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 § 112
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 6, 7, 11-14 & 18-20 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the satellite communication receiving band" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “the first series resonator is one of the series resonators constituting the ladder filter after being divided in series.” It is not clear what is meant by “after being divided in series,” which appears to be either redundant or to imply a method step in an apparatus claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “the first series resonator includes a pair of reflectors adjacent to the IDT electrode, and the pitch of the reflectors is less than the second pitch in the region closest to the IDT electrode and greater than the second pitch in the region farthest from the IDT electrode.” It is not clear what is meant by the limitation, as there is no antecedent basis for regions in the reflector, and the second pitch is a stated value, and as such doesn’t change in different regions of the IDT, wherein the regions of the IDT do have antecedent basis.
Claims 12-13 are rejected as being dependent upon claim 11.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the non-central region of the IDT electrode" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 8 provides two non-central regions, and two outer regions, both of which may be considered to be non-central, such that it isn’t clear which region is referred to by “the non-central region of the IDT electrode.” Specifically, it is not clear if the limitation is using “non-central region” as per the naming convention of central, non-central, and outer, or providing for one of the regions that is not the central region. In the case that the naming convention is used, it is still unclear which non-central region of the two non-central regions is referred to.
Claim 18 recites the limitation “the elastic wave devices as claimed in claim 1” in line 1. Claim 1 does not provide a plurality of elastic wave devices, and cites only “An elastic wave device,” thus failing to provide antecedent basis for “the elastic wave devices,” as it is in unclear if the module comprises more than one of the elastic wave device of claim 1.
Claims 19-20 are rejected as being dependent upon claim 18.
For examination purposes, “the elastic wave devices” will be interpreted as --the elastic wave device--.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-4, 7, & 15-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nosaka (US PGPub 20210006232).
As per claim 1:
Nosaka discloses in Figs. 1-3:
An elastic wave device (filter 10), comprising a plurality of series resonators (S1-S3) and a plurality of parallel resonators (P1-P3), and a bandpass filter (as seen in Figs. 2, and described in [0093]) that allows signals within a predetermined frequency band to pass through;
The plurality of series resonators includes a first series resonator having a first anti-resonant frequency (fas1) and a second anti-resonant frequency (fas2); The first anti-resonant frequency is located near the lowest frequency of the predetermined frequency band (as seen in Figs. 2);
The second anti-resonant frequency is located above the highest frequency of the predetermined frequency band (as seen in Figs. 2).
As per claim 3:
Nosaka discloses in Figs. 1-3:
the first series resonator is the resonator to which an electrical signal is applied first among the plurality of series resonators (through terminal 11m, as seen in Figs. 1-3).
As per claim 4:
Nosaka discloses in Figs. 1-3:
the bandpass filter includes a receiving filter ([0222]).
As per claim 7:
Nosaka discloses in Figs. 1-3:
the bandpass filter is a ladder filter ([0085]);
the first series resonator is one of the series resonators constituting the ladder filter after being divided in series (S1 is a series resonator in ladder filter 10).
As per claim 15:
Nosaka discloses in Figs. 1-2:
the predetermined frequency band of the bandpass filter is less than 100 MHz ([0154]).
As per claim 16:
Nosaka discloses in Figs. 1-2:
the difference between the highest and lowest frequencies within the predetermined frequency band, divided by the center frequency of the predetermined frequency band, is 0.5% or more and 4.0% or less ([0154]).
As per claim 17:
Nosaka discloses in Figs. 1-2:
the width of the predetermined frequency band is formed within the frequency difference between the first anti-resonant frequency and the second anti-resonant frequency (Fig. 2B, 2C, & 15B shows a passband created between fr2 and fas2, which is reduced in width in Fig. 2C, and within the frequency difference between fas1 and fas2).
As per claim 18:
Nosaka discloses in Figs. 1-2:
A module (radio frequency front-end circuit, [0029]) comprising the elastic wave device as claimed in claim 1.
