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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1 and 2 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 14 and 17 of copending Application No. 19/040,723.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
As set forth below, the chart identifies which claims from the current application corresponds to the conflicting Co-Pending application.
Current Application
Co-Pending Application 19/010,723
1
14
2
17
As disclosed in the chart above, the copending application claim 14 and 17 substantially recite the same limitations recited in claims 1 and 2 of the current application as listed above. However, the following differences between the copending application and the current application claims are present as set forth below:
The copending application claim 14 has the additional limitation of “a surface facing the acoustic reflector that is flat (a) over an entirety of the active region and (b) beyond the first electrode over the acoustic reflector, the first electrode and the second electrode overlapping and being on opposing sides of the piezoelectric layer in the active region”.
Therefore, claims 14 and 17 of the copending application meets claims 1 and 2 of the present application under an “anticipation” analysis in an obviousness-type double patenting rejection.
Claims 19 and 20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 14 of copending Application No. 19/040,723 in view of Matsuo et al. (US2020/0083861 A1).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claim 14 of the copending application teaches the details of the bulk acoustic wave device as recited in claims 19 and 20 of the present application. However, claim 14 of the copending application does not teach: in regards to claim 19, an acoustic wave filter for filtering a radio frequency signal, and a plurality of additional acoustic wave resonators, the bulk acoustic wave resonator and the plurality of additional acoustic wave resonators configured to filter the radio frequency signal; and in regards to claim 20, a wireless communication device comprising: a radio frequency front end including a filter that includes the bulk acoustic wave resonator; an antenna coupled to the radio frequency front end; a transceiver in communication with the radio frequency front end; and a baseband system in communication with the transceiver.
Matsuo et al. teaches in Fig. 9 a wireless communication device comprising a radio frequency front end (840, 810, 850 and 860) including a filter/duplexer that includes a plurality of bulk acoustic wave resonators; an antenna (910) coupled to the radio frequency front end; a transceiver (830) in communication with the radio frequency front end; and a baseband system (930) in communication with the transceiver.
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the copending application claim 14 and have used the bulk acoustic wave device of claim 14 to form a filter/duplexer in a wireless communication device as taught by Matsuo et al. (see Fig. 9) because such a modification would have been a well-known in the art intended use for an acoustic wave device for the benefit of forming a filter.
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, 2, 4, 5, 10, 11, 14, 15, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Matsuo et al. (US2020/0083861 A1).
In regards to claim 1, Matsuo et al. teaches in Fig. 2 a bulk acoustic wave device having an active region (250), the bulk acoustic wave device comprising: a first electrode (125); a second electrode (120); and a piezoelectric layer (115) having a recess (220) outside of the active region of the bulk acoustic wave device, the first electrode and the second electrode overlapping and being on opposing sides of the piezoelectric layer throughout the active region.
In regards to claim 2, based on Fig. 2, a raised frame structure (260) outside of the active region (250).
In regards to claim 4, based on Fig. 2, the recess (220) is included between the raised frame structure (260) and the active region (250).
In regards to claim 5, based on Fig. 2, the raised frame structure (260) is positioned on a same side of the piezoelectric layer on opposite sides of the active region (250).
In regards to claim 10, based on Fig. 2, an acoustic reflector (135), the recess being over the acoustic reflector.
In regards to claim 11, based on Fig. 2, the acoustic reflector is an air cavity (135).
In regards to claim 14, based on Fig. 2, a support layer (130) over the acoustic reflector (135) and outside of the active region (250).
In regards to claim 15, based on Fig. 2, a raised frame structure (260) outside of the active region and over the acoustic reflector (135).
In regards to claim 19, based on related Fig. 9 and paragraph [0048), the bulk acoustic wave device of Fig. 2, in combination with additional acoustic wave resonators is used to form an acoustic wave filter/duplexer (810) for filtering a radio frequency signal.
In regards to claim 20, based on related Fig. 9 and paragraph [0048], the bulk acoustic wave device of Fig. 2 is used in a wireless communication (900) device comprising: a radio frequency front end (840, 810, 850 and 860) including a filter/duplexer (810) that uses the bulk acoustic wave device to form the filter, an antenna (910) coupled to the radio frequency front end; a transceiver (830) in communication with the radio frequency front end; and a baseband system (930) in communication with the transceiver.
Claims 1 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sui et al. (US2021/0281243 A1).
In regards to claim 1, Sui et al. teaches in Fig. 1 a bulk acoustic wave device having an active region, the bulk acoustic wave device comprising: a first electrode (13); a second electrode (15); and a piezoelectric layer (14) having a recess outside (12b) of the active region of the bulk acoustic wave device, the first electrode and the second electrode overlapping and being on opposing sides of the piezoelectric layer throughout the active region.
In regards to claim 7, based on Fig. 1, the recess is tapered.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 6, 8, 9, 12, 13 and 16-18 are 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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kishimoto et al. (US2021/0146402 A1) teaches in Fig. 1 a bulk acoustic wave device comprising a piezoelectric layer (10) comprises a recess (18) located outside an active region of the device.
Wang (US2019/0334503 A1) teaches in Fig. 1 a bulk acoustic wave device comprising a piezoelectric layer (R6C) containing a recess (R9C).
Belsick et al. (USPAT 10,326,425 B2) teaches in Fig. 3C a bulk acoustic wave device comprising a piezoelectric layer (22) containing a recess (60).
Kando (US2014/0167566 A1) teaches in Fig. 1(a) a bulk acoustic wave device comprising a piezoelectric layer (5) containing a recess (5a and 5b) located outside an active region of the device.
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