CTNF 19/030,233 CTNF 99310 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Claim Objections 07-29-01 AIA Claim s 21-24 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claims 21-24, Line 3; “one first acoustic” should be rewritten as – a first acoustic –; Claim 21, Line 4; “one second acoustic” should be rewritten as – a second acoustic –; Claim 22, Line 4; “one third acoustic” should be rewritten as – a third acoustic –; Claim 24, Line 4; “one fourth acoustic” should be rewritten as – a fourth acoustic –; Claim 24, Line 4; “one fifth acoustic” should be rewritten as – a fifth acoustic –; Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA 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 1-24 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. Claims 2-3, 6-14, 17-20 depend upon rejected claim 1 and inherit the deficiency thereby. Claim 1, Line 11, “multilayer direction” is unclear to one of ordinary skill in the art as to how “the support overlapping the IDT electrode in a plan view” can also be in “a multilayer direction” and whether this “multilayer direction” is meant to be the z-direction or a differing direction. It is further unclear what constitutes the “multilayer” since a multilayer structure was not previously defined, thereby leaving the boundaries of the claim unclear. Claim 1, Lines 14-15; Claim 15, Line 2; and Claim 16, Lines 8-9, the term “about” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term various instances of “about” are not defined by the claims, and the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree encompassed by the term “about” at the various instances, and thus one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Claim 1, Lines 37-38 and 42-43, “a region between the electrode fingers” is unclear to one of ordinary skill in the art as to whether this region is related to the previously defined “a region located between ... and the pair of busbars is a pair of gap regions” or whether this is a newly defined region, not related to the gap region, thereby leaving the boundaries of the claim unclear. Claim 4, Lines 2-3, “include the granular mass addition film” is unclear to one of ordinary skill in the art as to whether “the granular mass addition film” is related to the previously defined “a plurality of granular mass addition films” or whether this is a newly defined “granular mass addition film”, not related to the plurality, thereby leaving the boundaries of the claim unclear. Claims 4-5, Lines 5-6, “a portion” is unclear to one of ordinary skill in the art whether this is the same “a portion laminated with the electrode finger” as previously defined in lines 3-4 of the claims or whether this recitation is defining a new, differing portion. Claims 21-24, Lines 7-8, “a piezoelectric substrate” is unclear to one of ordinary skill in the art as to whether this limitation is in reference to the “piezoelectric substrate” as previously defined in Claim 1, from which this claim depends, or to a new, differing “piezoelectric substrate”, thereby leaving the boundaries of the claim unclear. Claims 21-24, Line 8, “an IDT electrode” is unclear to one of ordinary skill in the art as to whether this limitation is in reference to the “IDT electrode” as previously defined in Claim 1, from which this claim depends, or to a new, differing “IDT electrode”, thereby leaving the boundaries of the claim unclear. Claims 21-24, Line 9, “a pair of busbars” is unclear to one of ordinary skill in the art as to whether this limitation is in reference to the “pair of busbars” as previously defined in Claim 1, from which this claim depends, or to a new, differing “pair of busbars”, thereby leaving the boundaries of the claim unclear. Claims 21-24, Lines 9-10, “a plurality of electrode fingers” is unclear to one of ordinary skill in the art as to whether this limitation is in reference to the “plurality of electrode fingers” as previously defined in Claim 1, from which this claim depends, or to a new, differing “plurality of electrode fingers”, thereby leaving the boundaries of the claim unclear. Claims 22-24, Lines 15-17, “a region in which the electrode fingers adjacent to each other overlap each other is an intersecting region” is unclear to one of ordinary skill in the art as to whether this limitation is in reference to the “region” and “intersecting region” as previously defined in Claim 1, from which this claim depends, or to a new, differing “region”, thereby leaving the boundaries of the claim unclear. Claims 22-24, Lines 17-19, “a region located between the intersecting region and the pair of busbars is a pair of gap regions” is unclear to one of ordinary skill in the art as to whether this limitation is in reference to the “region” and “gap regions” as previously defined in Claim 1, from which this claim depends, or to a new, differing “region”, thereby leaving the boundaries of the claim unclear. Claims 23-24, Lines 19-20, “a central region” is unclear to one of ordinary skill in the art as to whether this limitation is in reference to the “central region” as previously defined in Claim 1, from which this claim depends, or to a new, differing “central region”, thereby leaving the boundaries of the claim unclear. Claim 23, Line 21; and Claim 24, Line 20, “a pair of edge regions” is unclear to one of ordinary skill in the art as to whether this limitation is in reference to the “pair of edge regions” as previously defined in Claim 1, from which this claim depends, or to a new, differing “pair of edge regions”, thereby leaving the boundaries of the claim unclear. Claim 22, Line 20-21; and Claim 24, Lines 23-24, “a strip-shaped mass addition film” is unclear to one of ordinary skill in the art as to whether this limitation is in reference to the “strip-shaped mass addition film” as previously defined in Claim 1, from which this claim depends, or to a new, differing “strip-shaped mass addition film”, thereby leaving the boundaries of the claim unclear. Claim 22, Line 27; and Claim 24, Lines 29-30, “a region between the electrode fingers in a plan view” is unclear to one of ordinary skill in the art as to whether this limitation is in reference to the “region” as previously defined in Claim 1, from which this claim depends, or to a new, differing “region”, thereby leaving the boundaries of the claim unclear. Appropriate correction is required. Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The most pertinent prior art is Ruby (US 20170155373), a reference as cited by the applicant, which teaches an acoustic wave device having a piezoelectric, lithium niobate, an IDT electrode, reflectors, busbars, mass addition films, and a plurality of electrode fingers. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABIGAIL YALDO whose telephone number is (703)756-1784. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7 AM - 4 PM. 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. /ABIGAIL AMIR YALDO/Examiner, Art Unit 2843 /ANDREA LINDGREN BALTZELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2843 Application/Control Number: 19/030,233 Page 2 Art Unit: 2843 Application/Control Number: 19/030,233 Page 3 Art Unit: 2843 Application/Control Number: 19/030,233 Page 4 Art Unit: 2843 Application/Control Number: 19/030,233 Page 5 Art Unit: 2843 Application/Control Number: 19/030,233 Page 6 Art Unit: 2843
Prosecution Insights