Claim(s) 1, 4, & 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wang et al. (US PGPub 20220200572)
As per claim 1:
Wang et al. discloses in Figs. 12-13:
An elastic wave device, comprising a plurality of series resonators and a plurality of parallel resonators (filter 130), and a bandpass filter that allows signals within a predetermined frequency band to pass through ([0125]);
The plurality of series resonators includes a first series resonator having a first anti-resonant frequency and a second anti-resonant frequency ([0126]);
The first anti-resonant frequency is located near the lowest frequency of the predetermined frequency band (as seen in Fig. 12B, wherein the first anti-resonant frequency is the lowest of the multiple anti-resonant frequencies);
The second anti-resonant frequency is located above the highest frequency of the predetermined frequency band (as seen in Fig. 12B, wherein the second anti-resonant frequency is an anti-resonant frequency higher than the first anti-resonant frequency).
As per claim 4:
Wang discloses in Figs. 12-13:
the bandpass filter includes a receiving filter ([0125]).
As per claim 18:
Wang discloses in Figs. 12-13 & 19-21:
A module (190, 200, 210) comprising the elastic wave device ([0146-0148]) as claimed in claim 1.
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) 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nosaka (US PGPub 20210006232).
As per claim 5:
Nosaka discloses in Fig. 3:
the receiving filter further includes an input (terminal 11m), an output (11n), and a ground (connected to each of switches SW1-3);
wherein the first series resonator (S1) is closest to the input.
Nosaka does not disclose:
The input is an input pad, the output is an output pad, the ground is a ground pad, nor herein the first series resonator is closest to the input pad.
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for each of the input, the output, and the ground to be formed as respective pads at or near the indicated location of Fig. 3 as a well known in the art method of forming input, output, and ground connections that provides the benefit of a contact point for the function of a terminal.
As a consequence of the combination, the combination discloses the receiving filter further includes an input pad, an output pad, and a ground pad; wherein the first series resonator is closest to the input pad.
As per claim 6:
Nosaka does not disclose:
the receiving filter is for the satellite communication receiving band, with a range of 2170MHz to 2200MHz.
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the filter of Nosaka to be set to the satellite communication receiving band, with a range of 2170MHz to 2200MHz, as the frequency range of a passband of a filter is a design parameter that determines the signal behavior and functionality of a filter as is well understood in the art.
Claim(s) 2-3 & 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (US PGPub 20220200572)
As per claim 2:
Wang discloses in Figs. 9-10:
the separation between resonant and anti-resonant frequencies can be adjusted with a lowest anti-resonant frequency being below a primary resonant frequency (f1) of a resonator, as seen in Fig. 9 ([0112]).
Wang does not disclose:
the first anti-resonant frequency is within a range of 25 MHz downward from the lowest frequency of the predetermined frequency band.
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the first anti-resonant frequency to be within a range of 25 MHz downward from the lowest frequency of the predetermined frequency band, as the distance between the first and second anti-resonant frequencies is a design parameter that can be adjusted as per the desired electrical behavior of the filter as taught by Wang et al. ([0112]), and further wherein the lowest frequency of a predetermined frequency band of a filter is a design parameter that can be determined by the choice of resonant frequencies of a shun resonator as is well understood in the art, and as shown by Wang et al. in related Fig. 8A ([0111]).
As per claim 3:
Wang discloses in Figs. 1-3:
A first series resonator (R1 or R7, as I/O1&2 are input/output ports) is a resonator to which an electrical signal is applied first among the plurality of series resonators, and wherein one or more of the series resonators may be The first series resonator ([0126])
Wang does not disclose:
the first series resonator is the resonator to which an electrical signal is applied first among the plurality of series resonators.
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for one or both of R1 and R7 to be the first series resonator as one of a limited number of options (one or more out of 4 series resonators) for the series resonators to be The first series resonator, as per Wang et al. ([0126]).
As per claim 5:
Wang et al. discloses in Fig. 12-13:
the receiving filter further includes an input (input/output port I/O1), an output (input/output port I/O2), and a ground (shown in Fig. 13);
wherein the first series resonator (R1) is closest to the input.
