Response After Non-Final
This Office action is in response to the amendment filed on 12/23/2025.
Claims 1-13 and 16-19 are pending in the application.
Claims 1-13 and 16-19 are rejected.
Claims 1 and 12 are currently amended.
Claims 14-15 are cancelled.
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35
U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot because the
arguments do not apply to the references being used in the current rejection.
DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-13 and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being
unpatentable over Kidwell, JR. et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2017/0246662; hereinafter “Kidwell, JR.”) in view of Guedes et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2017/0021391; hereinafter “Guedes”) and further in view of Grosh et al. (U.S. Publication No. 20120250909; hereinafter “Grosh”).
Regarding claim 1, Kidwell, JR. teaches a piezoelectric transducer comprising: a base portion (Figs. 1c/3/505c/9, 132/160 in combination); a plurality of beam portions (Figs. 1c/3/505c/9, beam portions) each of which includes a plurality of layers (Figs. 1c/3/505c/9, 107b), is supported by the base portion (Figs. 1c/3/505c/9, 132/160 in combination) at an end portion (Figs. 1c/3/505c/9, end portion of 107b), and extends (Figs. 1c/3/505c/9) in a direction away from the base portion (Figs. 1c/3/505c/9, 132/160 in combination) at a position above (Figs. 1c/3/505c/9) the base portion (Figs. 1c/3/505c/9, 132/160 in combination); and at least one fixing portion (Figs. 1c/3/505c/9, 916/918 in combination) disposed on (Figs. 1c/3/505c/9) the plurality of beam portions (Figs. 1c/3/505c/9, beam portions) so as to sandwich (Figs. 1c/3/505c/9) the end portion (Figs. 1c/3/505c/9, end portion of 107b) of each of the beam portions (Figs. 1c/3/505c/9, beam portions) between (Figs. 1c/3/505c/9) the at least one fixing portion (Figs. 1c/3/505c/9, 916/918 in combination) and the base portion (Figs. 1c/3/505c/9, 132/160 in combination); wherein each of the plurality of beam portions (Figs. 1c/3/505c/9, beam portions) includes a piezoelectric layer (Figs. 1c/3/505c/9; Fig. 1c, 115; Fig. 9, 915; [0093]), an upper electrode layer (Figs. 1c/3/505c/9; Fig. 1c, 114 Fig. 9, 914; [0093]) on an upper side (Figs. 1c/3/505c/9, upper side of 115/915) of the piezoelectric layer (Figs. 1c/3/505c/9; Fig. 1c, 115; Fig. 9, 915; [0093]), and a lower electrode layer (Figs. 1c/3/505c/9; Fig. 1c, 112 Fig. 9, 912; [0093]) facing (Figs. 1c/3/505c/9) at least a portion (Figs. 1c/3/505c/9; Fig. 1c, portion of 114 Fig. 9, portion of 914; [0093]) of the upper electrode layer (Figs. 1c/3/505c/9; Fig. 1c, 114 Fig. 9, 914; [0093]) with the piezoelectric layer (Figs. 1c/3/505c/9; Fig. 1c, 115; Fig. 9, 915; [0093]) interposed between (Figs. 1c/3/505c/9) the upper electrode layer (Figs. 1c/3/505c/9; Fig. 1c, 114 Fig. 9, 914; [0093]) and the lower electrode layer (Figs. 1c/3/505c/9; Fig. 1c, 112 Fig. 9, 912; [0093]); the at least one fixing portion (Figs. 1c/3/505c/9, 916/918 in combination) overlaps (Figs. 1c/3/505c/9) at least a portion (Figs. 1c/3/505c/9, portion of 132/160 in combination) of the base portion (Figs. 1c/3/505c/9, 132/160 in combination) in an up-down direction (Figs. 1c/3/505c/9, 132/160 up-down direction), and protrudes (Figs. 1c/3/505c/9) from the base portion (Figs. 1c/3/505c/9, 132/160 in combination) in an extending direction (Figs. 1c/3/505c/9) of at least one of the beam portions (Figs. 1c/3/505c/9, beam portions). Kidwell, JR. does not teach the plurality of the beam portions are spaced away from each other with a gap interposed therebetween; and the gap extends radially and continuously from a center portion of the piezoelectric transducer to the at least one fixing point.
Guedes, however, does teach the plurality of the beam portions (Figs. 2-5; Fig. 4, 301-302 cantilever beam portions) are spaced away (Figs. 2-5; Figs. 2-3/5, spaced away with 103) from each other with a gap (Figs. 2-5; Figs. 2-3/5, 103) interposed therebetween (Figs. 2-5; Figs. 2-3/5, 103).
Moreover, Grosh, however, does teach the plurality of the beam portions (Figs. 2-4, 120; [0012]) are spaced away (Fig. 2; [0012]) from each other (Fig. 2; [0012]) with a gap (Figs. 2-4, gap between beams 120; [0012]) interposed therebetween (Fig. 2; Fig. 3A); and the gap (Figs. 2-4, gap between beams 120; [0012]) extends radially (Fig. 2; Fig. 3A) and continuously (Fig. 2; Fig. 3A) from a center portion (Figs. 2-4, 132; [0014]) of the piezoelectric transducer (Figs. 2-4, 100; [0012]) to the at least one fixing point (Figs. 2-4, fixing point; [0012]).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Kidwell, JR. to include the gap of Guedes and Grosh because it would provide a less constrained geometry by releasing the cantilevers thereby improving stress sensitivity by reducing it (Guedes [0025]) and it would provide gap-controlling geometry thereby improving control (Grosh [0012]).
JR. does not teach the gap extends radially from a center portion of the piezoelectric transducer.
Guedes, however, does teach the plurality of the beam portions (Figs. 2-5; Fig. 4, 301-302 cantilever beam portions) are spaced away (Figs. 2-5; Figs. 2-3/5, spaced away with 103) the gap (Figs. 2-5; Figs. 2-3/5, 103) extends radially (Fig. 3) from a center portion (Figs. 2-5; Fig. 3, 201) of the piezoelectric transducer (Figs. 2-5; Fig. 3, PMUT slices; [Abstract]).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Kidwell, JR. to include the gap of Guedes because it would provide a less constrained geometry by releasing the cantilevers thereby improving stress sensitivity by reducing it (Guedes [0025]).
Regarding claim 2, Kidwell, JR. as modified teaches the piezoelectric transducer according to Claim 1, wherein the at least one fixing portion (Figs. 1c/3/505c/9, 916/918 in combination) is disposed on (Figs. 1c/3/505c/9) the upper electrode layer (Figs. 1c/3/505c/9; Fig. 1c, 114 Fig. 9, 914; [0093]).
Regarding claim 3, Kidwell, JR. as modified teaches the piezoelectric transducer according to Claim 1, wherein the at least one fixing portion (Figs. 1c/3/505c/9, 916/918 in combination) is disposed on (Figs. 1c/3/505c/9) the piezoelectric layer (Figs. 1c/3/505c/9; Fig. 1c, 115; Fig. 9, 915; [0093]).
Regarding claim 4, Kidwell, JR. as modified teaches the piezoelectric transducer according to Claim 1, wherein the at least one fixing portion (Figs. 1c/3/505c/9, 916/918 in combination) is disposed on (Figs. 1c/3/505c/9) the lower electrode layer (Figs. 1c/3/505c/9; Fig. 1c, 112 Fig. 9, 912; [0093]).
Regarding claim 5, Kidwell, JR. as modified teaches the piezoelectric transducer according to Claim 1, wherein the at least one fixing portion (Figs. 1c/3/505c/9, 916/918 in combination) located on (Figs. 1c/3/505c/9) each of the plurality of beam portions (Figs. 1c/3/505c/9, beam portions) is defined by (Figs. 1c/3/505c/9) a single fixing portion (Figs. 1c/3/505c/9, 916/918 in combination) so as to be continuous (Figs. 1c/3/505c/9), and has an annular shape (Figs. 1c/3/505c/9) when viewed (Figs. 1c/3/505c/9) in the up-down direction (Figs. 1c/3/505c/9, up-down direction).
Regarding claim 6, Kidwell, JR. as modified teaches the piezoelectric transducer according to Claim 1, wherein a material (Figs. 1c/3/505c/9, 916/918 in combination; [0095]-[0096]) of the at least one fixing portion (Figs. 1c/3/505c/9, 916/918 in combination) has a Young's modulus (Figs. 1c/3/505c/9, Young’s Modulus of Aluminum/SiO2/PEC/PPC/PNB in combination; [0095]-[0096]) higher (Figs. 1c/3/505c/9; [0095]-[0096]) than a Young's modulus (Figs. 1c/3/505c/9, Young’s Modulus of piezoelectric material) of each of a material (Figs. 1c/3/505c/9; Fig. 1c, 115; Fig. 9, 915; [0093]) of the piezoelectric layer (Figs. 1c/3/505c/9; Fig. 1c, 115; Fig. 9, 915; [0093]) and a material (Figs. 1c/3/505c/9, Young’s Modulus of Pt) of the upper electrode layer (Figs. 1c/3/505c/9; Fig. 1c, 114 Fig. 9, 914; [0093]).
Regarding claim 7, Kidwell, JR. as modified teaches the piezoelectric transducer according to Claim 1, wherein the base portion (Figs. 1c/3/505c/9, 132/160 in combination) has an annular outer shape (Figs. 1c/3/505c/9, base portion annular outer shape) when viewed (Figs. 1c/3/505c/9) in the up-down direction (Figs. 1c/3/505c/9, base 132/160 up-down direction).
Regarding claim 8, Kidwell, JR. as modified teaches the piezoelectric transducer according to Claim 1, wherein the base portion (Figs. 1c/3/505c/9, 132/160 in combination) has a constant or substantially constant width (Figs. 1c/3/505c/9, base 132/160 width) in the up-down direction (Figs. 1c/3/505c/9, base 132/160 up-down direction).
Regarding claim 9, Kidwell, JR. as modified teaches the piezoelectric transducer according to Claim 1, wherein the base portion (Figs. 1c/3/505c/9, 132/160 in combination) includes a lower base portion (Figs. 1c/3/505c/9, 160) and an upper base portion (Figs. 1c/3/505c/9; Fig. 1c, 132; Fig. 9, 972) on the lower base portion (Figs. 1c/3/505c/9, 160).
Regarding claim 10, Kidwell, JR. as modified teaches the piezoelectric transducer according to Claim 9, wherein the lower base portion (Figs. 1c/3/505c/9, 160) is made of Si (Figs. 1c/3/505c/9, 160; [0052]), and the upper base portion (Figs. 1c/3/505c/9; Fig. 1c, 132; Fig. 9, 972) is made of SiO2 (Figs. 1c/3/505c/9; Fig. 1c, 132; Fig. 9, 972; [0090]).
Regarding claim 11, Kidwell, JR. as modified teaches the piezoelectric transducer according to Claim 1, wherein the end portion (Figs. 1c/3/505c/9, beam portion - end portion of 107b) of each of the plurality of beam portions (Figs. 1c/3/505c/9, beam portions) has a tapered shape (Figs. 1c/3/505c/9, beam portion tapered shape) when viewed (Figs. 1c/3/505c/9) in the up-down direction (Figs. 1c/3/505c/9, beam portion up-down direction).
Regarding claim 12, Kidwell, JR. as modified teaches the piezoelectric transducer according to Claim 1, wherein the plurality of beam portions (Figs. 1c/3/505c/9, beam portions) include four beam portions (Figs. 1c/3/505c/9, beam portions) that are point-symmetrical (Figs. 1c/3/505c/9, beam portions) to each other (Figs. 1c/3/505c/9, beam portions) with respect to the center point (Figs. 1c/3/505c/9, center point of transducer) of the piezoelectric transducer (Figs. 1c/3/505c/9).
Regarding claim 13, Kidwell, JR. as modified teaches the piezoelectric transducer according to Claim 12, wherein each of the four beam portions (Figs. 1c/3/505c/9, beam portions) extends toward (Figs. 1c/3/505c/9) the center point (Figs. 1c/3/505c/9, center point of transducer) of the piezoelectric transducer (Figs. 1c/3/505c/9).
Regarding claim 16, Kidwell, JR. as modified teaches the piezoelectric transducer according to Claim 1. Kidwell, JR. does not teach a width of the gap is constant or substantially constant.
Guedes, however, does teach a width (Figs. 2-5; Figs. 2-3/5, width of 103; [0022]) of the gap (Figs. 2-5; Figs. 2-3/5, 103) is constant or substantially constant (Figs. 2-5; Figs. 2-3/5, width of 103; [0022]).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Kidwell, JR. to include the gap of Guedes because it would provide a less constrained geometry by releasing the cantilevers thereby improving stress sensitivity by reducing it (Guedes [0025]).
Regarding claim 17, Kidwell, JR. as modified teaches the piezoelectric transducer according to Claim 1, wherein the piezoelectric layer (Figs. 1c/3/505c/9; Fig. 1c, 115; Fig. 9, 915; [0093]) is made of one of lead zirconate titanate based ceramics (Figs. 1c/3/505c/9; Fig. 1c, 115; Fig. 9, 915; [0093]), aluminum nitride (Figs. 1c/3/505c/9; Fig. 1c, 115; Fig. 9, 915; [0093]), lithium niobate, or lithium tantalate; the upper and lower electrode (Figs. 1c/3/505c/9; Fig. 1c, 112/114 Fig. 9, 912/914; [0093]) layers are made of Pt (Figs. 1c/3/505c/9; [0093]).
Regarding claim 18, Kidwell, JR. as modified teaches the piezoelectric transducer according to Claim 1, wherein each of the plurality of beam portions (Figs. 1c/3/505c/9, beam portions) further includes an active layer (Figs. 1c/3/505c/9; Fig. 1c, 130) on a lower side (Figs. 1c/3/505c/9; Fig. 1c, lower side of 112) of the lower electrode layer (Figs. 1c/3/505c/9; Fig. 1c, 112 Fig. 9, 912; [0093]).
Regarding claim 19, Kidwell, JR. as modified teaches the piezoelectric transducer according to Claim 18, wherein the active layer (Figs. 1c/3/505c/9; Fig. 1c, 130) is made of Si (Figs. 1c/3/505c/9; Fig. 1c, 130; [0052]).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in
this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication should be directed to MONICA MATA
whose telephone number is (571) 272-8782. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday thru Friday from 7:30 AM to 5:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s
supervisor, Dedei Hammond, can be reached on (571) 270-7938. 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 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).
/MONICA MATA/
Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2837
19 July 2026
/EMILY P PHAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2837