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 Objections
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 5 of page 2 of the claims, in claim 3, the phrase “a second bus bar” is concluded with a period, such that claim 3 is not formed in a single sentence, and the second sentence of the claim is written as a fragment. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 11 is 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.
The term “closest” in claim 11 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “closest” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The term “closest” lacks a standard of comparison, and as such it is not clear to where or what the “closest” stepped portion or ramp region is “closest.”
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-4, 6-8, 13, & 16-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wada et al. (US PGPub 20070008052)
As per claim 1:
Wada et al. discloses in Fig. 4:
An elastic wave device (title), comprises a piezoelectric layer ([0006]) and an IDT electrode (1) formed on the piezoelectric layer, wherein the IDT electrode includes a first bus bar and a second bus bar opposed to the first bus bar (common electrodes 1a,b);
in a top view, the first bus bar and the second bus bar each have multiple stepped portions on their facing sides (as seen in Fig. 4A), with these stepped portions aligned parallel to a propagation direction of the surface acoustic wave (direction of dotted lines, arrow III in Fig. 3), and a distance between the corresponding stepped portions of the first bus bar and the second bus bar is uniform (Fig. 4 shows the distance between common electrodes alternates between two values as position changes, such that one of the two values may be considered to be the distance of the stepped portions, and the waiting envelope curves are symmetric to minimize the difference in overlapping length, [0038]);
wherein adjacent of the stepped portions are arranged at different positions in a direction from the first bus bar to the second bus bar (as seen in Fig. 4A), a step portion is provided between them (the step portion includes areas with the second of the two values of distance between the two common electrodes, shown to alternate with portions of the first value, and may include areas of the first value as well).
As per claim 3:
Wada et al. discloses in Fig. 4A:
the first bus bar and the second bus bar each include:
a first stepped portion, a second stepped provided portion adjacent to the first stepped portion, and a third stepped portion provided adjacent to the second stepped portion, and a first step portion provided between the first stepped portion and the second stepped portion, which forming a step in a direction from the first stepped portion toward the second stepped portion and extending from the first bus bar toward the second bus bar, a second step portion provided between the second stepped portion and the third stepped portion, which forming a step in a direction from the second stepped portion toward the third stepped portion and extending from the second bus bar toward the first bus bar (Fig. 4 shows the distance between common electrodes alternates between two values as position changes, such that one of the two values may be considered to be the distance of the stepped portions, and wherein there are more than 3 stepped portions, with intervening step portions).
As per claim 4:
Wada et al. discloses in Fig. 4A:
the first bus bar and the second bus bar each include:
a first stepped portion, a second stepped portion provided adjacent to the first stepped portion, a third stepped portion provided adjacent to the second stepped portion, a first step portion provided between the first stepped portion and the second stepped portion, and a second step portion provided between the second stepped portion and the third stepped portion; in a sequence of the first stepped portion, the second stepped portion, and the third stepped portion changes, the step portions are formed in a same direction which is from the second bus bar toward the first bus bar or from the first bus bar toward the second bus bar (Fig. 4A shows the distance between common electrodes alternates between two values as position changes, such that one of the two values may be considered to be the distance of the stepped portions, and wherein there are more than 3 stepped portions, with intervening step portions formed in the same direction, towards the respective bus bar).
As per claim 6:
Wada et al. discloses in Fig. 4A:
the step portion is formed in a direction perpendicular to a propagation direction of the surface acoustic wave (as seen in Fig. 4A).
As per claim 7:
Wada et al. discloses in Fig. 4A:
the step portion has multiple end portions arranged along an inclined virtual line, which is inclined relative to the propagation direction of the elastic wave (by being the area between two stepped portions, the step portion has multiple end portions (beginning and end) located at the edge of the stepped portions, wherein the end portions are arranged along an inclined virtual line, inclined relative to the propagation direction of the elastic wave, by virtue of the stepped portions being at different thicknesses of the bus bar (e.g. the stepped portions may comprise the peaks of the sine wave of Fig. 4A, with the step portions being therebetween, creating an inclined line between the peaks)).
As per claim 8:
Wada et al. discloses in Fig. 4A:
in a top view of the IDT electrode, both the first bus bar and the second bus bar include a first flat region, a second flat region, a third flat region (stepped portions are interpreted to be flat regions, with a plurality of flat regions shown in Fig. 4A), and ramp regions provided between adjacent flat regions (step regions provide a ramp between stepped regions).
