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 .
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 1-4 and 6 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3 and 6 of U.S. Patent No. 11,368,139 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 11,368,139 B2
1
1
2
1
3
3
4
6
6
6
As disclosed in the chart above, the US patent claims 1, 3 and 6 substantially recite the same limitations recited in claims 1-4 and 6 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 a first reflector element proximate and parallel to the first finger and a second reflector element proximate and parallel to the n’th finger (i.e. last finger) which isn’t required in the present application claim 1.
Therefore, claims 1, 3 and 6 of the patent meets claims 1-4 and 6 of the present application under an “anticipation” analysis in an obviousness-type double patenting rejection.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 4 of U.S. Patent No. 12,341,490 B2.
The US patent claim 4 substantially recite the same limitations recited in claim 1 of the current application. However, the following differences between the US patent claim and the current application claim is present as set forth below:
The US patent claim 4 has the additional limitation of the piezoelectric layer forming a diaphragm which isn’t required in the present application claim 1.
Therefore, claim 4 of the patent meets claim 1 of the present application under an “anticipation” analysis in an obviousness-type double patenting rejection.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 3 of U.S. Patent No. 12,341,493 B2.
The US patent claim 3 substantially recite the same limitations recited in claim 1 of the current application. However, the following differences between the US patent claim and the current application claim is present as set forth below:
The US patent claim 3 has the additional limitation of the piezoelectric layer forming a diaphragm which isn’t required in the present application claim 1.
Therefore, claim 3 of the patent meets claim 1 of the present application under an “anticipation” analysis in an obviousness-type double patenting rejection.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 4 of U.S. Patent No. 12,040,779 B2.
The US patent claim 4 substantially recite the same limitations recited in claim 1 of the current application. However, the following differences between the US patent claim and the current application claim is present as set forth below:
The US patent claim 4 has the additional limitation of wherein the IDT is configured to excite a primary shear acoustic mode in the piezoelectric layer which isn’t required in the present application claim 1.
Therefore, claim 4 of the patent meets claim 1 of the present application under an “anticipation” analysis in an obviousness-type double patenting rejection.
Claims 1-4 and 6-10 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2 and 4 of U.S. Patent No. 12,040,783 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 12,040,783
1
1
2
1
3
4
4
2
6
2
7
1
8
1
9
1
10
1
As disclosed in the chart above, the US patent claims 1, 2 and 4 substantially recite the same limitations recited in claims 1-4 and 6-10 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 the piezoelectric layer forming a diaphragm which isn’t required in the present application claim 1.
Therefore, claims 1, 2 and 4 of the patent meets claims 1-4 and 6-10 of the present application under an “anticipation” analysis in an obviousness-type double patenting rejection.
Claims 1-10 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-5 and 8 of U.S. Patent No. 12,278,617 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 12,278,617 B2
1
1
2
2
3
3
4
4
5
5
6
4
7
8
8
8
9
8
10
8
As disclosed in the chart above, the US patent claims 1-5 and 8 substantially recite the same limitations recited in claims 1-10 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 having an acoustic Bragg reflector between a surface of the substrate and a back surface of the piezoelectric layer which isn’t required in claim 1 of the present application.
Therefore, claims 1-5 and 8 of the patent meets claims 1-10 of the present application under an “anticipation” analysis in an obviousness-type double patenting rejection.
Claims 1 and 3 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 3 of U.S. Patent No. 12,255,618 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 12,255,618 B2
1
1
3
3
As disclosed in the chart above, the US patent claims 1 and 3 substantially recite the same limitations recited in claims 1 and 3 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 IDT is configured to excite a primary shear acoustic mode in the piezoelectric layer which isn’t required in the present application claim 1.
Therefore, claims 1 and 3 of the patent meets claims 1 and 3 of the present application under an “anticipation” analysis in an obviousness-type double patenting rejection.
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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tanaka (US 2006/0152107 A1, Cited by Applicant).
In regards to claim 1, Tanaka teaches in annotated Fig. 1 below an acoustic lamb wave resonator device (20) comprising the following:
A piezoelectric layer (10); and
A conductor pattern formed at a top surface of the piezoelectric plate (100), the conductor pattern comprising:
An interdigital transducer (IDT) (21 and 22) including a first busbar (upper busbar), a second busbar (lower busbar), and interleaved parallel fingers (21A and 21B) extending from respective first top busbar and second bottom busbar, wherein the interleaved parallel fingers comprising a first finger (Annotated Finger F1) and a last finger (Annotated Finger F2) at opposing ends of the IDT;
A right first reflector element (Annotated Finger F3) proximate and parallel to the rightmost IDT first finger (Annotated Finger F1); and a left second reflector element (Annotated Element F4) proximate and parallel to the leftmost IDT last finger (Annotated Finger F2);
Tanaka discloses a distance pr between the first reflector element and the first finger and between the second reflector element and the last finger is set to (1/2)nλ where n is an integer (see section [0063], lines 8-13 thereof) so that if n=1 then the distance pr = λ/2 and does equal the pitch of the IDT (pitch = p = λ/2), but if n is any other integer greater than 1, such as 2, then the distance pr = λ = 2.0 times a pitch p of the IDT which is greater than a pitch p of the IDT resulting in the center-to-center space from the first reflector element to the first finger and the second reflector element to the last finger to be greater than the pitch of the IDT.
PNG
media_image1.png
307
716
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka (US 2006/0152107 A1, Cited by Applicant) in view of Mineyoshi et al. (USPAT 5,631,515).
As disclosed above, Tanaka teaches the claimed invention as recited in claim 1. Tanaka does not teach: in regards to claim 3, wherein a mark/width of the first and second reflector elements is configured to improve a Q-factor of the device at a predetermined frequency.
Mineyoshi et al. discloses that it would have been known to improve the energy trapping of a resonator by appropriately choosing the width/mark L6 (see Figs. 3 and 4) of the reflector elements as relating to that of the IDT, wherein for Fig. 3 an “extremely high enclosure efficiency” can be obtained at a particular reflector element width L6 (see col. 7, lines 20-25). Improving energy trapping, a.k.a. “enclosure efficiency”, increases a Q-factor, by definition of Q-factor as admitted and evidenced by Applicant’s supporting definition of Q-factor (see e.g. the specification section [0043], lines 1-3 thereof) because if “total energy dissipated or lost” (ibid.) is minimized so that energy trapping or enclosure is improved, then the Q-factor is necessarily and inherently by definition increased.
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the acoustic resonator of Tanaka by having selected the width/“mark” of the reflector elements of the resonators to increase the Q-factor of the device at a predetermined frequency because designing such acoustic wave resonator to have increased Q-factor by improving energy trapping/enclosure efficiency and minimizing loss at predetermined frequencies would have been a desirable result in the art as evidenced by Mineyoshi (see e.g. col. 7, lines 20-30 and col. 9, lines 18-20), and because Mineyoshi specifically suggests that the width/“mark” L6 (see e.g. Mineyoshi Fig. 3) be chosen to increase Q-factor by increasing energy trapping and minimizing loss (ibid.) wherein such a benefit as increased Q-factor to be achieved would have motivated one of ordinary skill in the art to have made the modification.
Claims 4-6, 12, 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka (US 2006/0152107 A1, Cited by Applicant) in view of Maehara et al. (USPAT 6,570,470).
As disclosed above, Tanaka teaches the claimed invention as recited in claim 1 and teaches most of the limitations recited in claim 12. Tanaka does not teach: in regards to claims 4 and 17, wherein the first reflector element is connected to a same one of the first busbar and the second busbar as the first finger, and the second reflector element is connected to a same one of the first busbar and the second busbar as the last finger; in regards to claims 5 and 18, wherein the first reflector element is connected to an opposite one of the first busbar and the second busbar as the first finger, and the second reflector element is connected to an opposite one of the first busbar and the second busbar as the last finger; and in regards to claim 6, wherein either the first reflector extends from one of the first busbar or the second busbar, and the second reflector extends from one of the first busbar or the second busbar; in regards to claim 12, a plurality of bulk acoustic resonators.
Maehara et al. shows and provides evidence that it would have been well known in the art to use acoustic wave resonators to form a bandpass ladder filter (see Fig. 1) in which the ladder filter can be form by either not connecting the reflector fingers to the busbars as in the series resonators (54-56), or to alternatively connect the reflector fingers to the same busbars as the nearest IDT finger as in the parallel resonators (58 and 59), where for example, in resonator (59) a first reflector element (59b) is connected to a same rightmost IDT busbar as adjacent IDT first finger (59a), and a second reflector element (59c) is connected to a same leftmost IDT busbar as adjacent last IDT finger (59a) which is done for ease of electrical connections to the parallel resonators. Furthermore, Maehara et al. Fig. 4 shows all of the resonators including the series resonators having the reflector fingers connected to a same busbar or opposite busbar as an adjacent IDT finger.
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have used the acoustic resonator device of Tanaka in a ladder filter and have connected the reflectors to a same busbar or opposite busbar as the adjacent IDT finger at each opposing end thereof as suggested by the exemplary teaching of Maehara et al. (see e.g. resonators 58, 59 in Fig. 1), because such an obvious modification would have been a mere art recognized alternative as evidenced by Maehara et al. (see the Fig. 1 reflectors in resonators 58-59 vs. the reflectors in resonators 54-56) which would have provided the advantageous benefits of forming a bandpass filter having compact electrical connection to the parallel resonators without other dedicated lines, wherein such benefits to be achieved would have motivated one of ordinary skill in the art to have made the modification. As an obvious consequence of the modification, the ladder filter will comprise a plurality of lamb acoustic wave resonators, in which a lamb wave comprises a portion of the wave in the bulk of the piezoelectric layer, therefore, the plurality of lamb acoustic wave resonators can be considered to be a plurality of bulk acoustic wave resonators.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11, 13-16, 19 and 20 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 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