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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the amended claim(s) 1-17 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 1-17 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.
Independent claims 1 and 10 recite “the first vibration portion has a higher mechanical quality factor relative to the second vibration portion and the second vibration portion has a higher piezoelectric constant relative to the first vibration portion.” Although the original specification (e.g., [0125]) appears to discuss “mechanical quality factor” or “piezoelectric constant”, it is unclear as to what are the units or methodology of measuring such factor or constant. Applicant is suggested to amend the claims to specify the appropriate units of measurement, provided such an amendment does not introduce new matter. Applicant must also point out where the intrinsic record provides support for the specific units being added.
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) 1-3, 5-11 and 14-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shin (US 2020/0059733) in view of Sakaki (EP 2090556).
Regarding claim 1, Shin discloses a vibration apparatus, in figures 3, comprising:
a first vibration portion 210 including a first material [0066]; and
a second vibration portion 220 disposed adjacent to the first vibration portion 210,
the second vibration portion 220 including a second material [0068].
Shin does not disclose the first vibration portion has a higher mechanical quality factor relative to the second vibration portion and the second vibration portion has a higher piezoelectric constant relative to the first vibration portion.
Sakaki discloses the first vibration portion has a higher mechanical quality factor relative to the second vibration portion and the second vibration portion has a higher piezoelectric constant relative to the first vibration portion (here, Examiner notes that Sasaki discloses the material claimed in claim 5; please note claim 5 rejection below).
Thus, It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to select specific ratios and doping levels within the disclosed ranges to optimize piezoelectric properties, as suggested by Sakaki.
Regarding claim 2, Shin discloses the first vibration portion 210 and the second vibration portion 220 are alternately disposed horizontally (figure 3).
Regarding claim 3, Shin discloses the first vibration portion 210 shares a corner (figure 11 where 210s meet) with another first vibration portion 210 adjacent thereto in a diagonal direction (left to right as seen in figure 11) of a plane and/or the second vibration portion 220 shares a corner (figure 11 where 220s meet) with another second vibration portion 220 adjacent thereto in a diagonal direction (left to right as seen in figure 11) of a plane.
Regarding claim 5, Shin does not disclose the first material is expressed as formula 1 and the second material is expressed as formula 2 wherein formula 1 is
PNG
media_image1.png
68
522
media_image1.png
Greyscale
, and formula 2 is
PNG
media_image2.png
36
444
media_image2.png
Greyscale
.
Sakaki discloses piezoelectric device including a piezoelectric ceramic [0003, 0004, 0005, 0015, 0020, 0027, 0043, 0047, 0049, 0060, 0066, 0068] of the general formula Pbₓ₋ₐ₋dBiₐM₃d{M₁b(M₂₁/₃Zn₁₋c/₃Nb₂/₃)yZr₁₋b₋y₋zTi_z}O₃, where M₃ can be Sr, M₁ and M₂ can be Ni and Zn, and x, y, z, a, b, and d are selected to provide compositions encompassing those recited in claim 5. Sakaki further teaches doping with 0.7–3 mol% MnO₂, which overlaps the claimed range.
The reason for combination is same as clam 1.
Regarding claim 6, Shin discloses a first electrode portion 230, and a second electrode 240 portion, wherein each of the first vibration portion 210 and the second vibration portion 220 is disposed between the first electrode portion 230 and the second electrode portion 240.
Regarding claim 7, Shin does not disclose a mechanical quality factor of the vibration apparatus is greater than 500.
However, it is well known in the art to have higher mechanical quality factor of the vibration apparatus, for the purpose of reducing energy loss and sharper resonance.
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have a mechanical quality factor of the vibration apparatus is greater than 500 in the device disclosed by Shin, for the purpose of reducing energy loss and sharper resonance. The selection of a mechanical quality factor above 500 is a routine optimization that would have been motivated by the known advantages of higher mechanical quality factors in such devices.
Regarding claim 8, Shin does not explicitly disclose that the electromechanical coupling coefficient of the vibration apparatus is greater than 0.59.
However, it is well known in the art that a higher electromechanical coupling coefficient is desirable in piezoelectric vibration devices because it allows for more efficient conversion between electrical and mechanical energy, resulting in stronger actuation and improved sensitivity.
