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 1-7, 9-12, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murakami (US 2015/0311423) in view of Otera (WO 2021/024567).
With respect to claim 1, Murakami discloses a substrate (Fig 1) comprising: a film-shaped member (item 10) that has a first main surface (surface on which electrode 15 is formed) and a second main surface (Fig 1, surface opposite to first surface); a first electrode (item 15) that has a third main surface (surface of electrode at the first surface of the piezoelectric member) and a fourth main surface (Fig 1, surface of electrode opposite to the third surface), the third main surface facing the second main surface of the film-shaped member (Fig 1), the first electrode having a first patterning region with a first part (region between items 151 and 152/153) where the film-shaped member is exposed from the first electrode (Fig 1) and a second part (item 151) where the film-shaped member is not exposed from the first electrode (Fig 1); and an electrical connector (item 2) facing the fourth main surface of the first electrode and the second main surface of the film-shaped member such that the electrical connector is disposed across the first part and the second part in the first patterning region (Fig 1).
Murakami does not disclose that the electrical connector is connected by an adhesive tape, wherein the adhesive tape has an adhesive property and an insulating property.
Otera teaches a piezoelectric device in which the electrical connector is connected by an adhesive tape, wherein the adhesive tape has an adhesive property and an insulating property (Fig 1, Paragraph 18).
Before the effective filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the adhesive tape of Otera with the piezoelectric device of Murakami for the benefit of improving the bond between the electrical connector and the piezoelectric element (Fig 1 and paragraph 18 of Otera).
With respect to claim 2, the combination of Murakami and Otera discloses the substrate according to claim 1. Murakami disclose that the adhesive tape is bonded to the film-shaped member exposed from the first electrode at the first part (Fig 1).
With respect to claim 3, the combination of Murakami and Otera discloses the substrate according to claim 1. Murakami discloses that the adhesive tape is bonded to the fourth main surface of the first electrode at the second part (Fig 1).
With respect to claim 4, the combination of Murakami and Otera discloses the substrate according to claim 1. Murakami discloses that the adhesive tape is bonded to a side surface of the first electrode at the second part (Fig 1).
With respect to claim 5, the combination of Murakami and Otera discloses the substrate according to claim 4. Murakami discloses that the adhesive tape is bonded to the film-shaped member exposed from the first electrode at the first part (Fig 1).
With respect to claim 6, the combination of Murakami and Otera discloses the substrate according to claim 5. Murakami discloses that the adhesive tape is bonded to the fourth main surface of the first electrode at the second part (Fig 1).
With respect to claim 7, the combination of Murakami and Otera discloses the substrate according to claim 1. Murakami discloses that a side surface of the first electrode at the second part is inclined with respect to a normal direction of the first main surface and the second main surface in a side view of the substrate (Fig 1, wherein the claim does not define a degree of inclination).
With respect to claim 9, the combination of Murakami and Otera discloses the substrate according to claim 1. Murakami is silent with respect to the specific dimensions of the third main surface and the fourth main surface and therefore does not explicitly disclose “wherein an area of the third main surface of the first electrode at the first part is smaller than an area of an opening of the fourth main surface”. However, it has been held that a mere change in 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 third and fourth main surfaces such that an area of the third main surface of the first electrode at the first part is smaller than an area of an opening of the fourth main surface.
With respect to claim 10, the combination of Murakami and Otera discloses the substrate according to claim 1. Murakami is silent with respect to the specific dimensions of the third main surface and the fourth main surface and therefore does not explicitly disclose “wherein an area of the third main surface of the first electrode at the first part is larger than an area of an opening of the fourth main surface”. However, it has been held that a mere change in 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 third and fourth main surfaces such that an area of the third main surface of the first electrode at the first part is larger than an area of an opening of the fourth main surface.
With respect to claim 11, the combination of Murakami and Otera discloses the substrate according to claim 1. Murakami discloses that the first electrode at the second part extends in a first direction in a planar view of the substrate, and the first direction is perpendicular to a tension direction of the film-shaped member (Fig 1).
With respect to claim 12, the combination of Murakami and Otera discloses the substrate according to claim 1. Murakami discloses a second electrode (item 152 or 153) having a fifth main surface and a sixth main surface (Fig 1), the sixth main surface facing the first main surface of the film-shaped member (Fig 1), the second electrode having a second patterning region with a third part (regions surrounding items 152/153) where the film-shaped member is exposed from the second electrode and a fourth part (items 152/153) with the film-shaped member is not exposed from the second electrode (Fig 1).
With respect to claim 14, the combination of Murakami and Otera discloses the substrate according to claim 12. Murakami is silent with respect to the specific dimensions of the third main surface and the fourth main surface and therefore does not explicitly disclose “wherein an area of the sixth main surface of the second electrode in the second patterning region is smaller than an area of an opening of the fifth main surface”. However, it has been held that a mere change in 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 fifth and sixth main surfaces such that an area of the sixth main surface of the second electrode in the second patterning region is smaller than an area of an opening of the fifth main surface.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8, 13, 15, and 16 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance.
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.”
The prior art does not disclose or suggest “wherein a side surface of the first electrode at the second part has a first side surface and a second side surface, each of the first side surface and the second side surface is inclined with respect to a normal direction of the first main surface and the second main surface in a side view of the substrate, and an inclination angle of the first side surface is different from an inclination angle of the second side surface” in combination with the remaining elements of claim 8.
The prior art does not disclose or suggest “wherein a side surface of the first electrode at the second part is inclined with respect to a normal direction of the first main surface and the second main surface in a side view of the substrate, a side surface of the second electrode at the fourth part is inclined with respect to the normal direction in the side view of the substrate, and a magnitude of a first angle between the side surface of the first electrode at the second part and a first straight line extending in the normal direction is smaller than a magnitude of a second angle between the side surface of the second electrode at the fourth part and the first straight line in the side view of the substrate” in combination with the remaining element of claim 13.
The prior art does not disclose or suggest “wherein the first electrode includes a first metal, a second metal that is higher in light absorbance than the first metal, and a third metal including an alloy of the first metal and the second metal, the first metal is located closest to the third main surface of the first electrode, the second metal is located closest to the fourth main surface of the first electrode, and the third metal is located closest to a side surface of the first electrode at the second part” in combination with the remaining elements of claim 15.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12 March 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the cited references do not disclose the adhesive tape having an adhesive property and an insulating property. However, this is explicitly disclosed by Otera in paragraph 18, which describes the tape as being “an insulating and adhesive material”.
Applicant argues that the proposed modification of Murakami by Otera would render the device of Murakami unsatisfactory for its intended purpose, arguing that an insulating tape would interrupt the electrical connection. However, as disclosed by Otera, the insulating, adhesive tape does not extend across the entire surface of the electrically-connected areas. This allows the tape to serve its purpose of providing a bond, without interrupting the electrical connection.
Applicant argues that Otera discloses the adhesive tapes being directly over the electrode and that there is no opening in the electrode exposing the piezoelectric film. However, these features are disclosed by Murakami. Otera was cited only for its teachings related to an adhesive tape being used to facilitate the electrical connection.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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