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, 2, 5-10, 14-16, 21, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoneyama (US 2010/01494243) in view of Rhee et al. (US 10178472).
With respect to claim 1, Yoneyama discloses an acoustic device (Figs 10, 12, 15A, 16, 17, and 20), comprising: a piezoelectric component (items 51, 61, 71, 81, and 91) wherein the piezoelectric component generates vibration under an action of a driving voltage (Abstract); an electrode (items 15A, 15B, 16A, 16B, 64, 65, 73, 74), wherein the electrode provides the driving voltage for the piezoelectric component (Paragraph 100), wherein the electrode is covered on a surface of the piezoelectric layer (Figs 10, 12, 15A, 16, 17, and 20), and a coverage area of the electrode on the surface of the piezoelectric layer is less than an area of the surface of the substrate covered with the piezoelectric layer (Figs 10, 12, 15A, 16, 17, and 20).
Yoneyama does not disclose a vibration component, wherein the vibration component is physically connected to the piezoelectric component to receive the vibration and generate sound, or wherein the piezoelectric component includes: a substrate; and a piezoelectric layer, wherein the piezoelectric layer is covered on a surface of the substrate.
Rhee et al. teaches a piezoelectric acoustic device including a vibration component, wherein the vibration component (Fig 3, item 127) is physically connected to the piezoelectric component to receive the vibration and generate sound (Fig 3), and wherein the piezoelectric component includes: a substrate (item 110); and a piezoelectric layer (item 125b), wherein the piezoelectric layer is covered on a surface of the substrate (Fig 2).
Before the effective filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the vibration component and substrate of Rhee et al. with the acoustic device of Yoneyama for the benefits of improving the inertial force generated by the device and providing improved structural support (column 4, lines 49-53 and column 3, lines 35-52 of Rhee et al.).
With respect to claim 2, the combination of Yoneyama and Rhee et al. discloses the acoustic device of claim 1. Yoneyama discloses that he piezoelectric component includes a vibration output region and a fixed region (Figs 10, 12, 15A, 16, 17, and 20). Rhee et al. discloses a mass block (item 127), wherein the vibration output region is connected to the mass block (Fig 3). The language “the electrode is designed according to a mass ratio of a mass of the mass block to a mass of the piezoelectric component” is product-by-process language that does not further limit the structural features of the claimed acoustic device, and 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 5, the combination of Yoneyama and Rhee et al. discloses the acoustic device of claim 2. Yoneyama discloses that a width of the electrode gradually decreases from the fixed region to the vibration output region (Figs 12, 15A, 16, 17, and 20).
With respect to claim 6, the combination of Yoneyama and Rhee et al. discloses the acoustic device of claim 2. Yoneyama discloses that the electrode includes two electrode envelope regions, and opposite potentials are input into the two electrode envelope regions (Paragraph 67).
With respect to claim 7, the combination of Yoneyama and Rhee et al. discloses the acoustic device of claim 6. Yoneyama discloses that a transition point exists between the two electrode envelope regions, and a width of the electrode in a first electrode envelope region of the two electrode envelope regions gradually decreases from the fixed region to the transition point (Figs 15A and 20).
With respect to claim 8, the combination of Yoneyama and Rhee et al. discloses the acoustic device of claim 7. Yoneyama discloses that the width of the electrode in a second electrode envelope region of the two electrode envelope regions increases firstly and then decreases from the transition point to the vibration output region (Figs 15A and 20).
With respect to claim 9, the combination of Yoneyama and Rhee et al. discloses the acoustic device of claim 5. Yoneyama discloses that the width of the electrode in the fixed region is equal to a width of the fixed region (Figs 10, 12, 15A, 16, 17, and 20).
With respect to claim 10, the combination of Yoneyama and Rhee et al. discloses the acoustic device of claim 5. Yoneyama discloses that the width of the electrode in the vibration output region is 0 (Figs 10, 12, 15A, 16, 17, and 20).
With respect to claim 14, the combination of Yoneyama and Rhee et al. discloses the acoustic device of claim 1. Yoneyama discloses that the piezoelectric layer and the electrode coincide (Figs 10, 12, 15A, 16, 17, and 20).
With respect to claim 15, the combination of Yoneyama and Rhee et al. discloses the acoustic device of claim 1. Yoneyama discloses that the piezoelectric layer includes a piezoelectric plate or a piezoelectric film (Paragraph 51).
With respect to claim 16, the combination of Yoneyama and Rhee et al. discloses the acoustic device of claim 15. Yoneyama discloses that he electrode includes a plurality of discrete electrode units distributed in two dimensions (Fig 10).
With respect to claim 21, the combination of Yoneyama and Rhee et al. discloses the acoustic device of claim 1. Yoneyama discloses that the electrode is also covered on a second surface opposite to the surface of the piezoelectric layer, and a coverage area of the electrode on the second surface is less than or equal to an area of the surface (Figs 10, 12, 15A, 16, 17, and 20).
