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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1 – 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In claim 1, the statement “in this order” is indefinite. It is not clear which layer is actually closest to the piezoelectric film or in what “order” the layers are to be placed with respect to each other.
Claims 2 – 11 are rejected due to their dependency on claim 1.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 objected to because of the following informalities: the claim discloses that the content of the Ta element changes in the thickness direction. It is not clear if the Ta element refers to the Ta nitride or the Ta metal. Both?
If the Ta nitride layer and the Ta metal layer have been formed in the device, how the content changes continuously. It is not clear.
If the device is finalized and complete, how the Ta element keeps changing (continuous change). It is not clear.
Appropriate correction is required.
In order to advance prosecution in the merits, the Prior Art will be applied
as best understood by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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(s) 1, 2, 3, 7, 8, 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yamanaka (JP 2000-15809).
Yamanaka discloses, regarding,
Claim 1, a piezoelectric laminate comprising, on a substrate 2 in the following order: a lower electrode layer 4, 5; and a piezoelectric film 7 containing a perovskite-type oxide (since it is used a PZT type; see paragraph 0016), wherein the lower electrode layer 4, 5 contains a Ta element, the lower electrode layer includes a Ta nitride layer 5 [0016; Fig. 1] and a Ta metal 4 layer in this order from a side closest to the piezoelectric film (since the layer 4 is closest to the piezoelectric layer; see Fig. 4) in a thickness direction of the lower electrode layer, the Ta nitride layer is a region where a content of the Ta element changes in the thickness direction (Fig. 3A-G), and the change in the content of the Ta element in the thickness direction is continuous (see Fig. 1; English machine translation; since the layers 4, 5 may include a case where they do not form a definite layer boundary, denoting a continuous change in the content of the Ta element in the thickness direction of the layers).
Claim 2, the change in the content of the Ta element is in an increasing trend from a side of the piezoelectric film to a side of the substrate (since the layers 4, 5 may include a case where they do not form a definite layer boundary, denoting a continuous change in the content of the Ta element in the thickness direction of the layers).
Claim 3, in the region, the content of the Ta element exhibits a maximum value on a side closest to the substrate in the thickness direction and monotonically increases from a side of the piezoelectric film (since the tantalum layer 4 is pure Ta and thus a maximum Ta content is close to the substrate).
Claim 7, the perovskite-type oxide contains Pb, Zr, Ti, and O (see English machine translation).
Claim 8, the perovskite-type oxide contains Nb (see English machine translation).
Claim 10, an upper electrode layer 10 provided on the piezoelectric film of the piezoelectric laminate (see Fig. 1).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
Claim(s) 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamanaka in view of Ohashi (US 2011/0109701).
Yamanaka discloses all of the elements above. However, Yamanaka does not disclose the elements below.
On the other hand, Ohashi discloses, regarding,
Claim 4, the lower electrode layer contains the Ta nitride in a range of 20 nm to 60 nm from the side closest to the piezoelectric film (paragraphs 0044, 0073; see Fig. 2).
Claim 5, an alignment control layer containing a metal oxide between the lower electrode layer and the piezoelectric film (see Figs. 2, 4).
Claim 6, the metal oxide contains at least one of Sr or Ba (paragraphs 0022, 0053, 0054).
Claim 7, the perovskite-type oxide contains Pb, Zr, Ti, and O (see paragraphs 0053, 0055).
Claim 8, the perovskite-type oxide contains Nb (see paragraph 0011).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to design the piezoelectric laminate as disclose by Yamanaka and to modify the invention pertaining to the limitations disclose by Ohashi for the purpose of avoiding destruction of electrodes or piezoelectric layers of a piezoelectric device.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamanaka and Ohashi as applied to claims 1, 7, 8 above, and further in view of Naono et al (US 2011/0316393).
The combined piezoelectric laminate discloses all of the elements above. However, the combined piezoelectric laminate does not disclose the elements below.
On the other hand, Naono et al discloses, regarding,
Claim 9, the perovskite-type oxide is a compound represented by General Formula Pb{(ZrxTii-x)i-vNbv}O3 (1)
PNG
media_image1.png
15
147
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(see abstract, Fig. 6, paragraph 0009). Moreover, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to come out with such optimum value, since it has been held that discovering the optimum value of result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F. 2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to design the combined piezoelectric laminate as disclose above and to modify the invention pertaining to the limitations disclose by Naono et al for the purpose of effectively increase the performance of a piezoelectric device.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamanaka in view of Reinmuth et al (US 2022/0080461).
Yamanaka discloses all of the elements above. However, Yamanaka does not disclose the elements below.
On the other hand, Reinmuth et al discloses, regarding,
Claim 11, the Ta nitride layer 25 is in contact with the piezoelectric film 22 (see Fig. 1b; paragraph 0031).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to design the piezoelectric laminate as disclose by Yamanaka and to modify the invention pertaining to the limitations disclose by Reinmuth et al for the purpose of reliable protecting a piezoelectric device.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/07/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the remark that Yamanaka allegedly fails to disclose a region where the Ta content changes in the thickness direction, it is reminded that whenever, the device in Yamanaka is made/manufactured, the content of the Ta changes (see Yamanaka, Figs. 3A-G). The present claims do not describe in any way when or how the Ta content changes or how it is different from the Prior Art or what is involved in the Ta change. Moreover, such statement is unclear (see claim objection above for more detail).
Regarding the remark that Yamanaka allegedly fails to disclose that the Ta content continuously varies, again, at some point during the manufacturing process of the device by Yamanaka, the Ta content was continuously varied, dependent on the design of the device (see Figs. 3A – G).
The present claims do not describe in any way how the change of the content of the Ta element is continuous or what would make the change continuous.
The claim language is very broad.
Moreover, such statement is unclear (see claim objection above for more detail).
Regarding the remark that Yamanaka allegedly failed to disclose the limitations disclosed in claim 1, see 102 rejection above.
Regarding the remark that results from Yamanaka of the Ta nitride layer result from a manufacturing process, first of all, the claims are very broad and unclear. The claim language is not specific enough to differentiate the Present Invention from the Prior Art.
Furthermore, the manufacturing process is irrelevant since the Prior Art reads on the broad claim language as presented.
Regarding the remark that the layers 4, 5 do not serve as an electrode layer, it is very well known that electrodes are made up of several layers (e.g. adhesion layers, protection layers, etc.). Such layers could function together with layer 6 since it is clear from the disclosure that the layers 4, 5, 6 interact with each other or function together to provide a final outcome (see Fig. 1). Such functionality is conventional and very well-known.
In response to applicant's argument that the references cannot be combined with each other, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, all of the references are in the same field of endeavor. The teachings in the references would have been easily recognized to someone having ordinary skill in the art.
Examiner Notes
The Examiner has cited particular paragraphs and/or columns and line numbers and/or figures in the references applied to the claims for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested of the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner. SEE MPEP 2141.02 [R – 07.2015] VI. PRIOR MUST BE CONSIDERED IN ITS ENTIRETY, INCLUDING DISCLOSURES THAT TEACH AWAY FROM THE CLAIMS: A prior art reference must be considered in its entirety, i.e., as a whole, including portions that would lead away from the claimed invention. W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 220 USPQ 303 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert, denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984). See also MPEP ₴ 2123.
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 Julio C. Gonzalez whose telephone number is (571)272-2024. The examiner can normally be reached M-F.
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, Abdullah Riyami can be reached at 5712703119. 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.
/Julio C. Gonzalez/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2831
December 30, 2025