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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claim 15 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 05 May 2026.
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(s) 1, 4, 11 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kalnin (US PN 4,786,837).
Considering claim 1, Kalnin (Figure 1) teaches a piezoelectric device comprising: a piezoelectric stack with a piezoelectric layer (11 + col. 9 lines 30-50) sandwiched between a bottom electrode (13) and a top electrode (15 + col. 9 lines 30-50) to form a piezoelectric transducer (col. 9 lines 30-50), wherein at least one electrode of the bottom electrode and the top electrode is a polymer electrode (col. 10 lines 15-29) formed of a polymer based conductive material having a first resistivity; and a conductive line structure (14 + 16 + col. 9 lines 42-55) forming an extended line contact with contact areas of the polymer electrode along a respective length of one or more conductive lines of the conductive line structure overlapping the contact areas, wherein the conductive line structure is formed (col. 9 lines 42-55) of a conductive material having a second resistivity that is lower than the first resistivity to help distribute an electrical field over the polymer electrode via the extended line contact; wherein the conductive line structure (14 + 16 + col. 9 lines 42-55) comprises at least one structure taken from the group consisting of: a busbar forming the extended contact by a length of the busbar extending at least partially around and contacting a circumference on a different sides of the polymer electrode, a grid of conductive lines covering inner contact areas of the polymer electrode, to help distribute the electrical field into adjacent areas of the polymer electrode including between the conductive lines (col. 9 lines 42-55).
Considering claim 4, Kalnin (Figure 1) teaches wherein the adjacent areas of the polymer electrode (27 + 29 + col. 10 lines 14-30) between the conductive lines are not covered by the conductive line structure.
Considering claim 11, Kalnin (Figure 2) teaches wherein both the bottom electrode and as the top electrode are polymer electrodes (27 + 29 + col. 10 lines 14-30), wherein the bottom electrode is provided with a first conductive line structure (col. 9 lines 42-55) and the top electrode is provided with a second conductive line structure and wherein conductive lines forming the second conductive line structure are staggered with respect to conductive lines forming the first conductive line structure (col. 9 lines 42-55).
Considering claim 14, Kalnin (Figure 1) teaches wherein the piezoelectric layer comprises a piezoelectric polymer material, or a composite of polymer material with inorganic piezoelectric material (col. 10 lines 6-15).
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) 2 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kalnin (US PN 4,786,837).
Considering claim 2, Kalnin (Figure 1) discloses wherein the conductive line structure overlapping the contact areas comprises an interconnected set of conductive metal lines (14 + 16 + col. 9 lines 42-55) except for each line having a line width less than half of a millimeter. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have each line having a line width less than half of a millimeter, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Considering claim 12, Kalnin (Figure 2) teaches wherein the polymer electrode is formed by a layer of polymer based conductive material (27 + 29 + col. 10 lines 14-30) except for having a thickness of less than one micrometer and wherein the polymer electrode contacts the piezoelectric layer over a total surfaces area of at least two square centimeters. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have a thickness of less than one micrometer and wherein the polymer electrode contacts the piezoelectric layer over a total surfaces area of at least two square centimeters, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim(s) 3 and 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kalnin (US PN 4,786,837) and in view of Hayashi (PG Pub 20190288667).
Considering claim 3, Kalnin teaches the device as described above.
However, Kalnin does not teach wherein the at least one structure comprises the busbar, wherein the busbar has a length that extends along at least fifty percent of the circumference of the polymer electrode.
Hayashi (Figure 2) teaches wherein the at least one structure comprises the busbar (31 + 32 + paragraph 0026).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include at least one structure comprises the busbar into Kalnin’s device for the benefit of conducting and distribute electricity.
Furthermore, Kalnin in view of Hayashi discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the busbar has a length that extends along at least fifty percent of the circumference of the polymer electrode. It would have been obvious matter of design choice to have the busbar has a length that extends along at least fifty percent of the circumference of the polymer electrode, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Considering claim 5, Kalnin in view of Hayashi teaches wherein the conductive line structure comprises the grid of conductive lines (14 + 16 + col. 9 lines 42-55) interconnected via the busbar (31 + 32 + paragraph 0026 of Hayashi + Figure 2).
Considering claim 6, Kalnin and in view of Hayashi teaches wherein the conductive line structure comprises a conductive line (14 + 16 + col. 9 lines 42-55), forming the busbar (31 + 32 + paragraph 0026 of Hayashi + Figure 2), that covers outer contact areas at an edge of the polymer electrode.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kalnin (US PN 4,786,837) and in view of Iwashita (PG Pub 20060214542).
Considering claim 13, Kalnin teaches the device as described above.
However, Kalnin does not teach wherein the second resistivity is lower than the first resistivity by at least a factor hundred.
Iwashita teaches wherein the second resistivity (47 + paragraph 0051) is lower than the first resistivity (40 + paragraph 0051).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date to include wherein the second resistivity is lower than the first resistivity into Kalnin’s device for the benefit of obtaining good piezoelectric characteristics and methods for manufacturing such piezoelectric elements.
Iwashita discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the second resistivity is lower than the first resistivity by at least a factor hundred. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the second resistivity is lower than the first resistivity by at least a factor hundred, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-10 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.
Considering claim 7, the prior art does not teach the polymer electrode is covered by the conductive line structure that comprises the a grid of conductive lines having a first line width, and wherein each line is connected to the busbar via a fuse line having a second line width that is smaller than the first line width by at least a factor of two in combination with the rest of the applicant’s claimed limitations.
Considering claim 8, the prior art does not teach a dielectric barrier formed by a pattern of dielectric material disposed between the conductive line structure on one side of the piezoelectric layer, and an opposing electrode on an other side of the piezoelectric layer in combination with the rest of the applicant’s claimed limitations.
Furthermore, claims 9-10, which depend upon claim 8, would also be allowed if they depended upon an independent and allowable claim.
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights