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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species I in the reply filed on 8/5/2026 is acknowledged. The applicant has indicated that claims 1, 2, 4-10, 12-14 and 18-20 read on the elected species. However, it appears that Claims 6-7 and 14 more appropriately read on a non-elected Species V (Fig. 11C). Accordingly, Claims 3, 6-7, 11, 14-17 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Claims 1, 2, 4-5, 8-10, 12-13 and 18-20 are being examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted 5/30/2025 and 8/4/2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because of the following:
Figs. 1A-B, 5A-B should be designated by a legend such as --PRIOR ART-- or --RELATED ART-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 19 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 9 and 19, respectively, of co-pending Application No. 19/069,666 (“Reference Application”), corresponding to U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2025/0300629. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the identified claims of the Reference Application recite substantially the same limitations recited in the identified claims of the present application. The following charts identify which claims from the present application correspond to conflicting claims of the Reference Application.
Present Application
Reference Application
Claim 1: An acoustic wave device comprising:
Claim 9: A multi-mode surface acoustic wave device comprising: A multi-mode surface acoustic wave device comprising:
a piezoelectric layer;
[inherent in the surface acoustic wave device]
an interdigital transducer electrode over the piezoelectric layer, the interdigital transducer electrode including a first bus bar, a first set of fingers extending from the first bus bar, a second bus bar, and a second set of fingers extending from the second bus bar
a first interdigital transducer electrode including a first bus bar and a first finger extending from the first bus bar;
a second interdigital transducer including a second bus bar and a second finger extending from the second bus bar; and
a conductive structure including a first portion positioned on the first bus bar and a second portion at least partially positioned over the first set of fingers, the second portion spaced from the first set of fingers by a gap.
a conductive structure including a first portion positioned on the first bus bar, a second portion at least partially positioned over the first finger, and a third portion positioned on the second bus bar, the second portion extends between the first and third portions and spaced from the first finger by a gap.
Present Application
Reference Application
Claim 19: A surface acoustic wave device comprising:
Claim 18: A multi-mode surface acoustic wave device comprising:
a piezoelectric layer;
[inherent in the surface acoustic wave device]
an interdigital transducer electrode over the piezoelectric layer; and
a first interdigital transducer electrode including an active region;
a second interdigital transducer electrode longitudinally positioned from the first interdigital transducer electrode; and
a conductive structure electrically connected to a terminal of the interdigital transducer electrode and partially positioned over an active region of the interdigital transducer electrode, the conductive structure spaced from the interdigital transducer electrode by an air gap.
a conductive structure electrically connecting the first and second interdigital transducer electrodes, at least a portion of the conductive structure being positioned over and spaced apart from the active region of the first interdigital transducer electrode;
Claim 19: wherein the portion of the conductive structure is spaced apart from the active region by an air gap.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented. The identified claims of the Reference Application recite additional limitations and therefore meet the identified claims of the present application under an “anticipation” analysis in the provisional double patenting rejection.
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)(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, 12-13, 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2024/0364306, filed 3/7/2022 (“Fujimori”).
Fujimori discloses in Figs. 1-4, 11 and the corresponding description:
Claims 1, 2, 4-5, 10, 12-13, 18-19
An acoustic wave device (Figs. 1-3, acoustic wave device 1, ¶¶24-45) comprising:
a piezoelectric layer (Figs. 2-3, piezoelectric substrate 100, ¶37, made of lithium tantalate or lithium niobate) ;
an interdigital transducer electrode (120) over the piezoelectric layer, the interdigital transducer electrode including a first bus bar (Fig. 4, D2), a first set of fingers extending from the first bus bar, a second bus bar (D1), and a second set of fingers extending from the second bus bar (Fig. 4, ¶39).
a conductive structure (Figs. 2-3, shield layer 145, ¶44-45) including a first portion positioned on the first bus bar (¶45) and a second portion at least partially positioned over the first set of fingers (Fig. 2, shield layer is positioned over the entire IDT 120), the second portion spaced from the first set of fingers by a gap (¶44, shield layer 145 is disposed in the hollow space 171; Fig. 9, ¶¶61-63).
Because Fujimori discloses that “one electrode D2 of the resonator 120 of the parallel arm resonator is connected to the shield layer 145” (¶45), at least the connection portion of the shield layer is positioned on the first bus bar D2. Because Fujimori discloses that the shield layer 145 is positioned over the entire IDT 120, at least a portion (“second portion”) of the shield layer 145 is positioned the first set of fingers and the active region.
Regarding claim 18, Fujimori discloses another acoustic wave device (Figs. 1-2, ¶32, two acoustic wave devices 120; Fig. 11, second acoustic wave device 125, ¶¶68-76).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujimori in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0267968, published 8/29/2019 (“Hamatani”).
Regarding Claim 8, Fujimori discloses all the limitations except “a first reflector and a second reflector, the interdigital transducer electrode positioned between the first and second reflectors.”
However, Hamatani, in the same field of endeavor, discloses a similar surface acoustic wave resonator comprising an interdigital transducer electrode 23 located between first and second reflectors 25 (Fig. 1). Hamatani teaches that having the reflectors on both sides of the interdigital transducer electrode provides the benefit of improving the reflection coefficient for the resonator (¶55).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the acoustic wave device of Fujimori by adding reflectors on both sides of each of the interdigital transducer electrode for the benefit of improving the reflection coefficient for the respective resonator, as taught by Hamatani (¶55).
Regarding Claim 9, Fujimori in view of Hamatani discloses wherein the second portion is at least partially positioned over the first reflector because the shield layer of Fujimori is positioned over the entire IDT (Fujimori, Figs. 2-3)
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujimori in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0131347, published 5/10/2018 (“Rhee”).
Regarding Claim 20, Fujimori discloses all the limitations except a second acoustic wave device spaced from the surface acoustic wave device by a distance in a range between 1 micrometer and 20 micrometers.
However, Rhee, in the same field of endeavor, discloses a plurality of acoustic resonators (MR1, MR2 and M3) spaced apart from each other (Fig. 1). Rhee teaches that a distance between adjacent resonators can be several micrometers apart (¶49).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the acoustic wave device of Fujimori by setting the distances between adjacent resonators (i.e. including the first and second resonators) to be in the range of several micrometers (i.e. several micrometers being in a range between 1 micrometer and 20 micrometers) because such a modification would have been an obvious design consideration to achieve a desired layout, with a distance being several micrometers being an acceptable range for acoustic wave resonators (Rhee, ¶49).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0028767, published 1/28/2021 (“Sugaya”) discloses an acoustic wave device 111s including a piezoelectric layer 31, IDT 32 and a conductive structure 352 (Figs. 1-3).
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0346463, published 11/30/2017 (“Hatakeyama”) discloses an acoustic wave device 12 including a piezoelectric layer 10b, IDT 15, reflectors 16, and a conductive structure 37 (Figs. 1-3).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VICTOR COLE, telephone number (571) 272-4686. The examiner can be reached Monday-Friday, 9AM-5PM ET.
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 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 www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and 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.
/VICTOR COLE/
Examiner, Art Unit 2843
/ANDREA LINDGREN BALTZELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2843
Prosecution Insights