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) 1-17 and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato (US 20210184324) in view of Yantchev (US 20220158621) and Morgan (US 5663696).
As to claim 1, Sato’s figures 1 and 4B show a filter device comprising: at least two resonators (22) electrically connected in parallel (figure 4B), each of the at least two resonators. The figures fail to show the internal structure of each resonator. However, Yantchev’s figure 1 shows a resonator that provides very high electromechanical coupling and high frequency capacity. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to use Yantchev’s resonator for each of Sato’s resonators for the purpose of improving the filter performance. Therefore, modified Sato’s figures show that each resonator including: a piezoelectric layer (Yantchev’s 110), and an interdigital transducer (IDT - 130) having a pair of busbars (Yatchev’s 132 and 134) that extend in a first direction and a plurality of interleaved fingers (136) extending from the pair of busbars and that are on a surface of the piezoelectric layer. The modified Sato’s figures fail to show that at least one busbar of the pair of busbars of a first resonator of the at least two resonators overlaps at least one busbar of the pair of busbars of a second resonator of the at least two resonators in a second direction substantially orthogonal to the first direction. However, Yatchev’s figure 5B shows resonator X1 and resonator X2 are laid out in parallel that is similar to the layout Sato’s figure 4, wherein at least one busbar of Yachev’s resonator X1 overlaps at least one busbar of Yachev’s X2 in a second direction substantially orthogonal to the first direction. Furthermore, Morgan’s figure 1 shows resonators (101a-101c) that are connected and laid out in parallel that is similar to the layout Sato’s figure 4, wherein at least one busbar of Morgan’s resonator 101a overlaps at least one busbar of Morgan’s 101b in a second direction substantially orthogonal to the first direction. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to layout Sato’s resonators as claimed for the purpose of saving space and ensuring optimum performance. The modified Sato’s figures further shows that each IDT having a length measured in the first direction that is defined by a distance between a first end and a second end of at least one busbar of the pair of busbars in the first direction, the filter device corresponds to a total IDT length that is equal to a sum of the lengths of the IDT of each of the at least two resonators, the pair of busbars of the first resonator does not overlap the pair of busbars of the second resonator in the first direction, and a distance in the first direction between a pair of imaginary lines extending in the second direction that intersect the first end of the at least one busbar of the first resonator and the second end of the at least one busbar of the second resonator is less than the total IDT length (see Morgan’s figure).
As to claim 2, the modified Sato’s figures show that the first direction extends along a first axis and the pair of busbars of each of the first and second resonators overlap in the second direction, such that a first imaginary line extending in a second axis perpendicular to the first axis intersects the at least one busbar of both the first resonator and the second resonator.
As to claim 3, the modified Sato’s figures show that a portion of the second resonator is not aligned with a portion of the first resonator in a plan view such that a second imaginary line extending in the second direction intersects the portion of the first resonator and not the portion of the second resonator.
As to claim 4, the modified Sato’s figures show that the at least two resonators comprise a physical layout such that:(i) lengths of the at least two resonators extend in the first direction and the plurality of interleaved fingers extend in the second direction, and(ii) a position of the first resonator is offset in the second direction from a position of the second resonator of the at least two resonators, such that the respective lengths of the at least two resonators are not aligned in a same axis in the first direction, and(iii) the length of the first resonator is offset in the first direction from the length of the second resonator, such that the respective lengths of the first and second resonators only partially overlap each in the second direction.
As to claim 5, the modified Sato’s figures show that each of the at least two resonators comprise a substrate (Yantchev’s 120 or 320), and the piezoelectric layer (Yantchev’s 110) attached to the substrate by one or more intermediate layers (Yantchev’s 216).
As to claim 6, the modified Sato’s figures show that the lengths of each of the first resonator and the second resonator are defined by a length of the at least one busbar of the pair of busbars, respectively.
As to claim 7, the modified Sato’s figures show that the lengths of each of the first resonator and the second resonator are defined by a distance between outermost fingers of the plurality of interleaved fingers of the IDT of the respective resonator.
As to claim 8, the modified Sato’s figures show that each of the at least two resonators comprises a cavity (Yantchev’s 140 or 340) in at least one of the substrate and the one or more intermediate layers, each cavity comprising opposing ends in the first direction, and the length of each of the first resonator and the second resonator is defined by a distance between the opposing ends of the cavity in the first direction.
As to claim 9, the modified Sato’s figures show that the at least two resonators are sub-resonators of a bulk acoustic resonator of a ladder filter circuit (Sato’s figure 1) each have a same number of interleaved fingers of the IDT and a substantially same length as each other (Sato’s figure 4).
As to claim 10, the modified Sato’s figures show that the piezoelectric layer and the IDT of each of the at least two resonators are configured such that a radio frequency signal applied to the IDT excites a primarily shear acoustic mode in the piezoelectric layer, the primarily shear acoustic mode being a bulk shear mode in which acoustic energy propagates along a direction substantially orthogonal to a surface of the piezoelectric layer, which is orthogonal to a direction of an electric field excited primarily laterally in the piezoelectric layer created by the plurality of interleaved fingers of the IDT.
As to claims 11 and 13-17, the modified Sato’s figures further shows that lengths of the at least two resonators extend in a first direction, the length of a first resonator of the at least two resonators is offset in a second direction orthogonal to the first direction from the length of a second resonator of the at least two resonators, such that the at least two resonators are not aligned in a same axis that extends in the first direction, and the length of the first resonator is offset in the first direction from the length of the second resonator, such that the lengths of the first and second resonators partially overlap each other relative to the second direction, the pair of busbars of each of the at least two resonators extends in the first direction, each IDT having a length measured in the first direction that is defined by a distance between a first end and a second end of at least one busbar of the pair of busbars in the first direction, and the filter device corresponding to a total IDT length that is equal to a sum of the lengths of the IDT of each of the at least two resonators, and a distance in the first direction between a pair of imaginary lines extending in the second direction that intersect the first end of the at least one busbar of the first resonator and the second end of the at least one busbar of the second resonator is less than the total IDT length.
As to claim 12, the modified Sato’s figures show that a portion of the second resonator is aligned with a portion of the first resonator in a plan view such that a first imaginary line extending in the second direction intersects the respective portions of the first and second resonators, and the second resonator includes an additional portion that is not aligned with an additional portion of the first resonator in the plan view such that a second imaginary line extending in the second direction intersects the additional portion of only one of the first resonator and the second resonator.
As to claims 19-20, the modified Sato’s figures further show that the length of a first resonator of the plurality of resonators at least partially overlaps the length of a second resonator of the plurality of resonators in the second direction, such that the first resonator and the second resonator are not aligned in a same axis that extends in the first direction. Selecting a distance in the first direction between a pair of imaginary lines extending in the second direction that intersect the first end of the at least one busbar of the first resonator and the second end of the at least one busbar of the second resonator to be less than the total IDT length is seen as an obvious design preference to ensure optimum performance, MPEP 2144.05.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 18 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.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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, Andrea Lindgren Baltzell can be reached at 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 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 2843
Prosecution Insights