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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species II, claims 1-5 and 8-20 in the reply filed on 5/18/2026 is acknowledged.
After further consideration, the examiner has determined that claim 10 is not part of the elected species, in which Species II (i.e. Figs. 8A and 9A) does not show a third inductor mutually coupled the second inductor and electrically isolated therefrom (i.e. Figs. 8A and 9A shows a third inductor, bottom right inductor L2, however this inductor is not mutually coupled to the second inductor, upper right inductor L2, and electrically isolated therefrom since these inductors are directly connected to each other).
Claims 6, 7 and 10 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 5/18/2026.
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, 3-5, 8, 9, 11, 15 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Schmidhammer et al. (US2023/0299741 A1, Cited by Applicant).
In regards to claims 1, 15 and 20, Schmidhammer et al. teaches in Fig. 3-2 and paragraph [0004] a wireless communication filter device comprising:
A transceiver (see paragraph [0004]) comprising a filter, the filter based on Fig. 3-2 comprising:
An input node (132-1);
An output node (132-2);
A first acoustic resonator (324-1) coupled to the input node;
A first inductor (left inductor of 326-1) coupled to the input node (132-1) and electrically parallel to the first acoustic resonator;
A second inductor (right inductor of 326-1) coupled to the output node (132-2) and mutually coupled to the first inductor but electrically isolated therefrom; and
A second acoustic resonator (324-2) serially coupled to the first acoustic resonator and a ground.
In regards to claims 3 and 17, based on Fig. 3-2, a third inductor (left inductor of 326-2) electrically parallel to the second acoustic resonator (324-2).
In regards to claims 4 and 18, based on Fig. 3-2, a fourth inductor (right inductor of 326-2) serially coupled to the second inductor and ground, the fourth inductor mutually coupled to the third inductor (left inductor of 326-2), but electrically isolated therefrom, wherein mutual coupling between the third inductor and the fourth inductor is opposite to that between the first and second inductors (see paragraph [0101], coupled inductors 326-1 has a phase that is opposite in phase to coupled inductor 326-2).
In regards to claims 5 and 19, based on related Fig. 11 and paragraph [0160], a capacitor (1104) can be added the output node to ground (capacitor 1104 will have a left end that will be electrically connected to ground).
In regards to claims 8 and 9, based on related Fig. 7-2 and paragraph [0131], each of the resonators (324-1 and 324-2) can be split resonators (splitting one resonator into two parallel connected resonators), therefore, the filter will comprises: a third acoustic resonator coupled to the input node and electrically parallel to the first acoustic resonator (324-1) will exist (i.e. one of the split resonators being the first resonator and the other split resonator being the third resonator), and a fourth acoustic resonator coupled to ground and electrically parallel to the second acoustic resonator (324-2) will exist (i.e. one of the split resonators being the second resonator and the other split resonator being the fourth resonator).
In regards to claim 11, based on paragraph [0046], the first and second acoustic resonators are bulk acoustic wave (BAW) resonator.
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.
Claims 2, 12-14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmidhammer et al. (US2023/0299741 A1, Cited by Applicant) in view of Frisvold (US2020/0152366 A1).
As discussed above, Schmidhammer et al. teaches the claimed invention as recited in claims 1 and 15. Schmidhammer et al. also teaches the following:
In regards to claim 12, Schmidhammer et al. teaches based on Fig. 3-2 a method of operating a filter comprising:
Providing a signal to an input node (132-1); and
Filtering the signal with a plurality of acoustic resonators (324-1 and 324-2).
In regards to claim 13, further comprising generating a filtered signal at an output node (132-2).
However, Schmidhammer et al. does not teach: in regards to claims 2 and 16, an electrostatic shield between the first inductor and the second inductor, wherein the electrostatic shield is electrically isolated from both the first inductor and the second inductor and is connected to ground; in regards to claim 12, using shielded mutually coupled inductors to circumvent out-of-band rejection limitations on the signal; in regards to claim 14, wherein using shielded mutually coupled inductors comprises using a shield that is coupled to ground.
Frisvold teaches in Fig. 3 a filter comprising mutually coupled first (120) and second (130) coils/inductors having a grounded electrostatic shield (140-1) between the coupled inductors. Frisvold teaches in paragraph [0057], that having a grounded electrostatic shield between mutually coupled inductors provides the benefit of reducing the capacitive coupling between the inductors.
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the invention of Schmidhammer et al. and have added a grounded electrostatic shield between each of the mutually coupled inductors, because such a modification would have provided the benefit of reducing the capacitive coupling between the inductors as suggested by Frisvold (see paragraph [0057]). As an obvious consequence of the modification, due to the reduction of capacitive coupling between the mutually coupled inductors, the performance of the filter will necessarily improve, thereby circumventing out-of-band rejection limitations on the signal
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Matsuda et al. (US2010/0148887 A1) teaches in Fig. 1A the concept of splitting acoustic resonators (S1 into S11 and S12) for the benefit of improving power durability (see paragraph [0113]).
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