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 .
Status
In response to the amendment filed on 02/10/2026, claims 1-10, 12, 14, 16, and 17 have been amended, claims 15 and 18-20 are cancelled, and new claims 21-24 are added. Claims 1-14, 16, 17, and 21-24 are pending and under examination.
Drawings
In response to the drawing objection made in the previous non-final office action dated on 11/13/2025, Applicant has submitted the replacement drawings of figs. 2 and 7. Therefore, the drawing objection has been withdrawn.
Claim Objections
Claims 6 and 22 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 6, line 2, the term may be amended as “the first ring-shaped plate”.
In claim 22, line 8-9, the term may be amended as “the plurality of second piezoelectric actuators”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 22 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Weber et al. (WO 2006105785A1, hereinafter Weber).
Regarding claim 22, Weber discloses a wafer polishing head, comprising:
a carrier head (figs. 1-2, base plate 8 and a drive shaft 9 form a carrier head);
a first ring-shaped plate disposed in the carrier head (figs. 2-3 and Weber English translation, p. 10:30-33, actuators 15 can be arranged in ring structures. A plate element 17b can be designated as the recited first ring-shaped plate);
a second ring-shaped plate surrounding the first ring-shaped plate and disposed in the carrier head (figs. 2-3 and Weber English translation, p. 10:30-33, a plate element 17c can be designated as the recited second ring-shaped plate. The plate element 17c surrounds the plate element 17b);
a plurality of first piezoelectric actuators disposed over the first ring-shaped plate (figs. 2-3 and Weber English translation, p. 10:30-33, a plurality of actuators 15 is disposed over the plate element 17b. In case of the ring structure, the actuators are evenly distributed over the circumference; p. 11:1-3, the actuators 15 are piezoelectric elements);
a plurality of second piezoelectric actuators disposed over the second ring-shaped plate (figs. 2-3 and Weber English translation, p. 10:30-33, a plurality of actuators 15 is disposed over the plate element 17c); and
a membrane, disposed over the plurality of first piezoelectric actuators and the second piezoelectric actuators (fig. 2 and Weber English translation, p. 9:19-23, a flexible membrane 20 is disposed over the plurality of actuators 15),
wherein the first ring-shaped plate is separated from the second ring-shaped plate by a gap (fig. 2, the plate element 17b is separated from the plate element 17c by a gap).
Regarding claim 24, Weber discloses the wafer polishing head as in the rejection of claim 22, wherein a width of the first ring-shaped plate is greater than a width of the second ring-shaped plate (fig. 2, a width of the plate element 17b [corresponds to the recited first ring-shaped plate] is greater than a width of the plate element 17c [corresponds to the recited second ring-shaped plate]).
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.
Claims 1-6 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weber et al. (WO 2006105785A1, hereinafter Weber), in view of Nakagawa et al. (EP 0323518A1, hereinafter Nakagawa).
Regarding claim 1, Weber disclose a wafer polishing head, comprising:
a carrier head (figs. 1-2, base plate 8 and a drive shaft 9 form a carrier head);
a plurality of first piezoelectric actuators, disposed in a first ring-shaped region of the carrier head (figs. 2-3 and Weber English translation, p. 9:19-23, 10:30-33, a sandwich structure 21b can be designated as the recited first ring-shaped region. A plurality of actuators 15 is evenly distributed over circumference of the ring structure. The sandwich structures 21a-f are disposed in the recited carrier head);
a plurality of second piezoelectric actuators, disposed in a second ring-shaped region of the carrier head, wherein the second ring-shaped region surrounds the first ring-shaped region (figs. 2-3 and Weber English translation, p. 9:19-23, 10:30-33, a sandwich structure 21c can be designated as the recited second ring-shaped region. A plurality of actuators 15 is evenly distributed over circumference of the ring structure. The sandwich structure 21c surrounds the sandwich structure 21b); and
a membrane, disposed over the plurality of first piezoelectric actuators and the plurality of second piezoelectric actuators (fig. 2 and Weber English translation, p. 9:19-23, a flexible membrane 20 is disposed over the plurality of actuators 15), but does not disclose the plurality of first piezoelectric actuators is connected to a first voltage, and the plurality of second piezoelectric actuators is connected to a second voltage different from the first voltage.
Nakagawa teaches, in an analogous grinding apparatus field of endeavor, the plurality of first piezoelectric actuators is connected to a first voltage, and the plurality of second piezoelectric actuators is connected to a second voltage different from the first voltage (p. 8:18-22, a control device controls a plurality of piezoelectric actuators 401-412. The control device can provide different voltages simultaneously to different piezoelectric actuators. It means the first piezoelectric actuators can receive a single voltage that may be the different voltage to the second piezoelectric actuators).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the wafer polishing head of Weber to provide the different voltages to different piezoelectric actuators as taught by Nakagawa so that it can provide different vibrations to different areas of a workpiece (Nakagawa, p. 2:26-3:3).
