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
Claims 2 and 3 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 2, line 1, the examiner suggests inserting --the-- before the recitation of “at least the portion of the edge of the cavity” to avoid an antecedent issue.
Claim 3, line 1, the examiner suggests rewriting “the pair of opposing busbars” to --the pair of busbars-- to provide consistency in the claim language.
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, 2, 4, 8-13 and 17-19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 2 and 19 of U.S. Patent No. 12,301,212 B2.
As set forth below, the chart identifies which claims from the current application corresponds to conflicting claims found in the cited US Patent.
Current Application
USPAT 12,301,212 B2
1
2
2
2
4
2
8
2
9
2
10
2
11
2
12
2
13
2
17
2
18
19
19
19
As disclosed in the chart above, the US patent claims 2 and 9 substantially recite the same limitations recited in claims 1, 2, 4, 8-13 and 17-19 of the current application as listed above. However, the following differences between the US patent claims and the current application claims are present as set forth below:
The US patent claim 2 has the additional limitation of forming “a diaphragm” and exciting “a primary shear acoustic mode” which are not required in the present application claims 1 or 10; and
The US patent claim 19 has the additional limitation of forming “a diaphragm” and exciting “a primary shear acoustic mode” which is not required in the present application claim 18.
Therefore, claims 2 and 19 of the patent meets claims 1, 2, 4, 8-13 and 17-19 of the present application under an “anticipation” analysis in an obviousness-type double patenting rejection.
Claim 20 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 19 of U.S. Patent No. 12,301,212 B2 in view of Plesski et al. (USPAT 10,491,192 B2, Cited by Applicant).
As discussed above, the US patent claim 19 meets the claim limitations are recited in claim 18 of the present application. Although the US patent claim 19 recites that the acoustic resonator excites a primary shear acoustic mode, it doesn’t teach: in regards to claim 20, wherein, for at least one of the plurality of acoustic resonators, the plurality of interleaved fingers of the IDT have a mark to pitch ratio that is greater than 0.05 and less than 0.5, and wherein the mark is a width of at least one finger of the plurality of interleaved fingers and the pitch is a center-to-center spacing between any two adjacent fingers of the plurality of interleaved fingers.
Plesski et al. teaches in Fig. 1 an acoustic wave resonator comprising: a piezoelectric layer (110), an IDT (130) comprising a plurality of electrode fingers (136) which excites a primary shear mode (see column 6, lines 1-10). Plesski et al. teaches in column 4, lines 64-67 and column 5, lines 1-18, that the IDT have a mark to pitch ratio that is greater than 0.05 and less than 0.5 to achieve a desired filter characteristic, wherein the mark is a width of at least one finger of the plurality of interleaved fingers and the pitch is a center-to-center spacing between any two adjacent fingers of the plurality of interleaved fingers.
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the US patent claim 19, and have designed each of the acoustic wave resonators IDT electrode to have a mark to pitch ratio that is greater than 0.05 and less than 0.5 because such a modification would have been an obvious design consideration to achieve a desired filter characteristic as suggested by Plesski et al. (see column 4, lines 64-67 and column 5, lines 1-18).
Claims 1-6, 8-15 and 17-19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 4, 5 and 15 of U.S. Patent No. 11,929,735 B2.
As set forth below, the chart identifies which claims from the current application corresponds to conflicting claims found in the cited US Patent.
Current Application
USPAT 11,929,735 B2
1
1
2
1
3
1
4
1
5
4
6
5
8
1
9
1
10
1
11
1
12
1
13
1
14
4
15
5
17
1
18
15
19
15
As disclosed in the chart above, the US patent claims 1, 4, 5 and 15 substantially recite the same limitations recited in claims 1-6, 8-15 and 17-19 of the current application as listed above. However, the following differences between the US patent claims and the current application claims are present as set forth below:
The US patent claim 1 has the additional limitation of forming “a diaphragm”, exciting “a primary shear acoustic mode” and wherein the piezoelectric layer is a “single crystal” which are not required in the present application claims 1 or 10; and
The US patent claim 15 has the additional limitation of forming “a diaphragm”, exciting “a primary shear acoustic mode” and wherein the piezoelectric layer is a “single crystal” which are not required in the present application claim 18.
Therefore, claims 1, 4, 5 and 15 of the patent meets claims 1-6, 8-15 and 17-19 of the present application under an “anticipation” analysis in an obviousness-type double patenting rejection.
