DETAILED ACTION
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 13-20 had been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
2. 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
3. Claims 1-5, 7 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Li et al. (2011/0148252) (“Li”).
Regarding claim 1, Li discloses a piezoelectric device (Fig.18 and 19, please refer to the whole reference for detailed) comprising: a substrate (28 in Fig.18); and a layered stacked arrangement (formed by 16, 12, 14 and 26) anchored to the substrate (Fig.18), the layered stacked arrangement comprising: a piezoelectric layer (12); a first electrode (16) on a first side of the piezoelectric layer (12); and a second electrode (14) on a second side of the piezoelectric layer opposite the first side; wherein the piezoelectric layer comprises a first region (a first region where 62, 74, 86, 94, 104, 108, 112 and 116 are placed) comprising one or more dipole domains of a first type (62, 74, 86, 94, 104, 108, 112 and 116; please refer to at least ¶ 80); wherein the piezoelectric layer comprises a second region (a second region where 68, 80, 100, 102, 106, 110, 114 and 118 are placed) comprising one or more dipole domains of a second type (68, 80, 100, 102, 106, 110, 114 and 118; please refer to at least ¶ 80); wherein the first electrode (16) is at least partially in contact with the first region and at least partially in contact with the second region (Figs.18 and 19); wherein the second electrode (14) is at least partially in contact with the first region and at least partially in contact with the second region (Figs.18 and 19); wherein the piezoelectric device is a sensor or an actuator (please refer to at least ¶ 2 and 6); and wherein during operation, at least 50% of the first region is configured to have a positive curvature (please refer to at least ¶ 14, 65 and 70 for positive displacement for nominal domain which includes 62, 74, 86, 94, 104, 108, 112 and 116 in Fig.18; also please refer to information related to Figs.5, 6 and 8A-8E, where the thickness of piezoelectric layer’s nominal domain have positive curvature and since there has 8 nominal domain is shown in Fig.18, thus there is at least 50% of the first region is configured to have a positive curvature) and at least 50% of the second region is configured to have a negative curvature (please refer to at least ¶ 14, 65 and 70 for negative displacement for inverted domain which includes 68, 80, 100, 102, 106, 110, 114 and 118 in Fig.18; also please refer to information related to Figs.5, 6 and 8A-8E, where the thickness of piezoelectric layer’s inverted domain have negative curvature and since there has 8 inverted domain is shown in Fig.18, thus there is at least 50% of the second region is configured to have a negative curvature).
Regarding claim 2, Li discloses the one or more dipole domains of the first type (62, 74, 86, 94, 104, 108, 112 and 116 in Fig.18) are aligned in a first direction (a first direction is shown in Fig.18, when compare to Fig.5 and 6); and wherein the one or more dipole domains of the second type (68, 80, 100, 102, 106, 110, 114 and 118 in Fig.18) are aligned in a second direction opposite the first direction (a second direction is shown in Fig.18, when compare to Fig.5 and 6).
Regarding claim 3, Li discloses the one or more dipole domains of the first type (62, 74, 86, 94, 104, 108, 112 and 116 in Fig.18) or the one or more dipole domains of the second type (68, 80, 100, 102, 106, 110, 114 and 118 in Fig.18) are non-uniformly poled (please refer to at least ¶ 13, 48 and 49, which states “when the electric field is removed, much of alignment remains” and thus a few domains are not aligned.).
Regarding claim 4, Li discloses the first electrode (16) or the second electrode (14) is an elastic layer (since the first electrode 16, the second electrode 14 and the piezoelectric layer 12 are stacked together the Fig.18 is a vibrating structure (¶ 34), thus the first electrode and the second electrode are elastic).
Regarding claim 5, Li discloses the layered stacked arrangement (formed by 16, 12, 14 and 26) comprises a further layer (26) such that the first electrode or the second electrode (14) is between the piezoelectric layer (12) and the further layer (26).
Regarding claim 7, Li discloses the further layer (26) is electrically insulating (¶ 53 states that the 26 is an insulating layer).
Regarding claim 12, Li discloses the piezoelectric layer (12) has a thickness of a value less than 5 m (¶ 83 and 97).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. 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.
5. The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
6. Claims 5, 6, 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (2011/0148252) (“Li”) in view of Li (2015/0054387”) (hereinafter “Li387).
Regarding claim 5, Li is used to reject claim 1 above.
In another way, Li doesn’t disclose the layered stacked arrangement comprises a further layer such that the first electrode or the second electrode is between the piezoelectric layer and the further layer.
Li387 discloses an example of a piezoelectric device (Fig.3A-3D) comprises a substrate (202 in Fig.3A); a layered stacked arrangement (formed by 210, 315, 320, 325 and 330) anchored to the substrate (202), the layered stack arrangement comprising: a piezoelectric layer (325; ¶ 39); a first electrode (330; ¶ 39) on a first side of the piezoelectric layer; and a second electrode (320; ¶ 39) on a second side of the piezoelectric layer opposite the first side; and a further layer (210 (or) 315; ¶ 39) such that the first electrode or the second electrode (320) is between the piezoelectric layer (325) and the further layer (210 (or) 315).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Li with the teaching of Li387 to provide the layered stacked arrangement comprises a further layer such that the first electrode or the second electrode is between the piezoelectric layer and the further layer. The suggestion/motivation would have been to provide a multi-layered piezoelectric device as taught by Li387.
Regarding claim 6, Li in view of Li387 is used to reject claims 1 and 5 above.
Li doesn’t disclose the further layer is electrically conductive or electrically semi-conductive.
Li387 discloses the further layer (210; ¶ 39) is electrically conductive (210 is an electrode; ¶ 39) or electrically semi-conductive.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Li with the teaching of Li387 to provide the further layer is electrically conductive or electrically semi-conductive. The suggestion/motivation would have been to provide a multi-layered piezoelectric device as taught by Li387.
Regarding claim 8, Li in view of Li387 is used to reject claims 1 and 5 above.
Li doesn’t disclose the further layer is a further piezoelectric layer.
Li387 discloses the further layer (315; ¶ 39) is a further piezoelectric layer (¶ 39).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Li with the teaching of Li387 to provide the further layer is a further piezoelectric layer. The suggestion/motivation would have been to provide a multi-layered piezoelectric device as taught by Li387.
Regarding claim 9, Li is used to reject claim 1 above.
Li discloses the piezoelectric layer (12) as explained in claim 1 above.
Li doesn’t explicitly disclose the piezoelectric layer is polycrystalline.
Li387 discloses the piezoelectric layer is polycrystalline (¶ 7, 30, 31 and 56).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Li with the teaching of Li387 to recognize that the piezoelectric layer is polycrystalline. The suggestion/motivation would have been to recognize that the polycrystalline is a piezoelectric material as supported by Li387.
7. Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (2011/0148252) (“Li”) in view of Hori et al. (2010/0007242) (“Hori”).
Regarding claim 11, Li is used to reject claim 1 above.
Li discloses the piezoelectric layer (12) as explained in claim 1 above.
Li doesn’t explicitly disclose the piezoelectric layer comprises a ferroelectric wurtzite-type material.
Hori discloses the piezoelectric layer comprises a ferroelectric wurtzite-type material (¶ 30).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Li with the teaching of Hori to recognize that the piezoelectric layer comprises a ferroelectric wurtzite-type material. The suggestion/motivation would have been to recognize that the piezoelectric layer comprises a ferroelectric wurtzite-type material as supported by Hori.
Allowable Subject Matter
8. Claim 10 is 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
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICHARD TAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7455. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:30am-5:00pm.
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, Menatoallah Youssef can be reached on 571-270-3684. 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.
/Richard Tan/Primary Examiner 2849