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 9 and 19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 9 and 19, lines 2 of each claim, the examiner suggests rewriting “resonators configured” to --resonators are configured-- to provide a more proper description.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
Note that the rejections below groups the apparatus claim with corresponding method claims, since the method claims are generic forming steps in which the apparatus structure would anticipate such steps.
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.
(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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Abbott et al. (US2023/0318561 A1).
First Interpretation:
In regards to claims 1, 12 and 13, Abbott et al. teaches in Fig. 17 a radio frequency system comprising:
An antenna (Fig. 17: ANT);
An acoustic wave ladder filter (241A);
An antenna switch (ANT Switch) configured to selectively, electrically connect the antenna and a signal path that includes the ladder filter;
Based on related Fig. 2, the acoustic wave ladder filter includes:
A first bulk acoustic wave resonator (S1A) having a first shape, a first active area, and a first shape factor, and a second bulk acoustic wave resonator (S1B) having a second shape, a second active area, and a second shape factor different than the first shape factor (based on paragraphs [0075]-[0076], acoustic resonators S1A and S1B have different shapes but have the same area, and a perimeter of the first resonators and the second resonators are within 1%=0.01 of each other, hence the shape factor of the two resonators would different from each other and are within 1%=0.01 of each other), the first and second bulk acoustic wave resonators being a pair of resonators electrically connected adjacent to one another, the first area and the second area being the same and a turning distance between the first shape and the second shape being greater than zero and less than 0.3 (based on paragraph [0076], the perimeter of resonators S1A and S1B are within 1% of each other, resulting in a shape factor of 0.01; and since the perimeter of resonators S1A and S1B are within 1% of each other and the areas of the two resonators are equal to each other, unless evidence if provided in the contrary, the examiner takes the position that the turning distance between the two resonators will about 1%=0.01 which his greater than zero and less than 0.3).
In regard to claims 2 and 14, based on Fig. 2, the first (S1A) and the second (S1B) bulk acoustic wave resonators define a pair of series resonators.
In regards to claims 4-6 and 16, as disclosed above, the shape factor difference is equal to 1%=0.01.
In regards to claims 7 and 17, based on Fig. 2, the acoustic wave filter having a first port (106b) and a second port (106a), the first (S1A) and second (S1B) bulk acoustic wave resonators are a pair of series resonators closest to the first port.
In regards to claims 8 and 18, based on related Fig. 17, the first port of the ladder filter can be electrically connected to an antenna, therefore, the first port can be considered an antenna port.
In regards to claims 9 and 19, based on Fig. 2 and paragraph [0075], the first and second bulk acoustic wave resonators are configured to cancel a nonlinear response.
In regards to claims 10 and 20, as disclosed above, the turning distance is equal to about 1%=0.01 which is within the claimed range of 0.01 and 0.3.
In regards to claim 11, based on paragraph [0095], the radio frequency system/circuitry is enclosed in a package.
Second Interpretation:
In regards to claims 1 and 13, Abbott et al. teaches in Fig. 2 an acoustic wave ladder filter comprising:
A first bulk acoustic wave resonator (P1A) having a first shape, a first active area, and a first shape factor, and a second bulk acoustic wave resonator (P1B) having a second shape, a second active area, and a second shape factor different than the first shape factor (based on paragraphs [0075]-[0076], acoustic resonators P1A and P1B have different shapes but have the same area, and a perimeter of the first resonators and the second resonators are within 1%=0.01 of each other, hence the shape factor of the two resonators would different from each other and are within 1%=0.01 of each other), the first and second bulk acoustic wave resonators being a pair of resonators electrically connected adjacent to one another, the first area and the second area being the same and a turning distance between the first shape and the second shape being greater than zero and less than 0.3 (based on paragraph [0076], the perimeter of resonators P1A and P1B are within 1% of each other, and since the perimeter of resonators P1A and P1B are within 1% of each other and the areas of the two resonators are equal to each other, unless evidence if provided in the contrary, the examiner takes the position that the turning distance between the two resonators will about 1%=0.01 which his greater than zero and less than 0.3).
In regard to claims 3 and 15, based on Fig. 2, the first (P1A) and the second (P1B) bulk acoustic wave resonators define a pair of shunt resonators.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Abbott et al. (USPAT 12,700,849 B2) teaches in Fig. 1 a BAW filter comprising a number of acoustic resonators which are positioned in a manner to reduce the filter size.
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