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
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.
Claims 1-5, 8, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nanataki et al. (US 2006/0066180) in view of Reed et al. (US 2014/0062255).
With respect to claim 1, Nanataki et al. discloses a sensor (Figs 2 and 6, paragraph 97), comprising: a ceramic substrate (item 1, paragraph 92) comprising a first major surface, a second major surface opposite to the first major surface, and a thickness measured from the first major surface to the second major surface, the thickness ranging from 10 µm to 200 µm (Paragraph 70); a piezoelectric layer (item 2) disposed on the first major surface of the ceramic substrate, the piezoelectric layer having a thickness of 10 µm or less (Paragraph 67); and at least one electrical contact (items 4-6) disposed on the piezoelectric layer or between the ceramic substrate and the piezoelectric layer or both on the piezoelectric layer and between the ceramic substrate and the piezoelectric layer (Figs 2 and 6).
Nanataki et al. does not disclose that the piezoelectric layer comprises a transition metal dichalcogenide (TMD) material.
Reed et al. teaches a piezoelectric device in which the piezoelectric layer comprises a transition metal dichalcogenide (TMD) material (Paragraph 36).
Before the effective filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the piezoelectric material of Reed et al. with the device of Nanataki et al. as it has been held that the selection of a material based on an art-recognized suitability for an intended purpose is obvious (In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416)
With respect to claim 3, the combination of Nanataki et al. and Reed et al. discloses the sensor of claim 1. Reed et al. discloses that the TMD material comprises at least one of molybdenum disulfide (MoS2), tungsten disulfide (WS2), tungsten diselenide (WSe2), molybdenum ditelluride (MoTe2), or tungsten ditelluride (WTe2) (Paragraph 38).
With respect to claim 4, the combination of Nanataki et al. and Reed et al. discloses the sensor of claim 1. Nanataki et al. discloses that the piezoelectric layer comprises a plurality of layers of the TMD material, the plurality of layers being up to eleven layers (Fig 6).
With respect to claim 5, the combination of Nanataki et al. and Reed et al. discloses the sensor of claim 1. Nanataki et al. discloses that the piezoelectric layer comprises a monolayer of the TMD material (Fig 2).
With respect to claim 8, Nanataki et al. discloses the sensor of any one of claim 1, wherein the ceramic substrate comprises at least one of silica, zirconia, or alumina (Paragraph 92).
With respect to claim 11, Nanataki et al. discloses the sensor of claim 1, further comprising a support (item 1b) extending from the second major surface of the ceramic substrate (Figs 2 and 6), the support forming a cavity disposed on the second major surface of the ceramic substrate (Figs 2 and 6).
Claims 6-7 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Higuchi et al. in view of Nanataki et al.
With respect to claim 6, Higuchi et al. discloses a piezoelectric device having a substrate (item 20), piezoelectric layer (item 43), and electrical contacts (items 42 and 44), wherein the piezoelectric layer comprises at least one of lead zirconate titanate or lead magnesium niobate-lead titanate (Abstract).
Higuchi et al. does not disclose the sensor of claim 1.
Nanataki et al. teaches the sensor of claim 1.
Before the effective filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the dimensional details of the piezoelectric device of Nanataki et al. with the piezoelectric device of Higuchi et al. for the benefit of improved mechanical strength and toughness (Paragraph 68 of Nanataki et al.).
With respect to claim 7, the combination of Higuchi et al. and Nanataki et al. discloses the sensor of claim 6. Higuchi et al. is silent with respect to the material properties of the piezoelectric material, and therefore does not explicitly disclose that the piezoelectric layer comprises a piezoelectric charge constant of at least 100 pC/N; however, this is merely an inherent material property of the PZT-based material of Higuchi et al.
With respect to claim 23, Higuchi et al. discloses a piezoelectric device (Fig 3), comprising: a piezoelectric layer (item 43) disposed on the first major surface of the ceramic substrate, the piezoelectric layer having a thickness of 10 µm or less (Paragraph 54); and at least one electrical contact (items 41 and 42)) disposed on the piezoelectric layer or between the substrate and the piezoelectric layer or both on the piezoelectric layer and between the substrate and the piezoelectric layer (Fig 3), wherein the piezoelectric layer comprises at least one of lead zirconate titanate or lead magnesium niobate-lead titanate (Abstract).
Higuchi et al. does not disclose a piezoelectric sensor including a ceramic substrate comprising a first major surface, a second major surface opposite to the first major surface, and a thickness measured from the first major surface to the second major surface, the thickness ranging from 10 µm to 200 µm.
Nanataki et al. teaches a piezoelectric actuator and sensor that includes a ceramic substrate (Paragraph 92) comprising a first major surface, a second major surface opposite to the first major surface, and a thickness measured from the first major surface to the second major surface, the thickness ranging from 10 µm to 200 µm (Paragraph 70).
