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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description:
Reference label L1 as shown in Figure 6A;
Reference label L2 as shown in Figures 6A and 6B;
Reference label L3 as shown in Figure 6B.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) 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. 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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Reference labels L1 (Figure 6A), L2 (Figures 6A and 6B), and L3 (Figure 6B) are not defined or mentioned within the specification.
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.
Claims 8-10 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. Claim 9 depends upon rejected claim 8 and inherits the deficiency thereby.
Claim 8, Line 1, “a region” is unclear to one of ordinary skill in the art as to how this recitation is related to the “an active region” as previously defined in claim 1, from which this claim depends, thereby leaving the boundaries of the claim unclear.
Claim 10, Lines 1-2, “a width of the finger in the center region” is unclear to one of ordinary skill in the art as to how this recitation is related to the “a linear density of the finger in the center region”, as previously defined in claim 1, from which this claim depends, thereby leaving the boundaries of the claim unclear.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 11 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 11 of copending Application No. 19/172,956 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Application Claim #
Co-Pending Application 19/172,956 Claim #
Application Claim Limitation
Co-Pending Application 19/172,956 Claim Limitation
11
11
A method of forming a multilayer piezoelectric substrate acoustic wave device
“A method of forming a multilayer piezoelectric substrate acoustic wave device”
1, 11
1, 11
A multilayer piezoelectric substrate acoustic wave device including an active region having a center region and a border region
“A multilayer piezoelectric substrate acoustic wave device including an active region having a center region and a border region”
1, 11
1, 11
the acoustic wave device comprising: a support substrate; a piezoelectric layer over the support substrate; and an interdigital transducer electrode in electrical communication with the piezoelectric layer
“the acoustic wave device comprising: a support substrate; a piezoelectric layer over the support substrate; and an interdigital transducer electrode in electrical communication with the piezoelectric layer”
1, 11
1, 11
the interdigital transducer electrode including a bus bar and a finger extending from the bus bar
“the interdigital transducer electrode including a bus bar and a finger extending from the bus bar”
1, 11
1, 11
the finger in the border region having a first portion, a second portion between the center region and the first portion, and a third portion between the center region and the second portion
“the finger in the border region having a first portion with a first width, a second portion with a second width between the center region and the first portion, and a third portion with a third width between the center region and the second portion”
1, 11
1, 11
a liner density of the first portion and a liner density of the third portion being greater than a liner density of the second portion and a liner density of the finger in the center region
“the finger in the center region having a fourth width, the first width and the third width being wider than the second width and the fourth width”, the first through fourth widths as mentioned are corresponding to the “a linear density” and thereby evidently, the first and third width being wider than the second and fourth width corresponds to the “linear density” of the first and third portions being greater than that of the second and in the center region.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim 20 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 19/173,036 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Application Claim #
Co-Pending Application 19/173,036 Claim #
Application Claim Limitation
Co-Pending Application 19/173,036 Claim Limitation
20
1
A multilayer piezoelectric substrate acoustic wave device including an active region having a center region and a border region
“A multilayer piezoelectric substrate acoustic wave device including an active region having a center region and a border region”
20
1
the acoustic wave device comprising: a support substrate; a piezoelectric layer over the support substrate, the piezoelectric layer having a trench in the border region; and an interdigital transducer electrode in electrical communication with the piezoelectric layer
“the acoustic wave device comprising: a support substrate; a piezoelectric layer over the support substrate, the piezoelectric layer having a trench in the border region; and an interdigital transducer electrode in electrical communication with the piezoelectric layer”
20
1
the interdigital transducer electrode including a bus bar and a finger extending from the bus bar
“the interdigital transducer electrode including a bus bar and a finger extending from the bus bar”
20
1
the finger in the border region having a first portion, a second portion between the center region and the first portion, and a third portion between the center region and the second portion
“the finger in the border region having a first portion with a first width, a second portion with a second width between the center region and the first portion, and a third portion with a third width between the center region and the second portion”
20
1
the first portion and the third portion having liner densities greater than liner density of the second portion
“the second width being narrower than the first width and the third width”, the “width” corresponding to a linear density and accordingly the second “width” is “narrower” than that of the “first” and “third”, thereby the corresponding “linear density” of the “first portion and third portion” is greater than that of the “second portion”
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
(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.
Claims 1 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Omura (US 11509281).
As per Claims 1 and 11:
Omura discloses in Figure 16:
A multilayer piezoelectric substrate acoustic wave device (“acoustic wave device”, 1) including an active region (“prescribed region”, 11, as shown in related Figure 1, is inherently the active region due to the prescribed region exciting acoustic waves, [Col. 9, Lines 30-34]) having a center (the portion corresponding to the boundaries of “region” A6) and border region (the portion corresponding to the boundaries of “region” A7), and a method of forming the multilayer piezoelectric substrate acoustic wave device comprising (as per Claim 11, the formation of the acoustic wave device, 1, is inherent due to the necessity to form the structure) providing a support substrate (“substrate”, 2, as shown in related Figure 2), a piezoelectric layer over the support substrate (“piezoelectric layer”, 5, as shown in related Figure 2), providing an interdigital electrode (“first IDT electrode”, 7A) in electrical communication with the piezoelectric layer (as is inherent by the IDT electrode 7A being provided on the surface of the piezoelectric layer 5, [Col. 4, Lines 5-7]) and including a bus bar (“first busbar”, 71) and a finger extending from the bus bar (“electrode fingers”, 81, and more specifically F1, as shown below in annotated Image 1 and as is evident by Figure 16) having a first portion in the border region (the portion P1, as shown in annotated Image 1 below, corresponding to “width portion” 812), a second portion between the center region (A6) and the first portion (the portion P2, as shown in annotated image 1 below) and a third portion between the center region (A6) and the second portion (the portion P3, as shown in annotated Image 1 below, corresponding to “width portion” 812), the first (P1) and third portions (P3) having linear densities greater than linear densities of the second portion (P2) and the finger in the center region (“central portions”, 81c in portion A6, P1 and P3 are corresponding to “width portions” 812 and evidently have greater linear densities, the linear densities corresponding to width, than P2 and “central portions” 81C in region A6, [Col. 20, Lines 1-3]).
PNG
media_image1.png
315
338
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Image 1
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-7 and 12-19 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