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, and 14 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) and Tsuda et al. (US 2009/0160290).
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 or that at least a portion of the coupling area is offset from a surface of the second electrode layer on a piezoelectric layer side excluding the coupling area along a direction extending from the first surface to the second surface
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.).
Tsuda et al. teaches a piezoelectric device in which at least a portion of the coupling area is offset from a surface of the second electrode layer on a piezoelectric layer side excluding the coupling area along a direction extending from the first surface to the second surface (Fig 1B, wherein the coupling area is offset from the second electrode 14 by layers 22 and 24).
Before the effective filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the offset coupling area of Tsuda et al. with the piezoelectric device of Takeda et al. for the benefit of increasing adhesion between the layers (Paragraph 18 of Tsuda 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.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takada et al. in view of Kimura et al., Tsuda et al., and 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.
Claims 20 and 21 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance. The prior art does not disclose or suggest “the second electrode layer primarily includes silicon” in combination with the remaining elements of claim 20. 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 21.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights