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 § 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 – 16, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mizutani (JP 2000-6398) in view of Hoisington et al (US 2013/0210175).
Mizutani discloses, regarding,
Claim 1, A piezoelectric device comprising: a base including a first main surface, a second main surface on a side opposite to the first main surface (see Fig. 9), and a recess 12 on the first main surface; and a laminated portion laminated on a side of the first main surface of the base and covering the recess from above (see Fig. 13); wherein the laminated portion includes, at least above the recess, a piezoelectric layer 70 and a pair of electrode layers 80, 60 to apply a voltage to the piezoelectric layer, and a membrane covering the recess (see Fig. 13); and the membrane includes a piezoelectric membrane (see Fig. 13), in the piezoelectric layer.
The problem to be solve appears to show that the piezoelectric layer/membrane bends/expands in a certain direction.
Such procedure is well-known, for example, Hoisington et al shows a piezoelectric device having base with a recess, piezoelectric membrane 126b that swells on at least one of a side of the recess (see Figs. 1B, 4B, [0077]) and a side opposite to the side of the recess.
It is noted that a surface (any surface) of the piezoelectric membrane opposite to the side that swells (expands) is one of convex, flat, or substantially flat. It is reminded that when an object swells (expands) in one direction, the other side is either going to have a convex or flat or substantially flat surface at some point (see Figs. 1A, 1B, 2A, 2B, 4A, 4B).
Hoisington et al further discloses, regarding,
Claim 2, the piezoelectric layer is defined by a piezoelectric single- crystal body [0105, 0193].
Claim 3, the piezoelectric membrane includes a portion swelling on the side of the recess and a surface of the portion swelling on the side of the recess is a curved surface (see Figs. 4B, 9H).
Claim 4, the piezoelectric membrane has a thickness dimension that increases as a swelling height dimension of the piezoelectric membrane increases (Fig. 10E).
Claim 5, the recess includes a sealed space (Fig. 9H).
Claim 6, the recess has negative pressure (Fig. 9H).
Claim 7, the base includes a hole extending from a bottom of the recess to the second main surface of the base (Fig. 1B).
Claim 8, the base includes Si [0003,0013, 0014].
Claim 9, the pair of electrode layers include an upper electrode layer 124a on an upper surface of the piezoelectric layer 126a and a lower electrode layer 122a on a lower surface of the piezoelectric layer.
Claim 10, the piezoelectric membrane includes a portion that swells on the side of the recess and a portion that swells on the side opposite to the side of the recess (Figs. 2A, 2B).
Claim 11, each of the portion that swells on the side of the recess and the portion that swells on the side opposite to the side of the recess is a curved surface (Figs. 2A, 2B).
Claim 12, portions of the piezoelectric membrane excluding the portion swelling on the side of the recess have a flat plate shape (see Fig. 1B).
Claim 13, portions of the piezoelectric membrane excluding the portion that swells on the side of the recess and the portion that swells on the side opposite to the side of the recess have a flat plate shape (Fig. 1B).
Claim 14, the portion swelling on the side of the recess have a flat plate shape swells a maximum amount a center or approximate center of the recess (Fig. 1B).
Claim 15, the piezoelectric layer includes lithium tantalate or lithium niobate.
It is reminded that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use such material, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Claim 16, each of the upper and lower electrode layers includes Al or Pt. It is reminded that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use such material, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Claim 20, the recess has a rectangular or substantially rectangular external shape (Fig. 1B) when viewed in a direction orthogonal or substantially orthogonal to the first main surface.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to design the device as disclosed by Mizutani and to modify the device per the limitations disclosed by Hoisington et al for the purpose of providing piezoelectric actuators that have higher volume displacement while having a smaller footprint.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 17, 18, 19 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.
The cited prior art of record fails to disclose the intermediate layer interaction with the lower electrode layer and piezoelectric layer as specifically described in claim 17. Claims 18 and 19 are dependent on claim 17.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/01/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the remark that the prior art allegedly does not disclose a surface of the piezoelectric membrane opposite to the side that swells (expands) is either convex, flat or substantially flat surface, first of all, the claim language is extremely broad.
It is reminded that any surface that expands (swells) or bends is going to have either a convex shape/surface on one of the sides at some point or a substantial flat surface. For example, Hoisington et al shows in Figs. 1A, 1B, a piezoelectric membrane 126 that when the membrane swells (expands into one side), the other side (opposite side) has a convex surface (see Fig. 1A) or substantially flat surface (Fig. 1B).
Such convex or substantially flat surface of the piezoelectric membrane are better illustrated in Figs. 2A, 2B, 4A, 4B of Hoisington et al).
The claim language is very broad, thus the prior art reads on the claim language as presented.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., provide a piezoelectric device with high excitation efficiency and Q factor or that the thickness of the piezo membrane changes) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
In response to applicant's argument that there is no motivation to modified the Mizutani reference, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference (Hoisington et al) may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, Mizutani and Hoisington et al are in the same field of endeavor. Anyone with ordinary skill in the art would have been able to identify the teachings of both references and make the appropriate adjustments as needed.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 21, 2026
Prosecution Insights