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Claims 14-16 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 16 March 2026.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-5 and 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Andosca (PG Pub 20150256144).
Considering claim 1, Andosca (Figure 2) teaches a piezoelectric film integrated device comprising: a substrate (18a + paragraph 0058); an electrode (56 + paragraph 0088) provided on the substrate; a first piezoelectric element (30 + paragraphs 0088-0089) that is provided on the electrode and includes a first monocrystalline piezoelectric film (58 + paragraphs 0088-0089) and a first electrode film (60 + paragraphs 0088-0089) superimposed on the first monocrystalline piezoelectric film; and a second piezoelectric element (24 + paragraph 0101) that is provided on the first piezoelectric element and includes a second monocrystalline piezoelectric film (70 + paragraph 0101) and a second electrode film (72 + paragraph 0101) superimposed on the second monocrystalline piezoelectric film.
Considering claim 2, Andosca (Figure 2) teaches wherein the substrate includes a vibrating plate (90 + paragraph 0112) provided in a region under the first monocrystalline piezoelectric film.
Considering claim 4, Andosca (Figure 2) teaches wherein the first monocrystalline piezoelectric film is a monocrystalline PZT film (paragraph 0062), a monocrystalline KNN film or a monocrystalline barium titanate film and the second monocrystalline piezoelectric film is a monocrystalline AlN film (70 + paragraph 0101), a monocrystalline lithium tantalate film or a monocrystalline lithium niobate film.
Considering claim 5, Andosca (Figure 2) teaches wherein the first monocrystalline piezoelectric film is a monocrystalline AlN film (58 + paragraph 0092), a monocrystalline lithium tantalate film or a monocrystalline lithium niobate film and the second monocrystalline piezoelectric film is a monocrystalline PZT film (paragraph 0062), a monocrystalline KNN film or a monocrystalline barium titanate film.
Considering claim 12, Andosca teaches wherein 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 (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)).
Considering claim 13, Andosca teaches one of the first monocrystalline piezoelectric film and the second monocrystalline piezoelectric film outputs an acoustic oscillatory wave made up of at least one of a sonic wave and an ultrasonic wave and the other one of the first monocrystalline piezoelectric film and the second monocrystalline piezoelectric film detects reflected waves of the acoustic oscillatory wave (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, 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andosca (PG Pub 20150256144) and in view of Yamazaki (PG Pub 20180175794).
Considering claim 3, Andosca teaches the piezoelectric film integrated device as described above.
However, Andosca does not teach wherein 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.
Yamazaki (Figure 5G) teaches wherein the substrate is an SOI substrate (10 + paragraph 0052) that includes a Si substrate (11 + paragraph 0052), a SiO2 (12 + paragraph 0052) part and a monocrystalline Si part (paragraph 0052) and the vibrating plate includes the SiO2 part and the monocrystalline Si part (paragraph 0102).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include wherein 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 into Andosca’s device for the benefit of achieving excellent frequency temperature characteristics.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andosca (PG Pub 20150256144) and in view of Kuroda (JP 2021166220, for English Translations purposes the examiner is using PG Pub 20230276711).
Considering claim 6, Andosca teaches the piezoelectric film integrated device as described above.
However, Andosca does not teach the first monocrystalline piezoelectric film has a (001) surface as a crystal face parallel to a surface of the electrode, and the first piezoelectric element is an epitaxial growth film stuck on the surface of the electrode.
Kuroda (Figure 10) teaches the first monocrystalline piezoelectric film has a (001) surface (3A + paragraph 0046) as a crystal face parallel to a surface of the electrode, and the first piezoelectric element is an epitaxial growth film stuck on the surface of the electrode (The method of forming the device is not germane to the issue of patentability of the device itself. Therefore, this limitation has not been given patentable weight + paragraph 0055).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the first monocrystalline piezoelectric film has a (001) surface as a crystal face parallel to a surface of the electrode, and the first piezoelectric element is an epitaxial growth film stuck on the surface of the electrode into Andosca’s device for the benefit of providing a piezoelectric element having a high performance.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andosca (PG Pub 20150256144) and in view of Kijima (PG Pub 20190013459).
Considering claim 7, Andosca teaches the piezoelectric film integrated device as described above.
However, Andosca does not teach an SRO film formed on the electrode, wherein the first monocrystalline piezoelectric film has a (001) surface as a crystal face parallel to a surface of the SRO film, and the first piezoelectric element is an epitaxial growth film formed on the surface of the SRO film.
Kijima (Figure 1) teaches an SRO film (14 + paragraph 0160) formed on the electrode, wherein the first monocrystalline piezoelectric film has a (001) (paragraph 0160) surface as a crystal face parallel to a surface of the SRO film, and the first piezoelectric element (15 + paragraph 0160) is an epitaxial growth film formed on the surface of the SRO film (The method of forming the device is not germane to the issue of patentability of the device itself. Therefore, this limitation has not been given patentable weight + paragraph 0160).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-11 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.
Considering claim 8, the prior art does not teach the second monocrystalline piezoelectric film has a (0001) surface as a crystal face parallel to a surface of the electrode in combination with the rest of the applicant’s claimed limitations.
Considering claim 9, the prior art does not teach the first monocrystalline piezoelectric film has a (0001) surface as a crystal face parallel to a surface of the electrode in combination with the rest of the applicant’s claimed limitations.
Considering claim 10, the prior art does not teach the first monocrystalline piezoelectric film has a (0001) surface as a crystal face parallel to a surface of the SRO film in combination with the rest of the applicant’s claimed limitations.
Furthermore, claim 11, which depends upon a dependent claim, would also be allowed would also be allowed if it depended an independent and allowable claim.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRYAN P GORDON whose telephone number is (571)272-5394. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 a.m. - 4:30 p.m..
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 K 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.
/BRYAN P GORDON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2837
Prosecution Insights