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to optimize the electromechanical coupling coefficient of the vibration apparatus in Shin to be greater than 0.5 in order to enhance energy conversion efficiency and device performance. The selection of a coupling coefficient above 0.59 is a routine design choice motivated by the recognized benefits of higher coupling in such devices.
Regarding claim 9, Shin does not explicitly disclose that the piezoelectric constant of the vibration apparatus is greater than 450 pm/V.
However, it is well known in the art that a higher piezoelectric constant is desirable in piezoelectric vibration devices because it results in greater mechanical displacement or electrical output for a given input, thereby improving actuation strength and sensor sensitivity.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, to optimize the piezoelectric constant of the vibration apparatus in Shin to be greater than 450 in order to achieve increased output per applied voltage or force. The selection of a piezoelectric constant above 450 is a routine optimization based on the well-known advantages of higher piezoelectric constants in such devices.
Regarding claim 10, Shin discloses a vibration apparatus, in figure 3, comprising:
a vibration portion PCL including a first vibration portion 210 and a second vibration portion 220;
a first electrode portion 230 disposed at a first surface (top surface shown in figure 3) of the vibration portion PCL; and
a second electrode portion 240 disposed at a second surface (bottom surface shown in figure 3) opposite to the first surface (top surface shown in figure 3) of the vibration portion PCL,
wherein the first vibration portion 210 includes a first material [0066],
the second vibration portion 220 includes a second material [0068], and
the second vibration portion 220 is disposed adjacent to the first vibration portion 210.
Shin does not disclose the first vibration portion has a higher mechanical quality factor relative to the second vibration portion and the second vibration portion has a higher piezoelectric constant relative to the first vibration portion.
Sakaki discloses the first vibration portion has a higher mechanical quality factor relative to the second vibration portion and the second vibration portion has a higher piezoelectric constant relative to the first vibration portion (here, Examiner notes that Sasaki discloses the material claimed in claim 5; please note claim 5 rejection above).
Thus, It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to select specific ratios and doping levels within the disclosed ranges to optimize piezoelectric properties, as suggested by Sakaki.
Regarding claim 11, Shin discloses the first vibration portion 210 and the second vibration portion 220 are alternately disposed horizontally (figure 3).
Regarding claim 14, Shin discloses an apparatus, in figure 2, comprising:
a vibration object 100;
a vibration generating apparatus 200 at the vibration object 100; and
a connection member (layer between 100 and 200) between the vibration object 100 and the vibration generating apparatus 200,
wherein the vibration generating apparatus 200 comprises one or more vibration apparatus of claim 1 (note claim 1 rejection above).
Regarding claim 15, Shin discloses the vibration object 100 is a display panel [0052] including pixels configured to display an image,
the display panel 100 includes a first rear region (left region shown in figure 2) and a second rear region (right region shown in figure 2), and
the vibration generating apparatus 200 comprises:
a first vibration generating apparatus (200 in the left region in figure 2) disposed at the first rear region (left region shown in figure 2); and
a second vibration generating apparatus (200 in the right region in figure 2) disposed at the second rear region (right region shown in figure 2).
Regarding claim 16, Shin discloses a plate (layer between 100 and 200; here, the examiner interprets “a connection member” comprises “a plate”) between the display panel 100 and the vibration generating apparatus 200.
Regarding claim 17, Shin discloses the vibration object 100 comprises one or more among a display panel including a pixel configured to display an image, a screen panel on which an image is to be projected from a display apparatus, a lighting panel, a signage panel, a vehicular interior material, a vehicular glass window, a vehicular exterior material, a building ceiling material, a building interior material, a building glass window, an aircraft interior material, an aircraft glass window, wood, plastic, glass, metal, cloth, fiber, paper, rubber, leather, carbon, and a mirror [0247].
Claim(s) 1, 4, 10 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kubota (US 2017/0155037) in view of Sakaki (EP 2090556).
Regarding claim 1, Kubota discloses a vibration apparatus, in figure 1C, comprising:
a first vibration portion 1034 including a first material [0180]; and
a second vibration portion 1033 disposed adjacent to the first vibration portion 1034,
the second vibration portion 1033 including a second material [0180].
Kubota does not disclose the first vibration portion has a higher mechanical quality factor relative to the second vibration portion and the second vibration portion has a higher piezoelectric constant relative to the first vibration portion.
