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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In paragraphs [0117] and [0161], “about 50%” is not properly defining the range or what/how much the word “about” is meant to convey (i.e. 50% relative to what reference).
Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because:
In Figure 1, the curvature of the electrode fingers 16 and 17 are not depicted clearly enough to clearly depict the presence of any curvature.
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.
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 2, 5, 8-9, 15-17, 21-31, and 35 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. Claims 16-17 and 28-29 depend upon rejected claims 15 and 26 and inherit the deficiency thereby
Claim 2, Lines 2 and 4, regarding the terminology “about 50%”, use of the term "about" is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The various instances of "about" are not defined by the claims, and the specification does not provide a reference or standard for ascertaining the requisite degree encompassed by the term "about" at the various instances, and thus one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The specification does not further define the word "about" to the degree necessary to provide a more definitive definition of the various instances of the amounts needed to ascertain the necessary range of the respective values needed to particularly point out and distinctly claim the invention.
Claim 5, Line 16; Claim 8, Line 18; and Claim 9, Line 21 “a straight line” is unclear to one of ordinary skill in the art how these recitations of “a straight line” is related to the “a straight line” as previously defined in line 12 of Claims 5 and 8 and line 15 of Claim 9, respectively, thereby leaving the boundaries of the claim unclear (i.e. same straight line, separate and distinct straight lines, etc.).
Claim 15, Lines 8-9; and Claim 35, Lines 8-9, “a distal end portion of each of the plurality of second electrode fingers” is unclear to one of ordinary skill in the art how this recitation is related to the “distal end portions of the plurality of second electrode fingers” as previously defined in claim 1, from which this claim depends, thereby leaving the boundaries of the claim unclear.
Claim 15, Lines 11-12; and Claim 35, Lines 11-12, “a distal end portion of each of the plurality of first electrode fingers” is unclear to one of ordinary skill in the art how this recitation is related to the “distal end portions of the plurality of first electrode fingers” as previously defined in claim 1, from which this claim depends, thereby leaving the boundaries of the claim unclear.
Claim 21, Line 2; Claim 24, Line 2; Claim 26, Line 2; Claim 27, Line 2, “the first envelope has a wavy shape” appears to be redundant of Claim 20, Line 4.
Claim 21, Line 4; Claim 24, Line 10; and Claim 25, Line 3, recites the limitation "the mutually adjacent bends". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 21, Line 5; Claim 24, Line 3, “a plurality of portions” is unclear to one of ordinary skill in the art how this recitation is related to the “a portion” as previously defined in Line 34 of Claim 1, from which this claim depends, thereby leaving the boundaries of the claim unclear.
Claim 21, Line 8; Claim 22, Line 3; and Claim 23, Line 3, “an inclination angle” is unclear to one of ordinary skill in the art how this recitation is related to the “an inclination” as previously defined in Line 34 of Claim 1, from which this claim depends, thereby leaving the boundaries of the claim unclear.
Claim 26, Lines 12-13, “a distal end portion of each of the second electrode fingers” is unclear to one of ordinary skill in the art how this recitation is related to the “distal end portions of the plurality of second electrode fingers” and as to how “the second electrode fingers” are related to the “plurality of second electrode fingers”, as previously defined in claim 1, from which this claim depends, thereby leaving the boundaries of the claim unclear.
Claim 30, Lines 4, 6-7, and 13; and Claim 31, Lines 4, 6-7, and 13, each recitation of “a bend” is unclear to one of ordinary skill in the art how this recitation is related to the “at least one bend” as previously defined in Line 35 of 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.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 39-40 of copending Application No. 19/241,733 in view of Siddiqui (US 10979018).
As per Claim 1:
Application Claim #
Co-pending Application 19/241,733 Claim #
Application Claim Limitation
Co-pending Application 19/241,733 Claim Limitation
1
1
An acoustic wave device comprising: a piezoelectric substrate including a piezoelectric layer
“An acoustic wave device, comprising: a piezoelectric substrate including a piezoelectric layer”
1
1
an IDT electrode on the piezoelectric layer, and including a pair of busbars and a plurality of electrode fingers
“an IDT electrode on the piezoelectric layer and including a pair of busbars and a plurality of electrode fingers”
1
1 and 39
a pair of reflectors on the piezoelectric layer, being opposed to each other across the IDT electrode and each including a plurality of reflector electrode fingers; wherein the pair of busbars include a first busbar and a second busbar opposed to each other
“a pair of reflectors on the piezoelectric layer, facing each other across the IDT electrode, and each including a plurality of reflector electrode fingers” (Claim 39), “wherein the pair of busbars include a first busbar and a second busbar facing each other” (Claim 1)
1
1
the plurality of electrode fingers include a plurality of first electrode fingers and a plurality of second electrode fingers; the plurality of first electrode fingers are each connected at one end to the first busbar; the plurality of second electrode fingers are each connected at one end to the second busbar
“ the plurality of electrode fingers include a plurality of first electrode fingers and a plurality of second electrode fingers; one end of each of the plurality of first electrode fingers is connected to the first busbar; one end of each of the plurality of second electrode fingers is connected to the second busbar”
1
1
the plurality of first electrode fingers are interdigitated with the plurality of second electrode fingers
“the plurality of first electrode fingers and the plurality of second electrode fingers are interdigitated with each other”
1
1
an imaginary line connecting distal end portions of the plurality of second electrode fingers is defined as a first envelope; an imaginary line connecting distal end portions of the plurality of first electrode fingers is defined as a second envelope
“ the first envelope is a virtual line connecting tips of distal end portions of the plurality of second electrode fingers”, “the second envelope is a virtual line connecting tips of distal end portions of the plurality of first electrode fingers”, the “virtual line” as defined is corresponding to the “imaginary line” as claimed since both are not actual existing physical structures.
1
1, 39, and 40
the IDT electrode includes an intersecting region between the first envelope and the second envelope; the piezoelectric layer includes a propagation axis
“an intersection region includes a first edge region including the first envelope line, a second edge region including the second envelope line, and a central region between the first edge region and the second edge region” (Claim 1), by the location including the first envelope line, second envelope line, and central region, the intersecting region is evidently between the first and second envelopes, “the piezoelectric layer includes a propagation axis” (Claim 40)
1
1
the plurality of first electrode fingers and the plurality of second electrode fingers each have a shape in plan view that includes a curved portion in the intersecting region
“ includes at least one curved portion where shapes of the plurality of first electrode fingers and the plurality of second electrode fingers, as viewed in plan view, are each curved”
1
1 and 39
the plurality of reflector electrode fingers each have a shape in plan view that includes a curved portion
“the plurality of reflector electrode fingers each have a curved plan-view shape”
1
1, 39, and 40
at least one of the first envelope or the second envelope includes a portion extending at an inclination relative to the propagation axis
“ the first envelope extends at an angle with respect to the propagation axis” (Claim 40), “ the pair of reflector busbars extend parallel or substantially parallel to the direction in which the propagation axis extends”
The Co-Pending Application 19/241,733 does not disclose:
At least one of the first envelope or the second envelope including at least one bend at which a direction in which the portion extends changes.
Siddiqui discloses in Figure 4:
At least one of the first envelope (E1, defined in annotated Image 1 below, corresponding to the distal ends of the “fingers” 422) or the second envelope (E2, defined in annotated Image 1 below, corresponding to the distal ends of the “fingers” 422) including at least one bend (B1, as shown in annotated Image 1 below and as is evident by Figure 4) at which a direction in which the portion extends changes (the direction evidently changes on each side of the bend, as is evident by Figure 4).
PNG
media_image1.png
373
518
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Image 1
At the time of filing it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the first or second envelope of the co-pending application to include at least one bend of Siddiqui to provide the benefit of the reticulated anchor being less likely to support an acoustic wave and in result ensures the acoustic wave and its corresponding energy remain (Siddiqui, [Col. 14, Lines 18-24]).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-4, 6-7, 10-14, 18-20, 32-34, and 36-42 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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The most pertinent prior art is Siddiqui (US 10979018), which teaches an IDT electrode on a piezoelectric layer, a pair of busbars opposed to each other, a plurality of electrode fingers having a first and second plurality of electrode fingers having a shape in plan view including a curved portion and each connected to one end of each respective first or second, busbar, and having at least one bend.
Another pertinent prior art is Nakamura (US 9641152), which teaches an IDT electrode on a piezoelectric layer, a pair of busbars opposed to each other, a plurality of electrode fingers having a first and second plurality of electrode fingers each connected to one end of each respective first or second, busbar.
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