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 .
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 – 18 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.
In claim 1, the statement “the first area or second area is zero” is indefinite. It is not clear how an electrode could be present and yet, have a surface area of “zero” (non-existence). It is not clear how an electrode is present and yet non-exist (zero area).
Claims 3 – 18, and 20 are rejected due their dependency on claim 1.
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 – 16, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al (US 2008/0290315) in view of Yamashita et al (US 2015/0372219).
Lee et al disclosed, regarding,
Claim 1, An electric field-vibration generating transducer, which radiates an electric field and a mechanical vibration simultaneously, comprising: a piezoelectric material having a perovskite type crystal structure ([A][B]03), the piezoelectric material having a piezoelectric constant d33 of 1,000 to 6,000 pC/N, a dielectric constant K3T of, and a dielectric loss of 2% or less;[[ and]] a first electrode formed on a first surface of the piezoelectric material; and a second electrode formed on a second surface opposite to the first surface (Figs. 2a, 4) of the piezoelectric material (see abstract, paragraphs 0014, 0072; Fig. 2a; Table 3, paragraph 0093);
[the following statement is optional and does not need to be met by the Prior Art due to the alternative claim language “or”] wherein the first electrode is formed of a first material and the second electrode is formed of a second material, and the first material and the second material are different from each other, thereby forming an asymmetric electrode structure of the first electrode and the second electrode, or
[the following statement is optional and does not need to be met by the Prior Art due to the alternative claim language “or”] wherein the first electrode has a first shape and the second electrode has a second shape, and the first shape and the second shape are different from each other, thereby forming an asymmetric electrode structure of the first electrode and the second electrode, or
wherein the first electrode 42a has a first area and the second electrode 42b has a second area, and the first area and the second area are different from each other (see Fig. 4), thereby forming an asymmetric electrode structure of the first electrode and the second electrode (see Fig. 4), or
[the following statement is optional and does not need to be met by the Prior Art due to the alternative claim language “or”] wherein the first area or the second area is zero, thereby forming an asymmetric electrode structure of the first electrode and the second electrode
The problem to be solved appears to have a dielectric loss of 2% or less. Such optimization procedure would have been easily done by someone having ordinary skill in the art. In that respect, Yamashita et al discloses,
A transducer having a piezoelectric device and electrodes (see Fig. 4) having dielectric constant and piezoelectric constant within the same ranges as disclosed in claim 1 and further discloses that a dielectric loss of the piezoelectric material is 2% or below (see Table 1; paragraph 0070).
Lee et al further discloses, regarding,
Claim 3, the piezoelectric material is a piezoelectric single crystal having a perovskite type crystal structure ([A] [B]03), (paragraphs 0014, 0072) or a polymer- piezoelectric composite comprising the piezoelectric single crystal.
Claim 4, the piezoelectric single crystal is a piezoelectric single crystal grown (see abstract) by a solid phase single crystal growth method.
The Prior Art further discloses, regarding
Claim 5, the piezoelectric single crystal is expressed by a compositional formula of Chemical Formula 1 below: Chemical Formula 1
PNG
media_image1.png
13
263
media_image1.png
Greyscale
in said formula, A represents one or more elements selected from a group consisting of Pb, Sr, Ba, and Bi B represents at least one or more elements selected from a group consisting of Ba, Ca, Co, Fe, Ni, Sn, and Sr, C represents one or more elements selected from a group consisting of Co, Fe, Bi, La, Ce, Pr, Nd, Pm, Sm, Eu, Gd, Tb, Dy, Ho, Er, Tm, Yb, and Lu, L represents a single form composed of one selected from Zr or Hf, or a mixed form thereof, M represents at least one or more elements selected from a group consisting of Ce, Co, Fe, In, Mg, Mn, Ni, Sc, Yb, and Zn, N represents at least one or more elements selected from a group consisting of Nb, Sb, Ta, and W, and a, b, x, y, and z represent 0 a < 0.10, 0 b < 0.05,
PNG
media_image2.png
13
519
media_image2.png
Greyscale
respectively.
It is reminded that obtaining an optimum range and/or value via a formula is well within the skill of someone having ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to come with those optimum ranges that the applicant discloses, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 and it has been held that discovering the optimum value of result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F. 2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Claim 6, in said formula, a requisite of 0.01 a < 0.10, and a requisite of 0.01 b 0.05 are satisfied. It is reminded that obtaining an optimum range and/or value is well within the skill of someone having ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to come with those optimum ranges that the applicant discloses, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 and it has been held that discovering the optimum value of result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F. 2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Claim 7, in said formula, a requisite of a/b > 2 is satisfied. It is reminded that obtaining an optimum range and/or value is well within the skill of someone having ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to come with those optimum ranges that the applicant discloses, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 and it has been held that discovering the optimum value of result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F. 2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Claim 8, in said formula, a requisite of 0.10 x 0.58, and a requisite of 0.10 <y 0.62 are satisfied. It is reminded that obtaining an optimum range and/or value is well within the skill of someone having ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to come with those optimum ranges that the applicant discloses, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 and it has been held that discovering the optimum value of result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F. 2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Claim 9, when L represents a mixed form, the piezoelectric single crystal is expressed by a compositional formula of Chemical Formula 2 or Chemical Formula 3 below: Chemical Formula 2
PNG
media_image3.png
13
316
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Chemical Formula 3
PNG
media_image4.png
13
328
media_image4.png
Greyscale
in said formulae, A, B, C, M, N, a, b, x, y, and z are the same as those shown in said Chemical Formula 1, but w represents 0.01 w 0.20. It is reminded that obtaining an optimum range and/or value via a formula is well within the skill of someone having ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to come with those optimum ranges that the applicant discloses, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 and it has been held that discovering the optimum value of result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F. 2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Claim 10, the piezoelectric single crystal includes a reinforced phase P in a range of a 0.1 to 20% reinforced second phase P is further included in the composition of the piezoelectric single crystal at a volume ratio. It is reminded that obtaining an optimum range and/or value is well within the skill of someone having ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to come with those optimum ranges that the applicant discloses, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 and it has been held that discovering the optimum value of result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F. 2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Claim 11, the reinforced second phase is a metal phase, an oxide phase, or a pore (Lee et al, paragraph 0027).
Claim 12, the polymer- piezoelectric composite shows that a polymer matrix is comprising a range of 10 to 80 vol%. It is reminded that obtaining an optimum range and/or value is well within the skill of someone having ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to come with those optimum ranges that the applicant discloses, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 and it has been held that discovering the optimum value of result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F. 2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Claim 13, the polymer- piezoelectric composite is a 1-3 type or 2-2 type composite structure (Lee et al, paragraph 0080) in which a rod-type piezoelectric material is embedded in the polymer matrix.
Claim 14, the piezoelectric composite results from mixing piezoelectric polycrystalline ceramic into the piezoelectric single crystal (Lee et al, paragraphs 0007, 0064, 0065, 0087).
Claim 15, a frequency of the electric field radiated is 0.01 Hz to 500 kHz, and intensity of the electric field is 0.01 to 100 V/cm. It is reminded that obtaining an optimum range and/or value is well within the skill of someone having ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to come with those optimum ranges that the applicant discloses, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 and it has been held that discovering the optimum value of result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F. 2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Claim 16, a frequency of the mechanical vibration radiated is 0.1 Hz to 3 MHz, and magnitude of the mechanical vibration is 1% or below. It is reminded that obtaining an optimum range and/or value is well within the skill of someone having ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to come with those optimum ranges that the applicant discloses, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 and it has been held that discovering the optimum value of result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F. 2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Claim 18, the first surface or second surface has unevenness formed by pores or grooves (Lee et al, paragraphs 0098, 0109).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to design the transducer/method as disclosed by Lee et al and to modify the invention per the limitations disclosed by Yamashita et al for the purpose of reducing unwanted in heat in transducer using piezoelectric devices.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al and Yamashita et al as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Maruyama (US 2014/0225478).
The combined transducer discloses all of the elements above. However, the combined transducer does not discloses the elements above.
On the other hand, Maruyama discloses, regarding,
Claim 17, the electrode is any one selected from a group of consisting of conductive metal, carbon, and conductive ceramic (paragraphs 0022, 0056).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to design the combined transducer/method as disclosed above and to modify the invention per the limitations disclosed by Maruyama for the purpose of reducing the manufacturing costs of vibration elements.
Claim(s) 19, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al and Yamashita et al as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chang (US 2020/0287126).
The Prior Art discloses, regarding,
Claim 20, the piezoelectric material is a piezoelectric single crystal having a perovskite type crystal structure ([A] [B]03) (paragraphs 0014, 0072) (see Lee et al, paragraphs 0014, 0072), or a polymer- piezoelectric composite comprising the piezoelectric single crystal.
Claim 19, A method of manufacturing an electric field- vibration generating transducer, comprising of: processing a piezoelectric material having a perovskite type crystal structure ([A] [B]03) (Lee et al, paragraphs 0014, 0072) in a thickness of 0.1 to 100 mm (Lee et al, paragraphs 0022, 0043);
forming a first electrode on a first surface of the piezoelectric material; forming a second electrode on a second surface opposite to the first surface of the piezoelectric material (Lee et al, see Figs. 4); and poling the first electrode and the second electrode by applying a voltage thereof (Lee et al, Fig. 2a.).
The problem to be solve appears to remove an electrode. Such procedure is well-known. For example, Chang discloses,
partly or totally removing any one of the first electrode and the second electrode, (see abstract; [0005, 0026, 0037, 0040; Fig. 4B) thereby forming an asymmetric structure (since one of the electrode or part of the electrode is removed; see Figs. 4A, 4B). It is noted that Chang also teaches poling the electrodes by applying a voltage [0044].
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to design the combined method as disclosed above and to modify the invention per the limitations disclosed by Chang for the purpose of improving the mechanical response of a piezoelectric device.
Response to Arguments
Regarding claims 1, 3 – 18, Applicant's arguments filed 03/23/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the remark that the cited references do not disclose the asymmetrical feature of the first and second electrode, first of all, the independent claim 1 highly recites many alternative claim language (via “or” claim language) that do not need to be met by the prior art.
In that respect, Lee et al discloses some of the broad terminology in which the first and second electrodes have different areas (see Fig. 4, notice electrodes 42a, 42b), thereby forming an asymmetric structure. Thus, Lee et al shows the broad claim language as presented.
The claim language is extremely broad, thus the Prior Art reads on the claim language as disclosed.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 19, 20 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.
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 Julio C. Gonzalez whose telephone number is (571)272-2024. The examiner can normally be reached M-F.
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, Abdullah Riyami can be reached at 5712703119. 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.
/Julio C. Gonzalez/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2831
May 11, 2026
Prosecution Insights