As per claim 13:
Wada et al. discloses in Fig. 4A:
in the IDT electrode, a transition from the first flat region to the second flat region occurs through the first ramp region, gradually descending in the direction from the first bus bar toward the second bus bar, a transition from the second flat region to the third flat region occurs through the second ramp region, gradually ascending in the direction from the second bus bar toward the first bus bar (the first flat region may be the widest part of the first bus bar, the second flat region the thinnest part of the first bus bar, and the third flat region may be at a part of the first bus bar after the second flat region, with a ramp region in between, as seen in Fig. 4A).
As per claim 16:
Wada et al. discloses in Fig. 4A:
in the IDT electrode, a transition from the first flat region to the second flat region occurs through the first ramp region, gradually descending along the direction from the first bus bar toward the second bus bar, and a transition from the second flat region to the third flat region occurs through the second ramp region, further descending along the direction from the first bus bar toward the second bus bar (the first flat region may be the widest part of the first bus bar, the second flat region a thinner part of the first bus bar half way between the widest and thinnest part, and the third flat region may be at a thinnest part of the first bus bar, as seen in Fig. 4A).
As per claim 17:
Wada et al. discloses in Fig. 4A:
in the IDT electrode, a transition from the first flat region to the second flat region occurs through the first ramp region, gradually ascending along the direction from the second bus bar toward the first bus bar, and a transition from the second flat region to the third flat region occurs through the second ramp region, gradually descending along the direction from the first bus bar toward the second bus bar (the first flat region may be the thinnest part of the first bus bar, the second flat region the thickest part of the first bus bar, and the third flat region may be at a part of the first bus bar after the first flat region, with a ramp region in between, as seen in Fig. 4A).
As per claim 18:
Wada et al. discloses in Fig. 4A:
the IDT electrode further includes multiple first electrode fingers extending from the first bus bar toward the second bus bar and multiple second electrode fingers extending from the second bus bar toward the first bus bar, wherein end portions of the first bus bar and the second bus bar, near the electrode fingers, are arranged in a ramp shape along an inclined virtual line which is inclined relative to the propagation direction of the elastic wave (as shown in Fig. 4A).
As per claim 19:
Wada et al. discloses in Fig. 4A:
base portions of the electrode fingers are arranged in a ramp shape along the virtual line (as shown in Fig. 4A).
As per claim 20:
Wada et al. discloses in Fig. 4A:
the IDT electrode further includes multiple first electrode fingers extending from the first bus bar toward the second bus bar and multiple second electrode fingers extending from the second bus bar toward the first bus bar (comb-shaped electrodes 1c), wherein the first electrode fingers and the second electrode fingers have crossover regions (region A), and in an extending direction of the electrode fingers, the crossover regions have the same length at each stepped portion and step portion (region A is bounded by parallel boundaries of the regions B).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 2, 5, & 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wada et al. (US PGPub 20070008052)
As per claim 2:
Wada et al. discloses in Fig. 4A:
The width of the overlapping regions (region B in Fig. 4A) is set to 5% or more of the aperture length ([0018]), wherein individual step widths perpendicular to the propagation direction of the surface acoustic wave are smaller iterations according to a desired weighting envelope curve (as seen in Fig. 4A), wherein the envelope weighting curve is a design parameter as shown in Figs. 8A-B.
Wada et al. does not disclose:
a width of the step portion perpendicular to the propagation direction of the surface acoustic wave is less than 1.5 λ, wherein λ is a wavelength of the acoustic wave.
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for a width of the step portion perpendicular to the propagation direction of the surface acoustic wave to be less than 1.5λ, wherein λ is a wavelength of the acoustic wave as a design parameter based on the length of the aperture of the resonator and the desired shape envelope weighting curve as shown by Wada et al. to provide the benefit of reducing desired transverse modes as taught by Wada et al. ([0037]) and as well understood in the art.
As per claim 5:
Wada et al. discloses in Fig. 4A:
the first bus bar and the second bus bar each include:
a first stepped portion, a second stepped portion provided adjacent to the first stepped portion, a third stepped portion provided adjacent to the second stepped portion, a first step portion provided between the first stepped portion and the second stepped portion, and a second step portion provided between the second stepped portion and the third stepped portion (Fig. 4A shows the distance between common electrodes alternates between two values as position changes, such that one of the two values may be considered to be the distance of the stepped portions, and wherein there are more than 3 stepped portions).
Wada et al. further discloses:
The size of each overlapping region may be set to 5% of the aperture length ([0018])
Wada et al. does not disclose:
wherein a total height of the step portions in a direction from the first bus bar to the second bus bar is less than 2.0 λ, wherein λ is a wavelength of the elastic wave.
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art a total height of the step portions in a direction from the first bus bar to the second bus bar is less than 2.0 λ, wherein λ is a wavelength of the elastic wave as a design parameter based on the length of the aperture of the resonator and the desired shape envelope weighting curve as shown by Wada et al. to provide the benefit of reducing desired transverse modes as taught by Wada et al. ([0037]) and as well understood in the art.
As per claim 14:
Wada et al. discloses in Fig. 4A:
The width of the overlapping regions (region B in Fig. 4A) is set to 5% or more of the aperture length ([0018]), wherein individual step widths perpendicular to the propagation direction of the surface acoustic wave are smaller iterations according to a desired weighting envelope curve (as seen in Fig. 4A), wherein the envelope weighting curve is a design parameter as shown in Figs. 8A-B.
Wada et al. does not disclose:
a width of the step portion in the extending direction of the electrode fingers is less than 1.5 λ, wherein λ is a wavelength of the acoustic wave.
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for a width of the step portion in the extending direction of the electrode fingers to be less than 1.5λ, wherein λ is a wavelength of the acoustic wave as a design parameter based on the length of the aperture of the resonator and the desired shape envelope weighting curve as shown by Wada et al. to provide the benefit of reducing desired transverse modes as taught by Wada et al. ([0037]) and as well understood in the art.
As per claim 15:
Wada et al. discloses in Fig. 4A & 8A-B:
The number, width, and height of stepped regions the envelope weighting curve is a design parameter as shown in Figs. 8A-B, wherein a number of extended flat regions may be provided as per 8A(b) and 8B(g), and the length of weighting functions may be adjusted to include various numbers of repetitions (as per 8A(a), (d), (e), & (f)).
Wada et al. does not disclose:
in the propagation direction of the elastic wave, the ramp region has a width that is respectively smaller than the width of the first flat region, the second flat region, and the third flat region.
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for in the propagation direction of the elastic wave, the ramp region to have a width that is respectively smaller than the width of the first flat region, the second flat region, and the third flat region as a design parameter based the desired shape envelope weighting curve as shown by Wada et al. (Figs. 8A&B) to provide the benefit of reducing desired transverse modes as taught by Wada et al. ([0037]) and as well understood in the art.
Claim(s) 9-12 & 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wada et al. (US PGPub 20070008052) in view of Hung et al. (US PGPub 20250175142)
As per claim 9:
Wada et al. discloses in Fig. 4A:
the IDT electrode further includes multiple first electrode fingers extending from the first bus bar toward the second bus bar, multiple second electrode fingers extending from the second bus bar toward the first bus bar (comb shaped electrodes 1c, as seen in Fig. 4A), and the ramp region is defined by base portions of the electrode fingers are arranged along an inclined virtual line (weighting envelope curve, noted as a sin curve, [0051]).
Wada et al. does not disclose:
dummy electrodes facing the first electrode fingers and the second electrode fingers, respectively, with gaps formed between the end portions of the electrode fingers and the dummy electrodes.
Hung et al. discloses in Fig. 5:
An IDT electrode wherein the width of the bus bar in the electrode finger extending direction is changed, wherein the IDT electrode further includes multiple first electrode fingers (finger electrodes 111) extending from the a bus bar (110) toward a second bus bar (120), multiple second electrode fingers (121) extending from the second bus bar toward the first bus bar, and dummy electrodes (112 & 122) facing the first electrode fingers and the second electrode fingers, respectively, with gaps (g) formed between the end portions of the electrode fingers and the dummy electrodes, and a ramp region is defined by base portions of the electrode fingers or the dummy electrodes are arranged along an inclined virtual line (as seen in Fig. 5, and further illustrated in Fig. 7).
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide dummy electrodes facing the first electrode fingers and the second electrode fingers, respectively, with gaps formed between the end portions of the electrode fingers and the dummy electrodes to provide the benefit of reduced spurious modes as taught by Hung et al. ([0045]), and further as a known in the art method of controlling the capacitance between electrodes by controlling the distance between the bus bars and the electrode fingers, as is well understood in the art.
As per claim 10:
Wada et al. discloses in Fig. 4A:
the ramp region serves as the step portion between adjacent stepped portions, and at least one of the base portions of the electrode fingers is provided in the step portion, such that the base portions of adjacent electrode fingers are arranged in an inclined manner, thereby forming a ramp structure and constituting the ramp region (as seen in Fig. 4A).