Regarding claim 2, Weber as modified by Nakagawa teaches the wafer polishing head as in the rejection of claim 1, further comprising: a plurality of plates, disposed between the membrane and the plurality of first piezoelectric actuators, and between the membrane and the plurality of second piezoelectric actuators (Weber fig. 2, the plate element 17b is disposed between the membrane 20 and the actuators 15 in the sandwich structure 21b [corresponds to the recited first ring-shaped region] and the plate element 17c is disposed between the membrane 20 and the actuators 15 in the sandwich structure 21c [corresponds to the recited second ring-shaped region]).
Regarding claim 3, Weber as modified by Nakagawa teaches the wafer polishing head as in the rejection of claim 2, wherein the plurality of plates comprises a circular-shaped plate overlapping a central region of the membrane, and a plurality of ring-shaped plates individually surrounding the circular-shaped plate and sequentially disposed outward from the circular-shaped plate (Weber figs. 2-3, a circular-shaped plate element 17a is disposed overlapping a central region of the membrane 20 and each ring-shaped plate element 17b-f surrounds the plate element outward sequentially).
Regarding claim 4, Weber as modified by Nakagawa teaches the wafer polishing head as in the rejection of claim 3, wherein the plurality of ring-shaped plated has a first ring-shaped plate surrounding the circular-shaped plate, and a second ring-shaped plate surrounding the first ring-shaped plate and the circular-shaped plate (Weber fig. 2, the ring-shaped plate element 17b [corresponds to the recited first ring-shaped plate] surrounds a circular-shaped plate element 17a, and the ring-shaped plate element 17c [corresponds to the recited second ring-shaped plate] surrounds the ring-shaped plate element 17b and the circular-shaped plate element 17a).
Regarding claim 5, Weber as modified by Nakagawa teaches the wafer polishing head as in the rejection of claim 3, wherein the plurality of first piezoelectric actuators has a substantially same first distance to a center of the circular-shaped plate, and the plurality of second piezoelectric actuators has a substantially same second distance to the center of the circular-shaped plate, and the second distance is greater than the first distance (Weber figs. 2-3, the actuators 15 coupled with the plate element 17b [correspond to the recited first piezoelectric actuators] have a substantially the same first distance to a center of the plate element 17a, and the actuators 15 coupled with the plate element 17c [correspond to the recited second piezoelectric actuators] have a substantially the same second distance to the center of the plate element 17a. The recited second distance is greater than the recited first distance).
Regarding claim 6, Weber as modified by Nakagawa teaches the wafer polishing head as in the rejection of claim 4, wherein each of the first and second ring-shaped plates is a monolithic structure, and first ring-shaped plate is in contact with the plurality of first piezoelectric actuators, and the second ring-shaped plate is in contact with the plurality of second piezoelectric actuators (Weber figs. 2-3, the plate element 17b [correspond to the recited first ring-shaped plate] is in contact with the corresponding actuators 15 [correspond to the recited first piezoelectric actuators] and the plate element 17c [correspond to the recited second ring-shaped plate] is in contact with the corresponding actuators 15 [correspond to the recited second piezoelectric actuators]. Each plate element 17 has a monolithic structure along the circumference of the ring structure).
Regarding claim 21, Weber as modified by Nakagawa teaches the wafer polishing head as in the rejection of claim 4, wherein a width of the second ring-shaped plate is less than a width of the first ring-shaped plate (fig. 2, a width of the plate element 17c [corresponds to the recited second ring-shaped plate] is less than a width of the plate element 17b [corresponds to the recited first ring-shaped plate]).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weber in view of Nakagawa, as applied to claim 4 above, and in further view of Kistler et al. (CN 1481295A, hereinafter Kistler).
Regarding claim 7, Weber as modified by Nakagawa teaches the wafer polishing head as in the rejection of claim 4, but does not disclose each of the first and second ring-shaped plates includes a plurality of sectors, being adjacent to one another.