Claim 20 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 15 of U.S. Patent No. 11,929,735 B2 in view of Plesski et al. (USPAT 10,491,192 B2, Cited by Applicant).
As discussed above, the US patent claim 15 meets the claim limitations are recited in claim 18 of the present application. Although the US patent claim 15 recites that the acoustic resonator excites a primary shear acoustic mode, it doesn’t teach: in regards to claim 20, wherein, for at least one of the plurality of acoustic resonators, the plurality of interleaved fingers of the IDT have a mark to pitch ratio that is greater than 0.05 and less than 0.5, and wherein the mark is a width of at least one finger of the plurality of interleaved fingers and the pitch is a center-to-center spacing between any two adjacent fingers of the plurality of interleaved fingers.
Plesski et al. teaches in Fig. 1 an acoustic wave resonator comprising: a piezoelectric layer (110), an IDT (130) comprising a plurality of electrode fingers (136) which excites a primary shear mode (see column 6, lines 1-10). Plesski et al. teaches in column 4, lines 64-67 and column 5, lines 1-18, that the IDT have a mark to pitch ratio that is greater than 0.05 and less than 0.5 to achieve a desired filter characteristic, wherein the mark is a width of at least one finger of the plurality of interleaved fingers and the pitch is a center-to-center spacing between any two adjacent fingers of the plurality of interleaved fingers.
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the US patent claim 15, and have designed each of the acoustic wave resonators IDT electrode to have a mark to pitch ratio that is greater than 0.05 and less than 0.5 because such a modification would have been an obvious design consideration to achieve a desired filter characteristic as suggested by Plesski et al. (see column 4, lines 64-67 and column 5, lines 1-18).
Claims 7 and 16 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 3 of U.S. Patent No. 11,929,735 B2 in view of Plesski et al. (USPAT 10,491,192 B2, Cited by Applicant).
The US patent claim 3 meets most of the claim limitations as recited in claims 7 and 16 of the present application. However, the US patent claim 3 does not teach: wherein the piezoelectric layer is a lithium niobate layer.
Plesski et al. teaches in Fig. 1 an acoustic wave resonator comprising: a piezoelectric layer (110), an IDT (130) comprising a plurality of electrode fingers (136) which excites a primary shear mode (see column 6, lines 1-10). Plesski et al. teaches in column 3, lines 26-33, that the piezoelectric layer is a lithium niobate layer.
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the US patent claim 3, and have replaced the generic piezoelectric layer of claim 3 with a lithium niobate layer as taught by Plesski et al. (see column 3, lines 26-33) because such a modification would have been a well-known in the art substitution of art-recognized alternative/equivalent for a piezoelectric layer that able to perform the same function.
Claims 1-6, 8-15 and 17-19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 4, 5 and 14 of U.S. Patent No. 11,817,840 B2.
As set forth below, the chart identifies which claims from the current application corresponds to conflicting claims found in the cited US Patent.
Current Application
USPAT 11,817,840 B2
1
1
2
1
3
1
4
1
5
4
6
5
8
1
9
1
10
1
11
1
12
1
13
1
14
4
15
5
17
1
18
14
19
14
As disclosed in the chart above, the US patent claims 1, 4, 5 and 14 substantially recite the same limitations recited in claims 1-6, 8-15 and 17-19 of the current application as listed above. However, the following differences between the US patent claims and the current application claims are present as set forth below:
The US patent claim 1 has the additional limitation of wherein the piezoelectric layer is a “single crystal” which is not required in the present application claims 1 or 10; and
The US patent claim 14 has the additional limitation of wherein the piezoelectric layer is a “single crystal” which is not required in the present application claim 18.
Therefore, claims 1, 4, 5 and 14 of the patent meets claims 1-6, 8-15 and 17-19 of the present application under an “anticipation” analysis in an obviousness-type double patenting rejection.
Claims 7 and 16 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 3 of U.S. Patent No. 11,817,840 B2 in view of Plesski et al. (USPAT 10,491,192 B2, Cited by Applicant).
The US patent claim 3 meets most of the claim limitations as recited in claims 7 and 16 of the present application. However, the US patent claim 3 does not teach: wherein the piezoelectric layer is a lithium niobate layer.
Plesski et al. teaches in Fig. 1 an acoustic wave resonator comprising: a piezoelectric layer (110), an IDT (130) comprising a plurality of electrode fingers (136) which excites a primary shear mode (see column 6, lines 1-10). Plesski et al. teaches in column 3, lines 26-33, that the piezoelectric layer is a lithium niobate layer.
