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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Specification
The specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant's cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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.
Claim 2 is 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.
Claim 2 is unclear. The claim language reads “wherein the piezoelectric element comprises as piezoelectric material a polymer material”. The parent claim requires a piezoelectric element, but does not recite the limitation of a piezoelectric material. The examiner suggests changing the language to read “wherein the piezoelectric element comprises a piezoelectric polymer material”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 1, 13, 14, 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Takeshita et al. (NPL Soft-rubber-packaged Pb(Zr, Ti)O3 MEMS touch sensors for human-machine interface applications, provided by the applicants).
Regarding claim 1, Takeshita discloses a piezoelectric transducer (Fig. 1), comprising a piezoelectric element (PZT cantilever) and an encapsulation (soft rubber) enclosing the piezoelectric element, wherein the encapsulation is configured to set the electromechanical properties of the transducer (by selecting the hardness of the encapsulation material).
Regarding claims 13-14, the piezoelectric cantilever, and therefore the encapsulation, has a support portion (anchor area) and a deformation area (free end).
Regarding claim 18, Takeshita discloses the method for setting the electromechanical properties of a transducer, comprising the steps of providing a piezoelectric element (cantilever); surrounding the piezoelectric element with an encapsulation (soft rubber) to form the transducer; exerting an external force on the transducer and measuring an actual value of a generated electrical signal; determining whether the measured electrical signal has a desired value and, depending on this, repeating steps while changing the degree of hardness of the material of the encapsulation until a desired value is achieved. Please refer to Figs. 2(1-8), section 2.4, section 3 and Figs. 5-7.
Regarding claim 19, Fig. 7 discloses the measuring steps.
Claims 1, 2 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Takahashi (DE112016000917, hereinafter Takahashi).
Regarding claim 1, Takahashi discloses a piezoelectric transducer (10), comprising a piezoelectric element (11) and an encapsulation (13) enclosing the piezoelectric element, wherein the encapsulation is configured to set the electromechanical properties of the transducer (by selecting the hardness of the encapsulation material).
Regarding claim 2, Takahashi discloses the use of a PVDF piezoelectric layer.
Regarding claim 11, the piezoelectric element is not arranged on a carrier.
Claims 1, 9, 13 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Schillinger et al. (WO-2008034825, hereinafter Schillinger).
Regarding claim 1, Schillinger discloses a piezoelectric transducer (1), comprising a piezoelectric element (2) and an encapsulation (8) enclosing the piezoelectric element (2), wherein the encapsulation (8) is configured to set the electromechanical properties of the transducer (inherently the encapsulation sets the electromechanical properties since it allows or prevents the deformation of the piezoelectric element).
Regarding claim 9, the piezoelectric element (2) is arranged on a carrier (4), wherein the encapsulation (8) encloses the piezoelectric element (2) and the carrier (4).
Regarding claim 13, Fig. 2-4 show a deformation area (central portion) and a support area (24).
Regarding claim 17, the electrical components are arranged on the carrier (4) in the support area.
Claims 21 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Rusconi et al. (DE102015116707).
Regarding claim 21, Rusconi discloses a piezoelectric transducer (Fig. 6), comprising a piezoelectric element (3) and an encapsulation (30, 16, 17, 22) enclosing the piezoelectric element (3), the encapsulation comprising a deformation area (central portion) in which the piezoelectric element (3) is arranged and comprising a support area (support portions on the left and right side of the figure) supporting the deformation area.
Regarding claim 22, the support area is integrally formed with the deformation area.
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 of this title, 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 2-5 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takeshita or Schillinger.
Regarding claim 2, Takeshita and Schillinger disclose the invention as explained above, but fails to explicitly disclose the piezoelectric element comprising a piezoelectric polymer material. Selection from among known, suitable materials has long been held to be within the skill expected of the routineer and therefore obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. It is the examiner’s position that the general characteristics, advantages and disadvantages of specific materials, such as piezoelectric polymers and PZT are well known, so that the choice of anyone of them as a substitute for the other to obtain the known or naturally expected advantages of the chosen material presents, in general, a case of good judgment instead of a case of invention. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to utilize a polymer piezoelectric element since it is an environmentally friendly material.
Regarding claims 3 and 4, Takeshita and Schillinger disclose the invention as explained above, but fails to explicitly disclose the specific hardness of the material. Similar to what was explained above, selection from among known, suitable materials has long been held to be within the skill expected of the routineer and therefore obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. It is the examiner’s position that the general characteristics, advantages and disadvantages of specific materials and its characteristics are well known. Schillinger discloses the use of PDMS having Shore A 18-50.
Regarding claim 5, Takeshita and Schillinger disclose the invention as explained above, but fails to explicitly disclose the encapsulation having a modulus of elasticity which differs by at most 50% from the modulus of elasticity of the piezoelectric element or of a composite of piezoelectric element and carrier of the piezoelectric element. It is the examiner’s position that selecting the specific values for the modulus of elasticity of the piezoelectric element and the encapsulation material would have been an obvious matter of design choice in order to obtain the desired vibration characteristics of the device as necessitated by the specific requirements of the particular application.
Regarding claim 10, the references disclose the invention as explained above, but fails to explicitly disclose the carrier having structures form improving the mechanical coupling with the encapsulation. It is the examiner’s position that providing the carrier with structures to improve the mechanical coupling with the encapsulation and the encapsulation comprising a curved surface are obvious matter of design choice and it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine the structure needed to secure the mechanical coupling.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-8, 12, 15, 16, 20 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jaydi San Martin whose telephone number is (571)272-2018. The examiner can normally be reached on M-Th 7:45-6:00pm.
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 on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/J. San Martin/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2837