Kistler teaches, in an analogous chemical mechanical polishing (CMP) field of endeavor, each of the first and second ring-shaped plates includes a plurality of sectors, being adjacent to one another (fig. 8, a CMP apparatus a pressure applying membrane comprises a plurality of piezoelectric elements 702. A ring-shaped piezoelectric element can include a plurality of sectors, being adjacent to one another. Because Weber teaches each plate can be associated with each piezoelectric actuator, Kistler can be combined with Weber to teach each ring-shaped plate can include a plurality of sectors).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the ring-shaped plates of Weber as modified by Nakagawa to provide the plurality of sectors taught by Kistler in order to provide different pressures to a wafer even along the same ring-shaped areas for effective polishing outcome.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weber in view of Nakagawa and Kistler, as applied to claim 7 above, and in further view of Suen et al. (US 2015/0111477, cited on 10/27/2024 IDS, hereinafter Suen).
Regarding claim 8, Weber as modified by Nakagawa and Kistler teaches the wafer polishing head as in the rejection of claim 7, but does not disclose explicitly each of the sectors of the first ring-shaped plate is connected to one of the first piezoelectric actuators, and each of the sectors of the second ring-shaped plate is connected to one of the second piezoelectric actuators.
Suen teaches, in an analogous CMP field of endeavor, each of the sectors of the first ring-shaped plate is connected to one of the first piezoelectric actuators, and each of the sectors of the second ring-shaped plate is connected to one of the second piezoelectric actuators (fig. 2 and ¶ 0013 and 0016, a carrier head 110 includes electromagnetism actuated pressure sectors 120 [correspond to the recited piezoelectric actuators]. A plurality of ring-shaped sectors is arranged circumferentially. A profile control of a substrate can be carried out along circumferential lines. It means the pressure sectors along the same ring-shaped circumference are controlled as the same group. Because Weber teaches the plate associated with the piezoelectric element, Weber can be combined with Suen to teach the ring-shaped plates on the same circumference are considered to be in the same group).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the wafer polishing head of Weber as modified by Nakagawa and Kistler to make the sectors of the ring-shaped plates as the same group as taught by Suen so that areas of wafer located at the same distance from a center can have the same pressure application since the rotating wafer may have the same configuration along a line of the same radius.
Claim 9, 13, 14, 16, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weber et al. (WO 2006105785A1, hereinafter Weber), in view of Koike et al. (JP 6596141B1, hereinafter Koike) and Nakagawa et al. (EP 0323518A1, hereinafter Nakagawa).
Regarding claim 9, Large discloses a wafer polishing system, comprising:
a polishing head, configured to hold a substrate against a polishing pad (fig. 1 and Weber English translation, p. 8:1-7, base plate 8 and a drive shaft 9 form a polishing head, and the polishing pad holds a workpiece 1 against a pad 4), the polishing head comprising:
a plurality of piezoelectric actuators, configured to provide mechanical forces against different regions of the substrate (Weber English translation, p. 11:1-7, 12:32-13:4, a plurality of piezoelectric actuators 15 has an actuator function by varying lengths of the actuators which would apply mechanical force against the substrate),
wherein the plurality of piezoelectric actuators grouped into a plurality of first piezoelectric actuators arranged to form a first ring-shaped pattern, and a plurality of second piezoelectric actuators arranged to form a second ring-shaped pattern surrounding the first ring-shaped pattern (figs. 2-3 and Weber English translation, p. 9:19-23, 10:30-33, a sandwich structure 21b can be designated as the recited first ring-shaped pattern and a sandwich structure 21c can be designated as the recited second ring-shaped pattern. A plurality of actuators 15 is evenly distributed over circumference of the ring structure. Thus, a plurality of first actuators is arranged in the first ring-shaped pattern (sandwich structure 21b) and a plurality of second actuators is arranged in the second ring-shaped pattern (sandwich structure 21c). The sandwich structure 21c surrounds the sandwich structure 21b), but does not disclose a control unit, electrically connected to the plurality of piezoelectric actuators, and configured to receive a signal of an electrical charge generated by the plurality of piezoelectric actuators.
Koike teaches, in a piezoelectric device field of endeavor and capable of solving primary problem, a control unit, electrically connected to the plurality of piezoelectric actuators, and configured to receive a signal of an electrical charge generated by the plurality of piezoelectric actuators (Koike English translation, p. 9:22-31, a piezoelectric element comprises a piezoelectric actuator 116 and a piezoelectric sensor 117; p. 7:12-15 and 11:39-12:6, the piezoelectric sensor generates electrical signal upon receiving a reaction force to the piezoelectric actuator. A control unit 330 is connected to each operation unit to control functions, thus it receives the signal of the piezoelectric sensor. Koike’s system is not a CMP system, but Koike teaches ordinary function of a piezoelectric element that it not only receives voltage to generate force, but also generates voltage signal induced by the detected force).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the wafer polishing system of Weber to provide the control unit for receiving signals generated by the piezoelectric actuators as taught by Koike. Koike’s piezoelectrical element generates signals in response to force applied to the piezoelectrical actuator. It helps the controller to identify how much force is applied to a system.
Weber as modified by Koike does not disclose the plurality of piezoelectric actuators provides the mechanical forces according to one or more voltages being received, wherein the plurality of first piezoelectric actuators is connected to a first voltage, and the plurality of second piezoelectric actuators is connected to a second voltage different from the first voltage.
Nakagawa teaches, in an analogous grinding apparatus field of endeavor, the plurality of piezoelectric actuators provides the mechanical forces according to one or more voltages being received, wherein the plurality of first piezoelectric actuators is connected to a first voltage, and the plurality of second piezoelectric actuators is connected to a second voltage different from the first voltage (p. 8:18-22, a control device controls a plurality of piezoelectric actuators 401-412. The control device can provide different voltages simultaneously to different piezoelectric actuators. It means the first piezoelectric actuators can receive a single voltage that may be the different voltage to the second piezoelectric actuators).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the wafer polishing head of Weber as modified by Koike to provide the different voltages to different piezoelectric actuators as taught by Nakagawa so that it can provide different vibrations to different areas of a workpiece (Nakagawa, p. 2:26-3:3).
Regarding claim 13, Weber as modified by Koike and Nakagawa teaches the wafer polishing system as in the rejection of claim 9, wherein the polishing head further comprises:
a membrane, disposed between the plurality of piezoelectric actuators and the substrate (Weber figs. 1-2, the membrane 20 is disposed between the actuators 15 and the workpiece 1); and
a plurality of plates, disposed between the membrane and the plurality of piezoelectric actuators (Weber fig. 2, the plate elements 17a-f are disposed between the membrane 20 and the actuators 15).
Regarding claim 14, Weber as modified by Koike and Nakagawa teaches the wafer polishing system as in the rejection of claim 13, wherein each of the plurality of piezoelectric actuators is disposed over a central region of each of the plurality of plates (Weber, fig. 2, each of the actuators 15 is disposed over a central region of each of the plate elements 17a-f).
Regarding claim 16, Weber as modified by Koike and Nakagawa teaches the wafer polishing system as in the rejection of claim 13, wherein the plurality of plates comprises a first ring-shaped plate and a second ring-shaped plate surrounding the first ring-shaped plate (Weber figs. 2-3 and Weber English translation, p. 10:30-33, among plate elements 17a-f, a plate element 17b can be designated as the recited first ring-shaped plate and a plate element 17c can be designated as the recited second ring-shaped plate. The plate element 17c surrounds the plate element 17b), and a width of the second ring-shaped plate is less than a width of the first ring-shaped plate (Weber fig. 2, a width of the plate element 17c [corresponds to the recited second ring-shaped plate] is less than a width of the plate element 17b [corresponds to the recited first ring-shaped plate]).
Regarding claim 17, Weber as modified by Koike and Nakagawa teaches the wafer polishing system as in the rejection of claim 16, wherein the first piezoelectric actuators are disposed over and coupled to the first ring-shaped plate, and the second piezoelectric actuators are disposed over and coupled to the second ring-shaped plate. (Weber figs. 2-3, the plate element 17b [correspond to the recited first ring-shaped plate] is coupled with the corresponding actuators 15 [correspond to the recited first piezoelectric actuators] and the plate element 17c [correspond to the recited second ring-shaped plate] is coupled with the corresponding actuators 15 [correspond to the recited second piezoelectric actuators]).
Claims 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weber in view of Koike and Nakagawa, as applied to claim 9 above, and in further view of Large et al. (US 2002/0049029, cited on 10/27/2024 IDS, hereinafter Large).
Regarding claim 10, Weber as modified by Koike and Nakagawa teaches the wafer polishing system as in the rejection of claim 9, further comprising:
a platen, configured to allow the polishing pad to be disposed thereon and rotate during a polishing operation (Weber English translation, p. 8:5-7 and fig. 1, a polishing disk 6 [corresponds to the recited platen] has the pad 4 and rotates by a drive shaft 5 during a polishing operation), but does not disclose a slurry delivery unit, configured to supply slurry onto the polishing pad during the polishing operation. Weber discloses slurry 7 on the pad, but does not disclose a slurry delivery unit.
Large teaches, in an analogous CMP field of endeavor, a slurry delivery unit, configured to supply slurry onto the polishing pad during the polishing operation (Large, fig. 1 and ¶ 0020, a liquid slurry delivery system 19 provides a liquid slurry to the polishing pad 42 to enhance the polishing process).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the wafer polishing system of Weber as modified by Koike and Nakagawa to provide the slurry delivery unit as taught by Large in order to enhance the polishing process (Large ¶ 0020).