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the US patent claim 3, and have replaced the generic piezoelectric layer of claim 3 with a lithium niobate layer as taught by Plesski et al. (see column 3, lines 26-33) because such a modification would have been a well-known in the art substitution of art-recognized alternative/equivalent for a piezoelectric layer that able to perform the same function.
Claims 1, 2, 4-6, 8-15 and 17-19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 4, 5, 8 and 13 of U.S. Patent No. 10,998,882 B2.
As set forth below, the chart identifies which claims from the current application corresponds to conflicting claims found in the cited US Patent.
Current Application
USPAT 10,998,882 B2
1
1
2
1
4
1
5
4
6
5
8
1
9
1
10
1
11
1
12
1
13
1
14
4
15
5
17
8
18
13
19
13
As disclosed in the chart above, the US patent claims 1, 4, 5, 8 and 13 substantially recite the same limitations recited in claims 1, 2, 4-6, 8-15 and 17-19 of the current application as listed above. However, the following differences between the US patent claims and the current application claims are present as set forth below:
The US patent claim 1 has the additional limitation of forming “a diaphragm”, exciting “a primary shear acoustic mode”, and wherein the piezoelectric layer is a “single crystal” which are not required in the present application claims 1 or 10; and
The US patent claim 13 has the additional limitation of forming “a diaphragm”, exciting “a primary shear acoustic mode” and wherein the piezoelectric layer is a “single crystal” which are not required in the present application claim 18.
Therefore, claims 1, 4, 5, 8 and 13 of the patent meets claims 1, 2, 4-6, 8-15 and 17-19 of the present application under an “anticipation” analysis in an obviousness-type double patenting rejection.
Claim 20 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 3 of U.S. Patent No. 10,998,882 B2 in view of Plesski et al. (USPAT 10,491,192 B2, Cited by Applicant).
As discussed above, the US patent claim 13 meets the claim limitations are recited in claim 18 of the present application. Although the US patent claim 13 recites that the acoustic resonator excites a primary shear acoustic mode, it doesn’t teach: in regards to claim 20, wherein, for at least one of the plurality of acoustic resonators, the plurality of interleaved fingers of the IDT have a mark to pitch ratio that is greater than 0.05 and less than 0.5, and wherein the mark is a width of at least one finger of the plurality of interleaved fingers and the pitch is a center-to-center spacing between any two adjacent fingers of the plurality of interleaved fingers.
Plesski et al. teaches in Fig. 1 an acoustic wave resonator comprising: a piezoelectric layer (110), an IDT (130) comprising a plurality of electrode fingers (136) which excites a primary shear mode (see column 6, lines 1-10). Plesski et al. teaches in column 4, lines 64-67 and column 5, lines 1-18, that the IDT have a mark to pitch ratio that is greater than 0.05 and less than 0.5 to achieve a desired filter characteristic, wherein the mark is a width of at least one finger of the plurality of interleaved fingers and the pitch is a center-to-center spacing between any two adjacent fingers of the plurality of interleaved fingers.
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the US patent claim 13, and have designed each of the acoustic wave resonators IDT electrode to have a mark to pitch ratio that is greater than 0.05 and less than 0.5 because such a modification would have been an obvious design consideration to achieve a desired filter characteristic as suggested by Plesski et al. (see column 4, lines 64-67 and column 5, lines 1-18).
Claims 7 and 16 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 3 of U.S. Patent No. 10,998,882 B2 in view of Plesski et al. (USPAT 10,491,192 B2, Cited by Applicant).
The US patent claim 3 meets most of the claim limitations as recited in claims 7 and 16 of the present application. However, the US patent claim 3 does not teach: wherein the piezoelectric layer is a lithium niobate layer.
Plesski et al. teaches in Fig. 1 an acoustic wave resonator comprising: a piezoelectric layer (110), an IDT (130) comprising a plurality of electrode fingers (136) which excites a primary shear mode (see column 6, lines 1-10). Plesski et al. teaches in column 3, lines 26-33, that the piezoelectric layer is a lithium niobate layer.
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the US patent claim 3, and have replaced the generic piezoelectric layer of claim 3 with a lithium niobate layer as taught by Plesski et al. (see column 3, lines 26-33) because such a modification would have been a well-known in the art substitution of art-recognized alternative/equivalent for a piezoelectric layer that able to perform the same function.
Allowable Subject Matter
No art rejection has been made. Reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter will be provided once the double patenting rejections set forth above are overcome.
Conclusion
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