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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 7-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burak (PG Pub 20150280100) and in view of Sumi (PG Pub 20180138393).
Considering claim 1, Burak (Figure 1B) teaches a piezoelectric laminate comprising, on a substrate in the following order: a lower electrode layer (115 + paragraph 0037); a piezoelectric film (120 + paragraph 0037), wherein the lower electrode layer includes a second layer (115t + paragraph 0037) arranged in a state of being in contact with the piezoelectric film and includes a first layer (115b + paragraph 0037) arranged on a side of the substrate than the second layer, the first layer contains one or more of W (115t + paragraph 0037), Mo, Nb and Ta as a main component.
However, Burak does not teach wherein a piezoelectric film containing a perovskite type oxide and the second layer contains Ir as a main component and a thickness of the second layer is 50 nm or less.
Sumi teaches wherein a piezoelectric film containing a perovskite type oxide (paragraph 0065) and the second layer contains Ir as a main component and a thickness of the second layer is 50 nm or less (paragraphs 0060-0061).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include a piezoelectric film containing a perovskite type oxide and the second layer contains Ir as a main component and a thickness of the second layer is 50 nm or less into Burak’s device for the benefit preventing the piezoelectric performance from being reduced by controlling the orientation of the crystals.
Considering claim 2, Sumi teaches wherein the thickness of the second layer is 45 nm or less (paragraph 0060).
Considering claim 7, Burak (Figure 1B) teaches wherein the first layer is a W layer (115b + paragraph 0037).
Considering claim 8, Burak (Figure 1B) teaches wherein the perovskite type oxide is a compound represented by General Formula Pb{(ZrxTi1-x)y-1B1y}O3, 0 < x < 1, 0 < y < 0.4 and B1 is one of more elements selected from V, Nb, Ta, Sb, Mo and W (paragraph 0067).
Considering claim 9, Sumi teaches wherein a half width at half maximum of an X-ray diffraction peak from a (111) plane of the Ir of the second layer is 0.3 degrees or more (paragraph 0062).
Considering claim 10, Sumi teaches wherein the second layer is an uniaxial alignment film in which the IR is aligned in a (111) plane and the (111) plane has an inclination of 1 degree or more with respect to a thickness direction (paragraph 0062).
Considering claim 11, Sumi teaches wherein a pyrochlore phase is included at an interface between the lower electrode layer and the piezoelectric film and a thickness of the pyrochlore phase is 20 nm or less (paragraph 0070).
Considering claim 12, Burak (Figure 1B) teaches wherein an upper electrode layer (125 + paragraph 0034) provided on the piezoelectric film of the piezoelectric laminate.
Claim(s) 3-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burak (PG Pub 20150280100), in view of Sumi (PG Pub 20180138393) and in view of Takamitsu (JP 2010056426).
Considering claim 3, Burak in view of Sumi teaches the piezoelectric laminate as described above.
However, Burak in view of Sumi does not teach a first intimate attachment layer that improves adhesiveness between the substrate and the first layer, between the substrate and the first layer.
Takamitsu (Figure 1) teaches a first intimate attachment layer (16 + paragraph 0018) that improves adhesiveness between the substrate and the first layer, between the substrate and the first layer.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include a first intimate attachment layer that improves adhesiveness between the substrate and the first layer, between the substrate and the first layer into Burak’s device for the benefit of improving adhesion between the layers.
Considering claim 4, Takamitsu (Figure 1) teaches wherein the first intimate attachment layer is a TiW layer (16 + paragraph 0018).
Considering claim 5, Takamitsu (Figure 1) teaches a second intimate attachment layer (20 + paragraphs 0018-0020) that improves adhesiveness between the first layer and the second layer, between the first layer and the second layer.
Considering claim 6, Takamitsu (Figure 1) teaches wherein the second intimate attachment layer is a TiW layer (20 + paragraphs 0018-0020).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05 January 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding the applicant’s argument that there is a fundamental difference in technical field and purpose the examiner disagrees since both applications deal with piezoelectric applications. Regarding the argument that the combination of Burak and Sumi is incompatible and teaches away with respect to the electrode layer arrangement the examiner disagrees. The combination of Burak and Sumi for using a perovskite type piezoelectric into Burak does not destroy the device. It is still using a common and well-known piezoelectric material. Furthermore, regarding the argument that one would be discouraged from placing Ir on the piezoelectric film the examiner disagrees since Burak does mention that the second conductive layer can be made of a relatively high acoustic impedance which Ir clearly is and Sumi teaches.
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 BRYAN P GORDON whose telephone number is (571)272-5394. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 a.m. - 4:30 p.m..
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 K 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.
/BRYAN P GORDON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2837