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 1-5, 11, 12, 14, 16, 17, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Churchill et al. (US 7839058) in view of Ide et al. (US 8653718).
With respect to claim 1, Churchill et al. discloses a power generator (Figs 1a-1b) comprising: a piezoelectric element (item 20) that includes a piezoelectric film (items 32a and 32b); a deformable body (item 28) that has Young's modulus larger than synthetic Young's modulus of the piezoelectric element (Figs 1a-1b, this is an inherent result of the materials selected for the piezoelectric element and the deformable body); a first fixing member (attachment of piezoelectric element and deformable body at end 34) that directly fixes the piezoelectric element and the deformable body (Figs 1-2); and a second fixing member (attachment of piezoelectric element and deformable body at end 38) that is disposed apart from the first fixing member and fixes the piezoelectric element (Figs 1-2), wherein the deformable body is deformed with respect to stress from outside in a direction in which a distance between the first fixing member and the second fixing member is lengthened (Figs 1-2).
Churchill et al. does not explicitly disclose a first electrode and a second electrode sandwiching the piezoelectric film therebetween.
Ide et al. teaches a piezoelectric power generator (Fig 1A) that includes a first electrode and a second electrode (items 109a and 109b) sandwiching the piezoelectric film (item 108) therebetween (Fig 1A).
Before the effective filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the electrodes of Ide et al. with the power generator of Churchill et al. for the benefit of providing an improved means of making use of the electrical energy generated by the piezoelectric element (Figs 1A-1B of Ide et al.), and as the use of electrodes in piezoelectric elements is extremely well-known in the art.
With respect to claim 2, the combination of Churchill et al. and Ide et al. discloses the power generator according to claim 1. Churchill et al. discloses that the second fixing member directly fixes the piezoelectric element and the deformable body, and wherein the deformable body is disposed to overlap the piezoelectric element with the first fixing member and the second fixing member therebetween (Figs 1-2).
With respect to claim 3, the combination of Churchill et al. and Ide et al. discloses the power generator according to claim 2. Churchill et al. discloses that the first fixing member and the second fixing member come into contact with an end portion of the piezoelectric element in a longitudinal direction (Figs 1-2).
With respect to claim 4, the combination of Churchill et al. and Ide et al. discloses the power generator according to claim 2. Churchill et al. discloses that the deformable body is disposed apart from the piezoelectric element in a first direction perpendicular to a first surface on which the piezoelectric element extends (Figs 1-2).
With respect to claim 5, the combination of Churchill et al. and Ide et al. discloses the power generator according to claim 2. Churchill et al. discloses that the deformable body has a protrusion which protrudes in a first direction perpendicular to a first surface on which the piezoelectric element extends (Figs 1-2).
With respect to claim 11, the combination of Churchill et al. and Ide et al. discloses the power generator according to claim 2. Churchill et al. discloses that the first fixing member and the second fixing member have a first part which is positioned between the piezoelectric element and the deformable body and a second part which overlaps the first part and covers at least a part of the deformable body (Figs 1-2).
With respect to claim 12, the combination of Churchill et al. and Ide et al. discloses the power generator according to claim 2. Churchill et al. discloses a power generation system using the power generator (Abstract).
With respect to claim 14, the combination of Churchill et al. and Ide et al. discloses the power generator according to claim 1. Churchill et al. discloses that at least any one of the first fixing member and the second fixing member comes into contact with an end portion of the piezoelectric element in a longitudinal direction (Figs 1-2).
With respect to claim 16, the combination of Churchill et al. and Ide et al. discloses the power generator according to claim 1. Churchill et al. discloses that the deformable body is disposed apart from the piezoelectric element in a thickness direction perpendicular to a first main surface on which the piezoelectric element extends (Figs 1-2).