With respect to claim 25, Yoneyama discloses an acoustic device (Figs 10, 12, 15A, 16, 17, and 20), comprising: a piezoelectric component (items 51, 61, 71, 81, and 91), wherein the piezoelectric component generates vibration under an action of a driving voltage (Abstract); an electrode (items 15A, 15B, 16A, 16B, 64, 65, 73, 74), wherein the electrode provides the driving voltage for the piezoelectric component (Paragraph 100), wherein the electrode is covered on a surface of the piezoelectric layer; the substrate, the piezoelectric layer, and the electrode coincide respectively (Figs 10, 12, 15A, 16, 17, and 20); and a coverage area of the piezoelectric region on the substrate is less than a coverage area of the piezoelectric layer on the substrate (Figs 10, 12, 15A, 16, 17, and 20).
Yoneyama does not disclose a vibration component, wherein the vibration component is physically connected to the piezoelectric component to receive the vibration and generate sound, or wherein the piezoelectric component comprises: a substrate; and a piezoelectric layer, wherein the piezoelectric layer is covered on a surface of the substrate, the piezoelectric layer is divided into at least one piezoelectric region and at least one non-piezoelectric region.
Rhee et al. teaches a piezoelectric acoustic device including a vibration component, wherein the vibration component (Fig 3, item 127) is physically connected to the piezoelectric component to receive the vibration and generate sound (Fig 3), and wherein the piezoelectric component comprises: a substrate (item 110); and a piezoelectric layer (item 125b), wherein the piezoelectric layer is covered on a surface of the substrate (Fig 2), the piezoelectric layer is divided into at least one piezoelectric region (item 125b) and at least one non-piezoelectric region (item 127)
Before the effective filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the vibration component and substrate of Rhee et al. with the acoustic device of Yoneyama for the benefits of improving the inertial force generated by the device and providing improved structural support (column 4, lines 49-53 and column 3, lines 35-52 of Rhee et al.).
Claims 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoneyama in view of Rhee et al. and Preumont (WO 02/078099).
With respect to claim 17, the combination of Yoneyama and Rhee et al. discloses the acoustic device of claim 16.
Yoneyama does not disclose that among the plurality of discrete electrode units, a gap between two adjacent discrete electrode units at a center of the piezoelectric layer is less than a gap between two adjacent discrete electrode units at a boundary of the piezoelectric layer.
Preumont teaches a piezoelectric acoustic device in which among the plurality of discrete electrode units, a gap between two adjacent discrete electrode units at a center of the piezoelectric layer is less than a gap between two adjacent discrete electrode units at a boundary of the piezoelectric layer (Figs 6-7).
Before the effective filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the electrode arrangement of Preumont with the acoustic device of Yoneyama for the benefit of providing the desired in-plane coefficient variation (Paragraph 23 of Preumont).
With respect to claim 18, the combination of Yoneyama and Rhee et al. discloses the acoustic device of claim 16.
Yoneyama does not disclose that an area of a first discrete electrode unit at a center of the piezoelectric layer is greater than an area of a second discrete electrode unit at a boundary of the piezoelectric layer.
Preumont teaches a piezoelectric acoustic device in which an area of a first discrete electrode unit at a center of the piezoelectric layer is greater than an area of a second discrete electrode unit at a boundary of the piezoelectric layer (Figs 6-7).
Before the effective filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the electrode arrangement of Preumont with the acoustic device of Yoneyama for the benefit of providing the desired in-plane coefficient variation (Paragraph 23 of Preumont).
With respect to claim 19, the combination of Yoneyama and Rhee et al. discloses the acoustic device of claim 15.
Yoneyama does not disclose that the electrode includes a continuous electrode distributed in two dimensions, and the continuous electrode includes a plurality of hollow regions.
Preumont teaches a piezoelectric acoustic device in which the electrode includes a continuous electrode distributed in two dimensions, and the continuous electrode includes a plurality of hollow regions. (Figs 6-7).
Before the effective filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the electrode arrangement of Preumont with the acoustic device of Yoneyama for the benefit of providing the desired in-plane coefficient variation (Paragraph 23 of Preumont).
With respect to claim 20, the combination of Yoneyama, Rhee et al., and Preumont discloses the acoustic device of claim 19. Preumont discloses that an area of a first hollow region at a center of the piezoelectric layer is less than an area of a second hollow region at a boundary of the piezoelectric layer (Figs 6-7).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12, 13, and 38 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 layer is divided into at least one piezoelectric region and at least one non-piezoelectric region, the at least one piezoelectric region is made of a piezoelectric material the at least one non- piezoelectric region is made of a non-piezoelectric least one piezoelectric region and an area of the at least one non-piezoelectric region” in combination with the remaining elements of claim 12.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3 February 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the operating principle of Rhee is different from that of the claimed invention. However, this argument is not relevant to the proposed combination of references, and is therefore rendered moot.
Applicant argues that Yoneyama does not disclose that opposite potentials are input into the two electrode envelope regions, pointing to figure 1 and paragraph 67 of Yoneyama in support of this argument. However, these are the portions of Yoneyama which disclose the claimed feature, with the electrode envelope regions respectively connected to opposite (positive and negative) polarities.
Applicant argues that Preumont does not disclose a plurality of discrete electrode elements. However, Preumont was not cite for tis disclosure of this feature. It was cited only for its teachings regarding the relative surface area of the electrodes to that of the piezoelectric layer.
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