Regarding claim 11, Weber as modified by Koike and Nakagawa teaches the wafer polishing system as in the rejection of claim 9, but does not disclose the one or more voltages are adjusted by the control unit according to the signal of the electrical charge generated by the plurality of piezoelectric actuators.
Large teaches, in an analogous CMP field of endeavor, the one or more voltages are adjusted by the control unit according to the signal of the electrical charge generated by the plurality of piezoelectric actuators (Large, ¶ 0037 and 0045, a CMP machine 30 may incorporate a device that measures properties of wafer including resistivity at specific locations of a wafer during the polishing process, and the amount of energy supplied to any piezoelectric element can be adjusted. Koike teaches the piezoelectric element generates the electrical signals and the control unit receives the generated signals (Koike English translation, p. 7:12-15 and 11:39-12:6). Thus, Large as modified by Koike teaches the signal generated by the piezoelectric actuators can be transmitted to the control unit, and the voltage to the piezoelectric element can be adjusted in response to the signals generated by the piezoelectric elements).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the wafer polishing system to provide the voltage adjustment so that the polishing process can be actively adjusted.
Large teaches the voltage adjustment is done by an operator (¶ 0037). However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the manual voltage adjustment to replace it by automatic voltage adjustment by a control unit in order to correct the polishing process quickly. It has been held that broadly providing an automatic or mechanical means to replace a manual activity which accomplished the same result is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art. See MPEP 2144.04(III).
Regarding claim 12, Weber as modified by Koike and Nakagawa teaches the wafer polishing system as in the rejection of claim 9, but does not disclose explicitly the first piezoelectric actuators electrically isolated from the second piezoelectric actuators.
Large teaches, in an analogous CMP field of endeavor, the first piezoelectric actuators electrically isolated from the second piezoelectric actuators (Large, fig. 4A and ¶ 0036, each electrical element 62-67 is considered to be different group of piezoelectrical actuators, and each piezoelectrical element may operate independently of the others. Specification of the instant application explains, in ¶ 0046, the electrical isolation means the piezoelectrical actuators can be controlled individually).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the wafer polishing system of Weber as modified by Koike and Nakagawa to provide the isolated actuators as taught by Large so that different areas of a substrate can be treated differently for optimal polishing outcome.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weber.
Regarding claim 23, Weber discloses the wafer polishing head as in the rejection of claim 22, but does not disclose a width of the gap is less than 0.02 millimeters.
Weber discloses the gap is formed between the plate elements (17a-f), but does not disclose numerical values of the gaps. However, Weber teaches notches 24 of the gaps adjacent the ring-shaped sandwich structures allow axial relative movement of the adjacent sandwich structures (Weber English translation, p. 11:26-31). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the gap of Weber to provide its width to be less than 0.02 mm in order to allow each plate to have a room for expansion when the actuators are activated during polishing a substrate. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05(III).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 and 9 under 35 U.S.C. §103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Weber.
Applicant argues Large and Nakagawa do not teach or suggest the amended claim limitations that a plurality of first piezoelectric actuators, disposed in a first ring-shaped region of the carrier head, a plurality of second piezoelectric actuators, disposed in a second ring-shaped region of the carrier head, wherein the second ring-shaped region surrounds the first ring-shaped region, wherein the plurality of first piezoelectric actuators is connected to a first voltage, and the plurality of second piezoelectric actuators is connected to a second voltage different from the first voltage.
Examiner acknowledges it appears Large discloses a single piezoelectric actuator disposed in a single ring-shaped region. However, Weber discloses, in figs. 2-3 and Weber English translation, p. 10:30-33, a plurality of piezoelectric actuators 15 is evenly distributed over circumference of each ring-shaped regions (21b-f). Therefore, for example, the actuators distributed in a sandwich structure 21b are considered as the recited first piezoelectric actuators and the actuators distributed in a sandwich structure 21c are considered as the recited second piezoelectric actuators.
The secondary reference, Nakagawa, teaches the first piezoelectric actuators are connected to a first voltage and the second piezoelectric actuators are connected to a second voltage, and another secondary reference, Koike, teaches a control unit configured to receive a signal of an electrical charge generated by the plurality of piezoelectric actuators.
Therefore, Weber, Nakagawa, and Koike teach the amended claim limitations.
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 SUKWOO JAMES CHANG whose telephone number is (571)272-7402. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00a-5:00p.
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, David Posigian can be reached at (313) 446-6546. 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.
/S.J.C./Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/DAVID S POSIGIAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights