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 6-9 and 17-19 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 7-9 and 18-19 depend upon rejected claim 1 and inherit the deficiency thereby.
Claim 6, Line 3; and Claim 17, Line 3, “a second direction” is unclear to one of ordinary skill in the art as to whether this “first direction” that is orthogonal to a second direction is related to the “a direction” as previously defined in Claim 1, from which this claim depends, or a differing “second direction” completely, thereby leaving the boundaries of the claim unclear.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
The applied reference has a common assignee with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2).
This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C.102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B); or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement. See generally MPEP § 717.02.
Claims 1-2, 6, 12-13, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Konaka (US 20240235523) in view of Yamanouchi (JPH088680A), a reference as cited by applicant and examiner is depending on examiner’s attached translation.
As per Claims 1-2, 6, 12-13, and 17: Konaka discloses in Figure 2:
A filter device (“filter”, 1) with a plurality of bulk acoustic wave resonators connected in parallel (as per claim 12, “parallel arm resonators”, P1-P4, as shown in related Figure 21, due to the bulk wave propagating, [0052] the acoustic resonators are inherently bulk acoustic resonators, as is known to one of ordinary skill in the art), wherein at least one acoustic resonator of the plurality of bulk acoustic resonators (P1-P4) having a piezoelectric layer (100), an IDT (11) over the piezoelectric layer having a first and second busbar (as per claims 6 and 17, “busbar electrode”, 11c) disposed on the surface of the piezoelectric layer (100) and extend along a first direction (d2, as evident by Figure 2 and related Figure 1) orthogonal to a second direction (d1, as evident by Figure 2) in which the first and second plurality extend (extending in the d1 direction, as is evident by Figure 2 and related Figure 1), and comprising a first (“comb-shaped electrode”, 11b) and second plurality of interleaved fingers (“comb-shaped electrode”, 11a), wherein the second plurality (11a) has a pair of subsections disposed on each side of the first plurality in a lengthwise direction of the IDT (11a is disposed on each side of 11b, as is evident by related Figure 1), and a first pitch (“first end-side pitch”, as shown in Figure 2) of the first plurality (11b) is different than a second pitch (“n-th end-side pitch”, as shown in Figure 2) of the second plurality (11a, the first pitch is different than that of the second due to a pitch between the eighth end-side electrode finger and a ninth end-side electrode finger, is smaller than the average IDT pitch PIDT, thereby inherently having a different first and second pitch [0067]).
Konaka does not disclose:
The first plurality has a first thickness different and greater than the second thickness of the second plurality, and the thickness is measured in a direction orthogonal to the surface of the piezoelectric layer.
Yamanouchi discloses in Figure 2:
The first plurality (“electrode”, 6) has a first thickness different and greater (as per claims 2 and 13, as is evident by electrode 6 in Figure 2) than the second thickness of the second plurality (“electrodes”, 5 and 7, “have different electrode film thicknesses”, [Col. 2, Lines 41-43] as is evident by the thickness of electrode 6 being larger than the thickness of 5 and 7, as evident by Fig. 2), and the thickness is measured in a direction orthogonal to the surface of the piezoelectric layer (IDT electrodes 4-7 are formed on the piezoelectric substrate 1, [Col. 2, Lines 25-27], and therefore the thickness direction would inherently be orthogonal, as is evident by Figure 2).
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the thickness of the first and second plurality of Konaka to the thicknesses of Yamanouchi to provide the benefit of obtaining a low insertion loss filter (Yamanouchi, [Objective]).
Claims 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Konaka (US 20240235523) in view of Yamanouchi (JPH088680A), a reference as cited by applicant and examiner is depending on examiner’s attached translation, and Nakamura (US 11689178).
As per Claim 20:
Konaka discloses in Figure 2:
The limitations as defined above.
Yamanouchi discloses in Figure 2:
The limitations as defined above.
Konaka and Yamanouchi do not disclose:
A radio frequency module comprising a radio frequency circuit coupled to the filter device, and the filter device and the radio frequency circuit being enclosed within a common package.
Nakamura discloses in Figure 7A:
A radio frequency module (“module”, 90) comprising a radio frequency circuit (“antenna switch”, 92, an antenna switch is inherently a RF circuit, as is known to one of ordinary skill in the art) coupled to the filter device (“filters”, 91), and the filter device and the radio frequency circuit being enclosed within a common package (as is evident by Figure 7A and the radio frequency switch and acoustic wave filter packaged together, [Col. 2, Lines 28-29]).
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the filter device of Konaka and Yamanouchi to include the radio frequency module and the associated circuit with packaging as taught by Nakamura to provide the benefit of enclosing elements and implementations within a wireless communication device (Nakamura, [Col. 15, Lines 45-48, Col. 16, Lines 22-24]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-5, 10-11, and 14-16 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
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
Prosecution Insights