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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Specification
The specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant's cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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 2 and 5 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.
Regarding claim 2, it is not clear if the seed layer contains iron, titanium and lead in addition to bismuth (claim 1) or as an alternative. Clarification is required.
Claim 5 recites the limitation of “a titanium intensity measured by SIMS is 300cps or less”. According to claim 1, the piezoelectric layer contains potassium, sodium and niobium. It is not clear where the titanium is coming from or why there should be titanium in the piezoelectric layer. Second, it is not clear what would happen in the case where the thickness of the piezoelectric layer is less than 240nm? In addition, SIMS should be defined before its first use in the claims. Clarification is required.
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.
Claims 1, 2 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yonemura et al. (JP2019133981, hereinafter Yonemura).
Regarding claim 1, Yonemura discloses a piezoelectric element (110) comprising: an adhesion layer (page 3, 9th paragraph) formed at a substrate and containing titanium (page 3, 9th paragraph); a lower electrode (10) formed at the adhesion layer; a diffusion reduction layer formed at the lower electrode and containing iridium (page 2, 2nd paragraph discloses iridium as part of the elements in the 9th group); a seed layer formed at the diffusion reduction layer and containing bismuth (page 2, 7th paragraph); a piezoelectric layer formed at the seed layer and containing potassium, sodium, and niobium (page 2, 4th paragraph); and an upper electrode (30) formed at the piezoelectric layer (20).
Regarding claim 2, the seed layer contains iron and titanium (page 2, 6th-7th paragraphs).
Regarding claim 5, Yonemura discloses the piezoelectric element as explained above, but fails to explicitly disclose the intensity of titanium is 300cps or less when measured by SIMS at a distance of 240nm from the seed layer. Note that the intensity of the titanium is considered as a goal of the invention; the Applicants provide no dimensional or structural information on how this is achieved beyond that which Yonemura discloses. It has been held that where the structure recited in a reference is the same as the claimed structure, claimed properties and functions are presumed to be inherent. In re Best 195 USPQ 430, 433.
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 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yonemura.
Regarding claim 3, Yonemura discloses the piezoelectric element as explained above, wherein the piezoelectric layer comprises a seed layer. However, Yonemura fails to explicitly disclose the thickness of the seed layer being 20nm or less. It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the before the effective filing date of the instant application to determine the thickness of the seed layer, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2nd 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). In the instant case, Yonemura discloses a piezoelectric layer having a thickness of at least 100nm, a 20nm seed layer would provide an orientation layer without increasing the overall size of the element.
Regarding claim 4, Yonemura discloses the piezoelectric element as explained above, but fails to explicitly disclose the diffusion reduction layer containing iridium oxide. Selection from among known, suitable materials has long been held to be within the skill expected of the routineer and therefore obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the before the effective filing date of the instant application to provide an iridium oxide to prevent piezoelectric components from diffusing into the electrode during the manufacturing process. Iridium oxide is a known material used as a diffusion barrier (see Morozumi, US20100020135 for example).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jaydi San Martin whose telephone number is (571)272-2018. The examiner can normally be reached on M-Th 7:45-6:00pm.
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, Dedei Hammond can be reached on 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 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.
/J. San Martin/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2837