upper electrode ([0030]).
Hatakeyama et al. does not disclose:
wherein the first wire is connected to the lower electrode.
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the first wire to be connected to the lower electrode as an obvious choice of one of a limited number of options (upper or lower electrode) for connectivity of the first wire, as is well understood in the art.
As per claims 8 & 14:
Hatakeyama et al. discloses in Figs. 5 & 14-15:
the acoustic wave filter includes a pass band including a reception band of a first band (receive filter 62, shown in Fig. 5, may be formed on substrate 10)
Hatakeyama et al. does not disclose:
the amplifier is a low-noise amplifier.
Tsutsumi et al. discloses in Figs. 1 & 3:
A radio frequency block of a cellular phone comprising: a power amplifier (66) connected to a transmission path ([0019]) and a transmission filter (10) of a duplexer (60/100), a low noise amplifier (74) connected to the reception path ([0020]) and a reception filter (20) of a duplexer, wherein the duplexer is connected at a common port to an antenna (62).
As a consequence of the combination of claim 1 (in the alternative interpretation), the amplifier is a low-noise amplifier.
As per claims 9 & 15:
Hatakeyama et al. discloses in Figs. 5 & 14-15:
the acoustic wave filter includes a pass band including a transmission band of a first band (transmission filter 60).
Hatakeyama et al. does not disclose:
the amplifier is a power amplifier.
As per claim 16:
Hatakeyama et al. discloses in Figs. 5 & 14-15:
The acoustic filter is comprised in a duplexer chip (as seen in Fig. 15)
Hatakeyama et al. does not disclose:
a module substrate;
the acoustic wave filter according to Claim 1 disposed at the module substrate; and
an inductor disposed at the module substrate, and electrically connected to the first external connection terminal of the acoustic wave filter.
Tsutsumi et al. discloses in Figs. 1, 3, 7, 9-12(a-b):
A radio frequency block of a cellular phone comprising:
a power amplifier (66) connected to a transmission path ([0019]) and a transmission filter (10) of a duplexer (60/100), a low noise amplifier (74) connected to the reception path ([0020]) and a reception filter (20) of a duplexer, wherein the duplexer is connected at a common port to an antenna (62), wherein the duplexer is configured in a chip package (90) comprising a module substrate (second layer 91), a duplexer (filter chips 12 & 22 with interconnection 97) disposed at the module substrate and an inductor (32) disposed at the module substrate, and electrically connected to the first external connection terminal of the acoustic wave filter (as seen in Figs. 7 & 9-11).
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the duplexer of Hatakeyama in the package of Tsutsumi et al. as an art-recognized alternative/equivalent duplexer that provides the benefit of downsizing the acoustic wave filters as taught by Hatakeyama ([0004]).
As per claim 17:
Hatakeyama et al. does not disclose:
the inductor is further connected to an antenna terminal.
Tsutsumi et al. discloses in Figs. 1, 3, 7, 9-12(a-b):
the inductor is further connected to an antenna terminal (common terminal Ant, which connects to antenna 62).
As per claim 18:
Hatakeyama et al. does not disclose:
another end of the inductor is connected to ground.
Tsutsumi et al. discloses in Figs. 1, 3, 7, 9-12(a-b):
another end of the inductor is connected to ground ([0041]).
Claim(s) 10-13 & 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the resultant combination of Hatakeyama et al. (US PGPub 20170346463) in view of Tsutsumi et al. (US PGPub 20110254639) as applied to claims 1, 16, & 18 above, and further in view of Schmidhammer (US PGPub 20100237962).
The resultant combination discloses the acoustic wave filter of claims 1, 16, & 18, as rejected above.
As per claim 10:
The resultant combination discloses in Hatakeyama:
the first substrate may be a silicon material ([0023])
The resultant combination does not disclose:
the first substrate is a low temperature co-fired ceramic (LTCC) substrate.
Schmidhammer discloses the use of a low temperature co-fired ceramic (LTCC) substrate as an alternative to a silicon substrate ([0019]).
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a low temperature co-fired ceramic (LTCC) substrate for the first substrate as a known in the art alternative/equivalent material for forming a substrate as taught by Schmidhammer ([0019]).
As per claim 11:
The resultant combination discloses in Hatakeyama:
the second substrate may be a silicon material ([0026])
The resultant combination does not disclose:
the second substrate is a low temperature co-fired ceramic (LTCC) substrate.
Schmidhammer discloses the use of a low temperature co-fired ceramic (LTCC) substrate as an alternative to a silicon substrate ([0019]).
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a low temperature co-fired ceramic (LTCC) substrate for the second substrate as a known in the art alternative/equivalent material for forming a substrate as taught by Schmidhammer ([0019]).
As per claim 12:
The resultant combination discloses in Hatakeyama:
the first substrate may be a silicon material ([0023])
The resultant combination does not disclose:
the first substrate is a high temperature co-fired ceramic (HTCC) substrate.
Schmidhammer discloses the use of a high temperature co-fired ceramic (HTCC) substrate as an alternative to a silicon substrate ([0019]).
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a high temperature co-fired ceramic (HTCC) substrate for the first substrate as a known in the art alternative/equivalent material for forming a substrate as taught by Schmidhammer ([0019]).
As per claim 13:
The resultant combination discloses in Hatakeyama:
the second substrate may be a silicon material ([0026])
The resultant combination does not disclose:
the second substrate is a high temperature co-fired ceramic (HTCC) substrate.
Schmidhammer discloses the use of high temperature co-fired ceramic (HTCC) substrate as an alternative to a silicon substrate ([0019]).
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a high temperature co-fired ceramic (HTCC) substrate for the second substrate as a known in the art alternative/equivalent material for forming a substrate as taught by Schmidhammer ([0019]).
As per claim 19:
The resultant combination discloses in Tsutsumi:
the module substrate is a ceramic material ([0040])
The resultant combination does not disclose:
the module substrate is a low temperature co-fired ceramic (LTCC) substrate.
Schmidhammer discloses the use of a low temperature co-fired ceramic (LTCC) substrate as a ceramic substrate ([0019]).
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a low temperature co-fired ceramic (LTCC) substrate for the module substrate as a known in the art alternative/equivalent material for forming a ceramic substrate as taught by Schmidhammer ([0019]).
As per claim 20:
The resultant combination discloses in Tsutsumi:
the module substrate is a ceramic material ([0040])
The resultant combination does not disclose:
the module substrate is a high temperature co-fired ceramic (HTCC) substrate.
Schmidhammer discloses the use of a high temperature co-fired ceramic (HTCC) substrate as a ceramic substrate ([0019]).
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a high temperature co-fired ceramic (HTCC) substrate for the module substrate as a known in the art alternative/equivalent material for forming a ceramic substrate as taught by Schmidhammer ([0019]).
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