Sakaki discloses the first vibration portion has a higher mechanical quality factor relative to the second vibration portion and the second vibration portion has a higher piezoelectric constant relative to the first vibration portion (here, Examiner notes that Sasaki discloses the material claimed in claim 5; please note claim 5 rejection above).
Thus, It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to select specific ratios and doping levels within the disclosed ranges to optimize piezoelectric properties, as suggested by Sakaki.
Regarding claim 4, Kubota discloses another first vibration portion 1032 including the first material [0180],
wherein the first vibration portion 1034 is disposed adjacent to a rear surface (bottom surface as shown in figure 1C) of a vibration member 104,
wherein the second vibration portion 1033 is disposed at a rear surface (bottom surface as shown in figure 1C) of the first vibration portion 1034, and
wherein the another first vibration portion 1032 is disposed at a rear surface (bottom surface as shown in figure 1C) of the second vibration portion 1033.
Regarding claim 10, Kubota discloses a vibration apparatus, in figure 1C, comprising:
a vibration portion 103 including a first vibration portion 1034 and a second vibration portion 1033;
a first electrode portion 104 disposed at a first surface (top surface shown in figure 1C) of the vibration portion 103; and
a second electrode portion 102 disposed at a second surface (bottom surface shown in figure 1C) opposite to the first surface (top surface shown in figure 1C) of the vibration portion 103,
wherein the first vibration portion 1034 includes a first material [0180],
the second vibration portion 1033 includes a second material [0180], and
the second vibration portion 1033 is disposed adjacent to the first vibration portion 1034.
Kubota does not disclose the first vibration portion has a higher mechanical quality factor relative to the second vibration portion and the second vibration portion has a higher piezoelectric constant relative to the first vibration portion.
Sakaki discloses the first vibration portion has a higher mechanical quality factor relative to the second vibration portion and the second vibration portion has a higher piezoelectric constant relative to the first vibration portion (here, Examiner notes that Sasaki discloses the material claimed in claim 5; please note claim 5 rejection above).
Thus, It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to select specific ratios and doping levels within the disclosed ranges to optimize piezoelectric properties, as suggested by Sakaki.
Regarding claim 12, Kubota discloses the vibration portion 103 further includes
another first vibration portion 1032 including the first material [0180],
wherein the first vibration portion 1034 is disposed adjacent to a rear surface (bottom surface shown in figure 1C) of a vibration member 104,
wherein the second vibration portion 1033 is disposed at a rear surface (bottom surface shown in figure 1C) of the first vibration portion 1034, and
wherein the another first vibration portion 1032 is disposed at a rear surface (bottom surface shown in figure 1C) of the second vibration portion 1033.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shin in view of Sakaki, in further view of Jang (US 2020/0314515).
Regarding claim 13, Shin discloses a first cover member 100 disposed at the first surface of the vibration portion 200, and
a second cover member 310 disposed at the second surface of the vibration portion 200.
Shin in view of Sakaki does not disclose a first adhesive layer disposed at the first surface of the vibration portion, and a second adhesive layer disposed at the second surface of the vibration portion, wherein each of the first adhesive layer and the second adhesive layer is disposed between the first cover member and the second cover member, and a combination of the first adhesive layer and the second adhesive layer surrounds the vibration portion, the first electrode portion and the second electrode portion.
Jang discloses a vibration apparatus, in figures 3 and 9, having a first adhesive layer 251 disposed at the first surface of the vibration portion 230, and
a second adhesive layer 253 disposed at the second surface of the vibration portion 230,
wherein each of the first adhesive layer 251 and the second adhesive layer 253 is disposed between the first cover member 210 and the second cover member 100, and
a combination of the first adhesive layer 251 and the second adhesive layer 253 surrounds the vibration portion 230, the first electrode portion 233 and the second electrode portion 235.
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have a first adhesive layer disposed at the first surface of the vibration portion, and a second adhesive layer disposed at the second surface of the vibration portion, wherein each of the first adhesive layer and the second adhesive layer is disposed between the first cover member and the second cover member, and a combination of the first adhesive layer and the second adhesive layer surrounds the vibration portion, the first electrode portion and the second electrode portion as disclosed by Jang in the device disclosed by Shin in view of Sakaki, for the purpose of projecting the vibration portion.
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 BUMSUK WON whose telephone number is (571)272-2713. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 7 AM - 5 PM EST.
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, Allana L Bidder can be reached at (571) 272-5560. 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.
/BUMSUK WON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights