Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/191,490

SUBSTRATE WITH A PIEZOELECTRIC FILM AND PIEZOELECTRIC ELEMENT

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Mar 28, 2023
Examiner
GORDON, BRYAN P
Art Unit
2837
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Fujifilm Corporation
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
77%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 2m
To Grant
91%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 77% — above average
77%
Career Allow Rate
741 granted / 965 resolved
+8.8% vs TC avg
Moderate +14% lift
Without
With
+14.3%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 2m
Avg Prosecution
21 currently pending
Career history
986
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.3%
-39.7% vs TC avg
§103
54.9%
+14.9% vs TC avg
§102
35.2%
-4.8% vs TC avg
§112
8.8%
-31.2% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 965 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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. 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. Claim(s) 1-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hara (JP 2008210924). Considering claim 1, Hara (Figure 3) teaches a substrate with a piezoelectric film, comprising, on a substrate in the following order: a lower electrode layer (15 + paragraph 0045); a piezoelectric film (14 + paragraph 0048); wherein in a case where B is denoted as a B site element in a perovskite type structure, the piezoelectric film includes, a first region (14b + paragraph 0048) containing a perovskite type oxide represented by General Formula (1), PbδBO3 (1), 1 < δ < 1.5 and a second region consisting of the same elements as elements in the first region and containing an oxide represented by General Formula (2), PbδBO3 (2) and the second region (14a + paragraph 0048) is provided on an outermost layer of the piezoelectric film opposite to the lower electrode layer. Furthermore, Hara discloses the claimed invention except for a first region containing a perovskite type oxide represented by PbδBO3 (1), 1 < δ < 1.5 and a second region consisting of the same elements perovskite type oxide represented by PbάBO3 (1), δ/3 < ά < δ. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include, a perovskite type oxide represented by PbδBO3 (1), 1 < δ < 1.5 and a second region consisting of the same elements perovskite type oxide represented by PbάBO3 (1), δ/3 < ά < δ, since it has been held that the provision of adjustability, where needed, involves only routine skill in the art. Considering claim 2, Hara teaches wherein in General Formula (1), B = (ZrxTi1-x)1-yMy is satisfied, where M is one or more elements selected from V, Nb (paragraph 0046), Ta, Sb, Mo and W. Considering claim 3, Hara (Figure 3) teaches wherein a thickness of the second region is more than 1 nm (14a + paragraph 0049). Considering claim 4, Hara discloses a piezoelectric film except for a thickness of the second region is 20 nm or less. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have a thickness of the second region is 20 nm or less, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. Considering claim 5, Hara teaches wherein in the second region, a compositional ratio ά in General Formula (2) decreases monotonically from a first region side toward the outermost surface (the limitation is met since the structure is taught). Considering claim 6, Hara (Figure 3) teaches the substrate with a piezoelectric film and an upper electrode layer (15 + paragraph 0045) provided on the piezoelectric film. Claim(s) 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hara (JP 2008210924) and in view of Maruyama (PG Pub 20190235686). Considering claim 7, Hara (Figure 3) teaches wherein at least a region of the upper electrode layer (15 + paragraph 0045), the region being in contact with the piezoelectric film (14 + paragraph 0046). However, Hara does not teach wherein the upper electrode layer is a conductive oxide. Maruyama (Figure 3) teaches wherein the upper electrode layer is a conductive oxide (14 + paragraph 0018). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the upper electrode layer is a conductive oxide into Hara’s device for the benefit of using a well-known and common matter for matter of design choice. Considering claim 8, Maruyama (Figure 3) teaches wherein the conductive oxide is ITO (14 + paragraph 0018), Ir oxide or SRO. 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
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Mar 28, 2023
Application Filed
Feb 19, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12604666
LAMINATED PIEZOELECTRIC ELEMENT
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12603638
ACOUSTIC WAVE DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12603637
PIEZOELECTRIC VIBRATION DEVICE AND MANUFACTURING METHOD THEREFOR
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12604667
PIEZOELECTRIC DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12588417
PIEZOELECTRIC ELEMENT
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
77%
Grant Probability
91%
With Interview (+14.3%)
3y 2m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 965 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month