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
Claims 13-16 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 16 March 2026.
Applicant’s election without traverse of the invention of group I in the reply filed on 16 March 2026 is acknowledged.
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 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuroda et al. (US 2023/0142065) in view of Hajati et al. (US 2014/0219063).
With respect to claim 1, Kuroda et al. discloses a piezoelectric film integrated device (Fig 3) comprising: a substrate (item 1a); a first electrode (item 2) provided on the substrate (Fig 3); a first monocrystalline piezoelectric film (item 3A) provided on the first electrode (Fig 3); a second monocrystalline piezoelectric film (item 3B) provided on the first electrode (Fig 3) and having a crystal structure different from a crystal structure of the first monocrystalline piezoelectric film (Paragraphs 44 and 54, wherein the KNN of the first piezoelectric film and the ALN of the second piezoelectric film inherently have different crystal structures); a third electrode (item 4A) provided on the first monocrystalline piezoelectric film (Fig 3); and a fourth electrode (item 4B) provided on the second monocrystalline piezoelectric film (Fig 3).
Kuroda et al. does not disclose a second electrode provided on the substrate or that the second piezoelectric film is provided on the second electrode.
Hajati et al. teaches a piezoelectric ultrasonic transducer that includes a second electrode (item 113B) provided on the substrate or that the second piezoelectric film (item 170B) is provided on the second electrode (Fig 1A).
Before the effective filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to replace the single, common lower electrode of Kuroda et al. with the two, individual bottom electrodes taught by Hajati et al. for the benefit of reducing the amount of material necessary for the device by eliminating the electrode material between individual transducer elements (Fig 1A of Hajati et al.).
With respect to claim 2, the combination of Kuroda et al. and Hajati et al. discloses the piezoelectric film integrated device according to claim 1. Kuroda et al. discloses that the substrate includes vibrating plates respectively provided in regions under the first monocrystalline piezoelectric film and the second monocrystalline piezoelectric film (Fig 3, wherein the vibration plates are the regions of the substrate at the tops of the cavities).
With respect to claim 3, the combination of Kuroda et al. and Hajati et al. discloses the piezoelectric film integrated device according to claim 2. Kuroda et al. discloses that the substrate is an SOI substrate that includes a Si substrate, a SiO2 part and a monocrystalline Si part, and the vibrating plate includes the SiO2 part and the monocrystalline Si part (Paragraph 40).
With respect to claim 4, the combination of Kuroda et al. and Hajati et al. discloses the piezoelectric film integrated device according to claim 1. Kuroda et al. discloses that the first monocrystalline piezoelectric film is a monocrystalline PZT film, a monocrystalline KNN film or a monocrystalline barium titanate film (Paragraph 44), and the second monocrystalline piezoelectric film is a monocrystalline AlN film, a monocrystalline lithium tantalate film or a monocrystalline lithium niobate film (Paragraph 54).
With respect to claim 5, the combination of Kuroda et al. and Hajati et al. discloses the piezoelectric film integrated device according to claim 1. Kuroda et al. discloses that the first monocrystalline piezoelectric film has a (001)-surface as a crystal face parallel to a surface of the first electrode (Paragraph 45). With respect to the language regarding the film being made by epitaxial growth, this is product-by-process language and it has been held that where a claimed product is the same as or obvious over a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even if the prior product was made by a different process (In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964).
With respect to claim 6, the combination of Kuroda et al. and Hajati et al. discloses the piezoelectric film integrated device according to claim 1. Kuroda et al. discloses that the first monocrystalline piezoelectric film has a (001)-surface as a crystal face parallel to a surface of the first electrode and being stuck on the surface of the first electrode (Paragraph 45). With respect to the language regarding the film being made by epitaxial growth, this is product-by-process language and it has been held that where a claimed product is the same as or obvious over a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even if the prior product was made by a different process (In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964).
With respect to claim 7, the combination of Kuroda et al. and Hajati et al. discloses the piezoelectric film integrated device according to claim 1.Kuroda et al. discloses an SRO film formed on the first electrode, wherein the first monocrystalline piezoelectric film is an epitaxial growth film having a (001)-surface as a crystal face parallel to a surface of the SRO film and formed on the surface of the SRO film (Paragraph 41).
With respect to claim 8, the combination of Kuroda et al. and Hajati et al. discloses the piezoelectric film integrated device according to claim 1. Kuroda et al. discloses that the second monocrystalline piezoelectric film has a (0001)-surface as a crystal face parallel to a surface of the second electrode (Paragraph 55). With respect to the language regarding the film being made by epitaxial growth, this is product-by-process language and it has been held that where a claimed product is the same as or obvious over a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even if the prior product was made by a different process (In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964).
With respect to claim 9, the combination of Kuroda et al. and Hajati et al. discloses the piezoelectric film integrated device according to claim 1. Kuroda et al. discloses that the second monocrystalline piezoelectric film has a (0001)-surface as a crystal face parallel to a surface of the second electrode and being stuck on the surface of the second electrode (Paragraph 55). With respect to the language regarding the film being made by epitaxial growth, this is product-by-process language and it has been held that where a claimed product is the same as or obvious over a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even if the prior product was made by a different process (In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964).
With respect to claim 10, the combination of Kuroda et al. and Hajati et al. discloses the piezoelectric film integrated device according to claim 1. Kuroda et al. discloses an SRO film formed on the second electrode, wherein the second monocrystalline piezoelectric film is an epitaxial growth film having a (0001)-surface as a crystal face parallel to a surface of the SRO film and formed on the surface of the SRO film (Paragraph 41).
With respect to claim 11, the combination of Kuroda et al. and Hajati et al. discloses the piezoelectric film integrated device according to claim 1. Kuroda et al. discloses that a crystal c-axis direction of the first monocrystalline piezoelectric film and a crystal c-axis direction of the second monocrystalline piezoelectric film are in a parallel relationship (Paragraphs 45 and 55, wherein the (001) directions being the same for both materials results in their c-axes being parallel).
With respect to claim 12, the combination of Kuroda et al. and Hajati et al. discloses the piezoelectric film integrated device according to claim 1. Kuroda et al. discloses an acoustic oscillation sensor comprising the piezoelectric film integrated device, wherein the first monocrystalline piezoelectric film outputs an acoustic oscillatory wave made up of at least one of a sonic wave and an ultrasonic wave, and the second monocrystalline piezoelectric film detects reflected waves of the acoustic oscillatory wave (Fig 3).
Conclusion
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