As per claim 11:
Wada et al. discloses in Fig. 4A:
The weighting envelope curves may be symmetric ([0038]).
Wada et al. does not disclose:
in a closest stepped portion or ramp region, a distance between each gap and the base portions of the electrode fingers is substantially uniform.
Hung et al. discloses in Fig. 5:
An IDT electrode wherein the width of the bus bar in the electrode finger extending direction is changed, wherein the IDT electrode further includes multiple first electrode fingers (finger electrodes 111) extending from the a bus bar (110) toward a second bus bar (120), multiple second electrode fingers (121) extending from the second bus bar toward the first bus bar, and dummy electrodes (112 & 122) facing the first electrode fingers and the second electrode fingers, respectively, with gaps (g) formed between the end portions of the electrode fingers and the dummy electrodes, and a ramp region is defined by base portions of the electrode fingers or the dummy electrodes are arranged along an inclined virtual line (as seen in Fig. 5, and further illustrated in Fig. 7), wherein a distance between each gap and the base portions of the electrode fingers is substantially uniform [0036].
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form a distance between each gap and the base portions of the electrode fingers to be substantially uniform as a configuration disclosed by Hung et al. ([0036]), and further as a known in the art method of controlling the capacitance between electrodes by controlling the distance between the bus bars and the electrode fingers, as is well understood in the art.
As per claim 12:
Wada et al. discloses in Fig. 4A:
The weighting envelope curves may be symmetric ([0038]).
Wada et al. does not disclose:
the first electrode fingers and the second electrode fingers have substantially the same length.
Hung et al. discloses in Fig. 5:
An IDT electrode wherein the width of the bus bar in the electrode finger extending direction is changed, wherein the IDT electrode further includes multiple first electrode fingers (finger electrodes 111) extending from the a bus bar (110) toward a second bus bar (120), multiple second electrode fingers (121) extending from the second bus bar toward the first bus bar, and dummy electrodes (112 & 122) facing the first electrode fingers and the second electrode fingers, respectively, with gaps (g) formed between the end portions of the electrode fingers and the dummy electrodes, and a ramp region is defined by base portions of the electrode fingers or the dummy electrodes are arranged along an inclined virtual line (as seen in Fig. 5, and further illustrated in Fig. 7), wherein the first electrode fingers and the second electrode fingers may have substantially the same length ([0039]).
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form the first electrode fingers and the second electrode fingers to have substantially the same length as a configuration disclosed by Hung et al. ([0039]), and further as a known in the art method of controlling the capacitance and inductance of the electrodes by controlling the length of the electrode fingers, as is well understood in the art.
As per claim 20 (in an alternative interpretation):
Wada et al. discloses in Fig. 4A:
the IDT electrode further includes multiple first electrode fingers extending from the first bus bar toward the second bus bar and multiple second electrode fingers extending from the second bus bar toward the first bus bar (comb-shaped electrodes 1c), wherein the first electrode fingers and the second electrode fingers have crossover regions (as seen in Fig. 4A), and the weighting envelope curves may be symmetric ([0038]).
Wada et al. does not disclose:
and in an extending direction of the electrode fingers, the crossover regions have the same length at each stepped portion and step portion.
Hung et al. discloses in Fig. 6:
An IDT electrode wherein the width of the bus bar in the electrode finger extending direction is changed, wherein the IDT electrode further includes multiple first electrode fingers (finger electrodes 111) extending from the a bus bar (110) toward a second bus bar (120), multiple second electrode fingers (121) extending from the second bus bar toward the first bus bar, and dummy electrodes (112 & 122) facing the first electrode fingers and the second electrode fingers, respectively, with gaps (g) formed between the end portions of the electrode fingers and the dummy electrodes, and a ramp region is defined by base portions of the electrode fingers or the dummy electrodes are arranged along an inclined virtual line (as seen in Fig. 6, and further illustrated in Fig. 7), wherein in an extending direction of the electrode fingers, the crossover regions have the same length at each stepped portion and step portion (as seen in Fig. 6).
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form in an extending direction of the electrode fingers, the crossover regions to have the same length at each stepped portion and step portion as a configuration disclosed by Hung et al. ([0041] & Fig. 6), and further as a known in the art method of controlling the performance of the resonator, as is well understood in the art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAMUEL S OUTTEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7123. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:30AM-6:00PM.
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) 272-1988. 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.
/Samuel S Outten/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2843
Prosecution Insights