Before the effective filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the substrate of Nanataki et al. with the piezoelectric device of Higuchi et al. for the benefit of providing characteristics such as heat resistance and chemical stability (Paragraph 68 of Nanataki et al.).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nanataki et al. in view of Hori et al. (US 2015/0102707).
With respect to claim 9, Nanataki et al. discloses the sensor of claim 1.
Nanataki et al. does not disclose that the ceramic substrate comprises a grain size of 50 µm or less.
Hori et al. teaches a piezoelectric device in which the ceramic substrate comprises a grain size of 50 µm or less (Paragraph 15).
Before the effective filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the grain size of Hori et al. with the piezoelectric device of Nanataki et al. for the benefit of reducing unwanted acoustic reflections in the piezoelectric material (Paragraph 15 of Hori et al.).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hori et al. in view of Nanataki et al.
With respect to claim 10, Hori et al. discloses a sensor, wherein the at least one electrical contact comprises interdigitated electrodes (Fig 3, paragraph 34).
Hori et al. does not disclose the sensor of claim 1.
Nanataki et al. teaches the sensor of claim 1.
Before the effective filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the dimensional details of the piezoelectric device of Nanataki et al. with the piezoelectric device of Hori et al. for the benefit of improved mechanical strength and toughness (Paragraph 68 of Nanataki et al.).
Claims 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khoshkava et al. (US 20190101986) in view of Nanataki et al.
With respect to claim 12, Khoshkava et al. discloses a wearable device (Fig 1B) comprising a piezoelectric device (Fig 2A).
Khoshkava et al. does not disclose the sensor according to claim 1, wherein the ceramic substrate comprises zirconia.
Nanataki et al. teaches the piezoelectric sensor of claim 1, and that the sensor comprises zirconia (Paragraphs 68 and 92).
Before the effective filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the sensor and zirconia substrate of Nanataki et al. with the wearable device of Khoshkava et al. for the benefit of improved mechanical strength and toughness (Paragraph 68 of Nanataki et al.).
With respect to claim 13, the combination of Khoshkava et al. and Nanataki et al. discloses the wearable device according to claim 12. Nanataki et al. discloses that the zirconia is stabilized with 3 mol% of yttria (Paragraph 69).
With respect to claim 14, the combination of Khoshkava et al. and Nanataki et al. discloses the wearable device according to claim 12. Khoshkava et al. and Nanataki et al. are silent with respect to the material properties of the piezoelectric material, and therefore does not explicitly disclose that the piezoelectric layer comprises a piezoelectric charge constant of at least 100 pC/N; however, this is merely an inherent material property of the materials disclosed by Khoshkava et al. and Nanataki et al.
With respect to claim 15, the combination of Khoshkava et al. and Nanataki et al. discloses the wearable device according to claim 12. Khoshkava et al. discloses that the sensor is laminated to at least one polymer layer (Paragraph 64).
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Higuchi et al. in view of Nanataki et al. and Hori et al.
With respect to claim 24, the combination of Higuchi et al. and Nanataki et al. discloses a wearable device, comprising the sensor according to claim 23.
Neither Higuchi et al nor Nanataki et al. discloses that the ceramic substrate comprises a grain size of 50 µm or less.
Hori et al. teaches a piezoelectric device in which the ceramic substrate comprises a grain size of 50 µm or less (Paragraph 15).
Before the effective filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the grain size of Hori et al. with the piezoelectric device of Higuchi et al., as modified by Nanataki et al., for the benefit of reducing unwanted acoustic reflections in the piezoelectric material (Paragraph 15 of Hori et al.).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 21 August 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that it would not be obvious to combine the TMD-based material of Reed et al. with the device of Nanataki et al. ,as applicant argues that the TMD-based material is only piezoelectric for nanoscale devices. However, it can be seen from paragraphs 35 to 38 of Reed et al., that the primary purpose of their invention is combining materials that would otherwise be non-piezoelectric by themselves into materials that have piezoelectric properties when combined. It would therefore be obvious to combine the TMD-based material resulting from that combination for use as the piezoelectric material in the device of Nanataki et al.
Applicant argues that it would not be obvious to combine the teachings of Higuchi et al. and Nanataki et al. as one is directed to an actuator and the other is directed to a sensor. However, Nanataki et al. is relied upon for teachings unrelated to its function as an actuator or sensor. In addition, Nanataki et al. discloses that it may be used in either an actuator or a sensor (Paragraph 97).
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 Derek John Rosenau whose telephone number is (571)272-8932. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7 am to 5:30 pm Central Time.
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 at (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 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.
/DEREK J ROSENAU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2837
Prosecution Insights