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
Applicant’s election without traverse of group I, claims 1-9, in the reply filed on 11/18/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 10-11 have been withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected manufacturing method, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 11/18/2025.
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.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 7 discloses “The piezoelectric laminate according to claim 6, wherein the perovskite-type oxide contains one or more elements selected from V, Nb, Ta, Sb, Mo, and W in a B site” (lines 1-3; emphasis added). There is no way to guess what a “B site” is intended to be, and there is no previously disclosed “A site”. As such, it is not clear if a description/definition of a “B site” is missing from claim 7, or if a disclosure of an “A site” with a corresponding description/definition is missing from one or more of antecedent claims 1 and 6. Accordingly, the scope of the claim is unclear. As best understood, the “B site” is any desired/preferred location in the perovskite-type oxide structure.
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 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kita (US 2004/0232804 A1), in view of Iwashita (EP 1 677 367; cited by Applicant).
Regarding claim 1, Kita discloses a piezoelectric laminate (10) comprising, on a *substrate (15; though not actually recited/required in body of claim) in the following order: a lower electrode layer (1); and a piezoelectric film (2) containing a perovskite-type oxide (PZT, i.e. lead zirconate titanate) as a main component (fig. 1; pars. 0026-0027 and 0037), wherein the piezoelectric film has an oxygen-deficient region in a region in contact with the lower electrode layer (pars. 0010, 0013 and 0031-0032), in a case where an average value of oxygen amounts is denoted as a first average oxygen amount (calculated based upon a standard PZT composition: par. 0050), and an average value of oxygen amounts in the oxygen-deficient region is denoted as a second average oxygen amount (pars. 0031-0032), a ratio R of the second average oxygen amount to the first average oxygen amount is less than 0.97 (pars. 0031-0032), and a thickness of the oxygen-deficient region is 120 nm or more (par. 0027: about 3 µm). Kita, however, does not explicitly disclose that an average value of oxygen amounts in a region centrally located among three regions obtained by dividing the piezoelectric film into three equal parts in a thickness direction; and a thickness of the oxygen-deficient region is 1/3 or less of a thickness of the entire piezoelectric film.
*NOTE: a “substrate” is mentioned in the preamble, but it is mentioned in the context of holding the actually claimed “piezoelectric laminate” to which the invention of the claims is directed. Additionally, the “substrate” does not appear in the body of the claim, and thus is not considered part of the invention and is not held to be positively recited, such that it does not breathe life or patentable weight into the body of the claim.
Iwashita teaches that it is well known to provide a similar piezoelectric laminate (2, 3, 4, 5, 6) comprising, on a *substrate (1; though not actually recited/required in body of claim) (Title; Abstract; fig. 1): a piezoelectric film (lanthanum nickelate, a known perovskite-type piezoelectric: 42; and PZT: 5) containing a perovskite-type oxide as a main component (fig. 1; pars. 0048 and 0050-0051), wherein the piezoelectric film has an oxygen-deficient region (42) (par. 0048), in a case where an average value of oxygen amounts in a region centrally located among three regions obtained by *dividing the piezoelectric film into three equal parts in a thickness direction is denoted as a first average oxygen amount, and an average value of oxygen amounts in the oxygen-deficient region is denoted as a second average oxygen amount, a ratio R of the second average oxygen amount to the first average oxygen amount is less than 0.97 (par. 0048), and a thickness of the oxygen-deficient region is 120 nm or more (140 nm) and is 1/3 or less of a thickness of the entire piezoelectric film (thickness of layer (42) plus layer (5) = 140 nm + (range of 400 nm to 5000 nm) = from 540 nm to 5140 nm; and 140 nm is less than 1/3 of 540 nm and is less than 1/3 of 5140 nm) (fig. 1; pars. 0049 and 0052).
*NOTE: this “dividing” is not an actual physical division, but is instead a mental/imaginary division conceptualized in order to determine the oxygen deficiency. The claim is directed to a product, and not a method, and given that Iwashita explicitly discloses that the oxygen deficient region meets the claimed requirement of being less than 1/3 the thickness, it is evident that the prior art structures can be mentally divided into thirds just as any layer(s) can/could be.
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the current invention of Kita to incorporate the mental division of the piezoelectric layer for calculation purposes and the oxygen deficient region being less than 1/3 of the total piezoelectric layer thickness of Iwashita. POSITA would have realized that a combination of oxygen deficient and average oxygen piezoelectric material can be easily and readily employed in a piezoelectric element to achieve the desired piezoelectric hysteresis, predictable nature of average oxygen content PZT, and longevity/robustness of piezoelectric properties of the layer. Moreover, there is no indication in the instant disclosure that any special new piezoelectric material was devised or that any surprising results were derived from simply using the old piezoelectric element of Kita with the well-known layer thickness and calculation techniques of Iwashita. This combination would have been easily performed with knowledge of the commonly understood advantages and with reasonable expectations of success.
Regarding claim 2, Kita in view of Iwashita teaches the piezoelectric element of claim 1 as detailed above, and Kita further discloses that the ratio R is 0.91 or more and 0.95 or less (pars. 0031-0032 and 0050).
Regarding claim 3, Kita in view of Iwashita teaches the piezoelectric element of claim 1 as detailed above, and Kita further discloses that the thickness of the oxygen-deficient region is 150 nm or more (3 µm: par. 0027). Additionally, Iwashita further teaches that it is well-known that the thickness of the oxygen-deficient region is 1/4 or less of the thickness of the entire piezoelectric film (140 nm < ¼ of 540 nm and 140 nm < ¼ of 5140 nm) (pars. 0049 and 0052).
Regarding claim 4, Kita in view of Iwashita teaches the piezoelectric element of claim 1 as detailed above, and Kita further discloses that the piezoelectric film is a uniaxial alignment film aligned in a (100) direction (fig. 1: “A” direction as shown; par. 0027).
Regarding claim 5, Kita in view of Iwashita teaches the piezoelectric element of claim 4 as detailed above, and Kita further discloses that a polarization direction of the piezoelectric film is a direction from a side of the lower electrode layer toward a film surface of the piezoelectric film (fig. 1: “A” direction as shown; par. 0027).
Regarding claim 6, Kita in view of Iwashita teaches the piezoelectric element of claim 1 as detailed above, and Kita further discloses that the perovskite-type oxide contains Pb, Zr, Ti, and O (par. 0032).
Regarding claim 7, Kita in view of Iwashita teaches the piezoelectric element of claim 6 as detailed above, and Kita further discloses that the perovskite-type oxide contains one or more elements selected from V, Nb, Ta, Sb, Mo, and W in a B site (par. 0083).
Regarding claim 8, Kita in view of Iwashita teaches the piezoelectric element of claim 1 as detailed above, and Kita further discloses that the lower electrode layer in contact with the piezoelectric film is an Ir layer aligned on a (111) plane (par. 0071).
Regarding claim 9, Kita in view of Iwashita teaches the piezoelectric element of claim 1 as detailed above, and Kita further discloses a piezoelectric element comprising: the piezoelectric laminate according to claim 1; and an upper electrode layer provided on the piezoelectric film of the piezoelectric laminate (par. 0026).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please refer to the concurrently mailed PTO-892, as all of those cited references are considered to be pertinent to the claimed invention. For example, Venkataraman (US 2011/0086289 A1) is held to be of particular relevance to the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jeffrey T Carley whose telephone number is (571)270-5609. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Sunil Singh can be reached at (571)272-3460. 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.
/JEFFREY T CARLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3729