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 .
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, 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 1-3, 5, 6, 11, 14, 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takada et al. (JP 2013-026250) in view of Kimura et al. (US 2010/0052473).
With respect to claim 1, Takada et al. discloses a piezoelectric element (Fig 1) comprising: a piezoelectric layer (item 4) including a first surface, a second surface facing the first surface, and a through hole extending all the way from the first surface to the second surface; a first electrode layer (item 5) on the first surface (Fig 1); a second electrode layer (item 3) on a second surface side of the piezoelectric layer (Fig 1), at least a portion of the second electrode layer facing the first electrode layer with the piezoelectric layer interposed therebetween and including a coupling area that meets the through hole in a region of the second electrode layer not facing the first electrode layer (Fig 1).
Takada et al. does not disclose a coupling electrode on the coupling area, or that between the coupling area and a surface of the second electrode layer on a piezoelectric layer side excluding the coupling area, a difference in position is about 5 nm or less.
Kimura et al. teaches a piezoelectric device including a coupling electrode (item 40) on the coupling area (Fig 1).
Before the effective filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the coupling electrode of Kimura et al. with the piezoelectric element of Takada et al. for the benefit of better facilitating the electrical connection of the electrodes from outside the through hole (Fig 1 of Kimura et al.).
With respect to the language “wherein between the coupling area and a surface of the second electrode layer on a piezoelectric layer side excluding the coupling area, a difference in position is about 5 nm or less”, it has been held that a mere change in size or relative dimensions is obvious (Gardner v TEC Systems, Inc., 220 USPQ 777). Therefore, at the time of effective filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form the coupling area and second electrode layer to have any suitable separation distance.
With respect to claim 2, the combination of Tanaka et al. and Kimura et al. discloses the piezoelectric element according to claim 1. Tanaka et al. discloses that the through hole widens from the first surface towards the second surface (Fig 1).
With respect to claim 3, the combination of Tanaka et al. and Kimura et al. discloses the piezoelectric element according to claim 2. Kimura et al. discloses that the through hole widens continuously from the first surface towards the second surface (Fig 1, wherein the through hole in layer 20 widens continuously from its first surface towards the second surface).
With respect to claim 5, the combination of Tanaka et al. and Kimura et al. discloses the piezoelectric element according to claim 1. Kimura et al. discloses that the through hole is plugged with the coupling electrode (Fig 1).
With respect to claim 6, the combination of Tanaka et al. and Kimura et al. discloses the piezoelectric element according to claim 1. The language “wherein in reactive ion etching with CF4 gas, an etching rate of a material of the second electrode layer is higher than an etching rate of a material of the piezoelectric layer” is product-by-process language. It has been held that where a claimed product is the same as or obvious over a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even if the prior product was made by a different process (In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964).
With respect to claim 11, the combination of Tanaka et al. and Kimura et al. discloses the piezoelectric element according to claim 1. Kimura et al. discloses that the piezoelectric layer includes lithium niobate (Paragraph 20). Tanaka et al. discloses that the second electrode layer includes a metallic material (Paragraphs 30 and 42).
With respect to claim 14, the combination of Tanaka et al. and Kimura et al. discloses the piezoelectric element according to claim 11. Tanaka et al. discloses that a silicon layer (item 2: paragraph 26) is provided on an opposite surface of the second electrode layer from the piezoelectric layer.
With respect to claim 17, Tanaka et al. discloses a piezoelectric element (Fig 1) comprising: a piezoelectric layer (item 4) including a first surface, a second surface facing the first surface, and a through hole (item 4a) extending all the way from the first surface to the second surface; a first electrode layer (item 5) on the first surface (Fig 1); a second electrode layer on a second surface side of the piezoelectric layer, at least a portion of the second electrode layer (item 3) facing the first electrode layer with the piezoelectric layer interposed therebetween and including a coupling area that meets the through hole in a region of the second electrode layer not facing the first electrode layer (Fig 1).
Tanaka et al. does not disclose a coupling electrode on the coupling area; wherein the through hole widens from the first surface towards the second surface.
Kimura et al. teaches a piezoelectric device including a coupling electrode (item 40) on the coupling area; wherein the through hole widens from the first surface towards the second surface (Fig 1).
Before the effective filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the coupling electrode of Kimura et al. with the piezoelectric element of Takada et al. for the benefit of better facilitating the electrical connection of the electrodes from outside the through hole (Fig 1 of Kimura et al.).
With respect to claim 18, the combination of Tanaka et al. and Kimura et al. discloses the piezoelectric element according to claim 17. Kimura et al. discloses that the through hole widens continuously from the first surface toward the second surface (Fig 1).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takada et al. in view of Omoto et al. (US 2019/0067557).
With respect to claim 4, the combination of Tanaka et al. and Kimura et al. discloses the piezoelectric element according to claim 1.
Tanaka et al. does not disclose that the coupling electrode is spaced away from an inner surface of the through hole.
Omoto et al. teaches a piezoelectric element in which the coupling electrode (item 202) is spaced away from an inner surface of the through hole (Fig 7).
Before the effective filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the coupling electrode arrangement relative to the through hole of Omoto et al. with the piezoelectric element of Tanaka et al. for the benefit of reducing the amount of electrode material required by reducing the overall size of the coupling electrode (Fig 7 of Omoto et al.).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-10, 12, 13, 15, and 16 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter.
The prior art does not disclose or suggest “the second electrode layer primarily includes silicon” in combination with the remaining elements of claim 7.
The prior art does not disclose or suggest “wherein a bonding layer is provided between the piezoelectric layer side of the second electrode layer excluding the coupling area and the piezoelectric layer” in combination with the remaining elements of claim 12.
The prior art does not disclose or suggest “a base supporting a multilayer body including at least the first electrode layer, the piezoelectric layer, and the second electrode layer; wherein the base is on a second electrode layer side of the multilayer body and has a ring shape in alignment with a periphery of a surface of the multilayer body on a base side when viewed in a direction of stacking of layers in the multilayer body” in combination with the remaining elements of claim 15.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 16 January 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the metal layer of Kimura et al. is not on the coupling area that meets the through hole in a region of the second electrode not facing the first electrode. However, this arguments is directed to Kimura et al. alone, and not the proposed combination of Tanaka et al. and Kimura et al. The device of Tanaka et al. lacks a coupling electrode in the through hole. Kimura et al. is cited for its use of a coupling electrode in a through hole which is used to facilitate electrical connection to the electrodes of the device.
Applicant argues that the examiner has not set forth a legally sufficient reason to combine the teachings of Tanaka et al. and Kimura et al. However, as recited in the office action, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the coupling electrode of Kimura et al. with the piezoelectric element of Takada et al. for the benefit of better facilitating the electrical connection of the electrodes from outside the through hole (Fig 1 of Kimura et al.).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Derek John Rosenau whose telephone number is (571)272-8932. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7 am to 5:30 pm Central Time.
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, Dedei Hammond can be reached at (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 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.
/DEREK J ROSENAU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2837