With respect to claim 17, the combination of Churchill et al. and Ide et al. discloses the power generator according to claim 1. Churchill et al. discloses that the deformable body has a protrusion which protrudes in a thickness direction perpendicular to a first main surface on which the piezoelectric element extends (Figs 1-2)
With respect to claim 23, the combination of Churchill et al. and Ide et al. discloses the power generator according to claim 1. Churchill et al. discloses that an amount of deformation of the deformable body is within an elastic deformation region of the deformable body and the piezoelectric element (Figs 1-2).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-10, 13, 15, and 18-22 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 “wherein the piezoelectric element has a protective layer which overlaps at least one outer surface of the first electrode and the second electrode, and wherein Young's modulus of the protective layer is larger than Young's modulus of the piezoelectric film and smaller than synthetic Young's modulus of the deformable body” in combination with the remaining elements of claim 6.
The prior art does not disclose or suggest “wherein a protective layer is disposed on a surface of outer surfaces of the piezoelectric element on a side closer to the deformable body, and wherein the protective layer comes into contact with the first fixing member and the second fixing member and has Young's modulus larger than Young's modulus of the piezoelectric film and smaller than synthetic Young's modulus of the deformable body” in combination with the remaining elements of claim 7.
The prior art does not disclose or suggest “wherein the first fixing member and the second fixing member are adhesives having Young's modulus larger than a synthetic Young's modulus of the piezoelectric element” in combination with the remaining elements of claim 8.
The prior art does not disclose or suggest “wherein the first fixing member and the second fixing member are adhesives having a shearing adhesion strength of 10 MPa or higher” in combination with the remaining elements of claim 9.
The prior art does not disclose or suggest “wherein a piezoelectric constant of the piezoelectric film in a longitudinal direction is larger than a piezoelectric constant thereof in a lateral direction, and wherein the first fixing member and the second fixing member are disposed apart from each other in the longitudinal direction of the piezoelectric film” in combination with the remaining elements of claim 10.
The prior art does not disclose or suggest “wherein the deformable body is disposed on a first main surface side on which the piezoelectric element extends, wherein the power generator further comprises a support body that is disposed on a second main surface side of the piezoelectric element and supports the piezoelectric element, wherein the first fixing member is disposed on the first main surface side of the piezoelectric element, wherein the second fixing member is disposed on the second main surface side of the piezoelectric element and directly fixes the piezoelectric element and the support body, and wherein the power generator further comprises a third fixing member that directly fixes the deformable body and the support body” in combination with the remaining elements of claim 13.
The prior art does not disclose or suggest “wherein a third fixing member is disposed on an outward side of an end portion of the piezoelectric element” in combination with the remaining elements of claim 15.
The prior art does not disclose or suggest “wherein the piezoelectric element has a protective layer which overlaps at least one outer surface of the first electrode and the second electrode, and wherein Young's modulus of the protective layer is larger than Young's modulus of the piezoelectric film and smaller than synthetic Young's modulus of the deformable body” in combination with the remaining elements of claim 18.
The prior art does not disclose or suggest “wherein the first fixing member and the second fixing member include an adhesive having Young's modulus larger than synthetic Young's modulus of the piezoelectric element” in combination with the remaining elements of claim 20.
The prior art does not disclose or suggest “wherein the first fixing member and the second fixing member include an adhesive having a shearing adhesion strength of 10 MPa or higher” in combination with the remaining elements of claim 21.
The prior art does not disclose or suggest “wherein a piezoelectric constant of the piezoelectric film in a longitudinal direction is larger than a piezoelectric constant thereof in a lateral direction, and wherein the first fixing member and the second fixing member are disposed apart from each other in the longitudinal direction of the piezoelectric film” in combination with the remaining elements of claim 22.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 21 November 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Churchill does not disclose that the deformable body is deformed with respect to stress from outside in a direction in which a distance between the first and second fixing members is lengthened, arguing that the flexing motion of Churchill results in a distance between the first and second fixing members being decreased, not increased. However, the deformable body of Churchill flexes in both directions when subjected to outside stress, resulting the distance between the first and second fixing members increasing and decreasing when subjected to outside stress.
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