Wang et al. does not disclose:
The input is an input pad, the output is an output pad, the ground is a ground pad, nor herein the first series resonator is closest to the input pad.
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for each of the input, the output, and the ground to be formed as respective pads as a well known in the art method of forming input, output, and ground connections that provides the benefit of a contact point for the function of a terminal.
It would be further obvious for the first series resonator to be closest to the input pad to provide the benefit of reducing resistance and wiring effects, as is well-understood in the art.
As a consequence of the combination, the combination discloses the receiving filter further includes an input pad, an output pad, and a ground pad; wherein the first series resonator is closest to the input pad.
As per claim 6:
Wang et al. does not disclose:
the receiving filter is for the satellite communication receiving band, with a range of 2170MHz to 2200MHz.
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the filter of Wang et al. to be set to the satellite communication receiving band, with a range of 2170MHz to 2200MHz, as the frequency range of a passband of a filter is a design parameter that determines the signal behavior and functionality of a filter as is well understood in the art.
Claim(s) 8-10 & 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nosaka (US PGPub 20210006232) in view of Ito et al. (US PGPub 20190036554)
As per claim 8:
Nosaka discloses in Figs. 1-3:
the first series resonator is a surface acoustic wave resonator ([0142]) with an IDT electrode (111), the IDT electrode comprising: A central region with a first pitch (as seen in Fig. 3 and indicated by Ps1).
Nosaka does not disclose:
A central region with a first pitch, two non-central regions adjacent to the central region with a second pitch, and two outer regions adjacent to the non-central regions with a third pitch; Wherein the first pitch is smaller than the second pitch, and the second pitch is greater than the third pitch.
Ito et al. discloses in Figs. 1-3:
a surface acoustic wave resonator ([0001]) with an IDT electrode (5), the IDT electrode comprising:
A central region (second area 19B) with a first pitch ([0056]),with additional non-central and outer regions (number of areas may be a plurality, [0054-0057]);
Wherein the first pitch is smaller than the surrounding pitches that may scale upward from the center ([0055]).
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the IDT to comprise a central region with a first pitch, two non-central regions adjacent to the central region with a second pitch, and two outer regions adjacent to the non-central regions with a third pitch; Wherein the first pitch is smaller than the second pitch, and the second pitch is greater than the third pitch as disclosed by Ito et al. to provide the benefit of controlling the separation between the highest resonant frequency and the respective anti-resonant frequency as taught by Ito et al. ([0081]), and further for increasing the steepness of the impedance change above the highest resonance and widening a low impedance range as taught by Ito et al. ([0086])
As per claim 9:
Nosaka discloses in Figs. 1-3:
the IDT electrode comprises a pair of comb-shaped electrodes (as seen in Fig. 3);
the comb-shaped electrodes comprise multiple electrode fingers and bus bars (as seen in Fig. 3);
the electrode fingers are arranged in the long edge direction; the bus bars are connected to the multiple electrode fingers (as seen in Fig. 3).
As per claim 10:
Nosaka does not disclose the thickness of the IDT electrode and the reflector is 150nm to 450nm.
Ito et al. discloses in Figs. 1-3:
The conductor layers of a surface acoustic wave resonator are set to thicknesses according to desired electrical characteristics as a design parameter, typically between 50-600 nm ([0038]).
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the IDT electrode and the reflector to have a thickness of 150nm to 450nm as a design parameter for determining the electrical characteristics of the resonator, as is well understood in the art and as taught by Ito et al. ([0038]).
As per claim 14:
Nosaka does not disclose:
the duty ratio of the central region of the IDT electrode is greater than the duty ratio of the non-central region of the IDT electrode.
Ito et al. discloses in Figs. 1-3:
The different areas of the IDT may have a different duty ratio ([0223])
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the duty ratio of the central region of the IDT electrode is greater than the duty ratio of the non-central region of the IDT electrode, as the duty ratio is a design parameter for providing the benefit of determining the resonance frequency of an area as taught by Ito et al. ([0223-0224])
Claim(s) 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nosaka (US PGPub 20210006232) in view of Matsumoto (US PGPub 20240048173)
As per claim 19:
Nosaka discloses in Fig. 3:
A module (front-end circuit, [0029]) comprising the elastic wave device of claim 1.
Nosaka does not disclose:
That the module includes a wiring substrate, external connection terminals, an integrated circuit component, an elastic wave device, an inductor, and a sealing portion;
the external connection terminals are formed on the bottom surface of the wiring substrate;
the integrated circuit component is mounted inside the wiring substrate; the elastic wave device and the inductor are mounted on the main surface of the wiring substrate.
Matsumoto discloses in Figs. 1-12:
A module (1) comprising an elastic wave device (filters may be acoustic wave filters, [0058-0062]), wherein the module includes a wiring substrate (mounting substrate 100 and second resin layer 125), external connection terminals (200), an integrated circuit component (800), an elastic wave device (filters 51-54), an inductor (matching circuits 41-44, [0054-0057]), and a sealing portion (resin layer 120);
the external connection terminals are formed on the bottom surface of the wiring substrate (as seen in Fig. 4);
the integrated circuit component is mounted inside the wiring substrate (as seen in Fig. 4);
the elastic wave device and the inductor are mounted on the main surface (first main surface 101) of the wiring substrate (as seen in Fig. 2).
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the specific filter of Nosaka for the generic filter of Matsumoto as an art-recognized equivalent acoustic wave filter, as is well understood in the art, and that provides the benefit of improving attenuation in frequencies higher than the passband as taught by Nosaka ([0030]).
As per claim 20:
Nosaka discloses in Fig. 3:
A module (front-end circuit, [0029]) comprising the elastic wave device of claim 1.
Nosaka does not disclose:
the integrated circuit component includes a switch circuit and a noise amplifier.
Matsumoto discloses in Figs. 1-12:
the integrated circuit component includes a switch circuit and a noise amplifier ([0079]).
As a consequence of the combination of claim 19, the integrated circuit component includes a switch circuit and a noise amplifier.
Claim(s) 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (US PGPub 20220200572) in view of Matsumoto (US PGPub 20240048173)
As per claim 19:
Wang discloses in Figs. 12-13 & 19-21:
A module (190, 200, 210) comprising the elastic wave device of claim 1 ([0146-0148]).
Wang et al. does not disclose:
That the module includes a wiring substrate, external connection terminals, an integrated circuit component, an elastic wave device, an inductor, and a sealing portion;
the external connection terminals are formed on the bottom surface of the wiring substrate;
the integrated circuit component is mounted inside the wiring substrate; the elastic wave device and the inductor are mounted on the main surface of the wiring substrate.
Matsumoto discloses in Figs. 1-12:
A module (1) comprising an elastic wave device (filters may be acoustic wave filters, [0058-0062]), wherein the module includes a wiring substrate (mounting substrate 100 and second resin layer 125), external connection terminals (200), an integrated circuit component (800), an elastic wave device (filters 51-54), an inductor (matching circuits 41-44, [0054-0057]), and a sealing portion (resin layer 120);
the external connection terminals are formed on the bottom surface of the wiring substrate (as seen in Fig. 4);
the integrated circuit component is mounted inside the wiring substrate (as seen in Fig. 4);
the elastic wave device and the inductor are mounted on the main surface (first main surface 101) of the wiring substrate (as seen in Fig. 2).
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the specific filter of Wang et al. for the generic filter of Matsumoto as an art-recognized equivalent acoustic wave filter, as is well understood in the art, and that provides the benefit of increasing the frequency range for rejection of an acoustic filter as taught by Wang et al. ([0091]).
As per claim 20:
Wang discloses in Figs. 12-13 & 19-21:
A module (190, 200, 210) comprising the elastic wave device of claim 1 ([0146-0148]).
Wang does not disclose:
the integrated circuit component includes a switch circuit and a noise amplifier.
Matsumoto discloses in Figs. 1-12:
the integrated circuit component includes a switch circuit and a noise amplifier ([0079]).
As a consequence of the combination of claim 19, the integrated circuit component includes a switch circuit and a noise amplifier.
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