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 .
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 3-6, and 8-14 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
The prior arts on record fail to anticipate and/or suggest the combination of the claimed invention. Specifically, the prior arts fail to teach, inter alia, the limitation of “wherein each electrically insulating body has a first metallic layer on a first surface thereof, and a second metallic layer on a second surface thereof opposite to the first surface, and wherein the first metallic layers are positioned adjacent to a surface of the piezoelectric element, the surfaces of the piezoelectric element being opposite one another, whereby the first and the second metallic layers reduce a noise signal”.
The closest prior art, Janssen (US Publication 2016/0109306), teaches the first and second electrically insulating body (3, 9) and a piezoelectric element (10) arranged between the first and electrically insulating body (FIG. 1). However, Janssen teaches a singular metallic layer (5 or 7) on a first surface of each insulating body (3 or 9). Thus, Janssen does not teach the limitation of “wherein each electrically insulating body has a first metallic layer on a first surface thereof, and a second metallic layer on a second surface thereof opposite to the first surface” as required by the claims.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
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 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being anticipated by Janssen et al. (US Publication 2016/0109306; hereinafter Janssen).
With regards to claim 15, Janssen discloses (a) piezoelectric sensor device (FIG. 1) sensible to applied forces comprising
a piezoelectric element (10; [0021]) and
at least one electrically insulating body (3, 9; [0019, 0023]) attached to a surface of the piezoelectric element (10) so that the body is able to impart a force on the piezoelectric element (FIG. 1),
the piezoelectric element (10) and the at least one electrically insulating body (3, 9), constituting a sensor element arrangement, at least one of the piezoelectric element (10) and the electrically insulating body (3, 9) being further in mechanical contact at first adjacent surfaces (surface of 3 or 9) with a second body (1, 15; FIG. 1),
wherein at least the first adjacent surface of the second body (1 or 15) in contact with the at least one of the piezoelectric element and the insulating body (3 or 9) is metallic ([0024]),
wherein the first adjacent surface of the at least one of the piezoelectric element (10) and the electrically insulating body (3, 9) is a metallic surface (5, 7) substantially consisting of a metallic material ([0026-0028]) in order to reduce a noise signal, in particular a noise signal originating from differing thermal expansion of the at least one of the piezoelectric element and the electrically insulating body and the adjacent second body (because the material of Janssen is a metallic material as required by the claim, the material of Janssen would have the property of “reduce a noise signal” as claimed),
wherein the metallic surface is a layer of a metal which is substantially free of carbon (“made of titanium and/or aluminium and/or aluminium-chromium”; [0020-0022]).
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.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Janssen et al. (US Publication 2016/0109306; hereinafter Janssen) in view of Shih (US Patent 9,970,831).
With regards to claim 16, Janssen teaches (a) piezoelectric sensor device (FIG. 1) sensible to applied forces comprising
a piezoelectric element (10; [0021]) and
at least one electrically insulating body (3, 9; [0019, 0023]) attached to a surface of the piezoelectric element (10) so that the body is able to impart a force on the piezoelectric element (FIG. 1),
the piezoelectric element (10) and the at least one electrically insulating body (3, 9), constituting a sensor element arrangement, at least one of the piezoelectric element (10) and the electrically insulating body (3, 9) being further in mechanical contact at first adjacent surfaces (surface of 3 or 9) with a second body (1, 15; FIG. 1),
wherein at least the first adjacent surface of the second body (1 or 15) in contact with the at least one of the piezoelectric element and the insulating body (3 or 9) is metallic ([0024]),
wherein the first adjacent surface of the at least one of the piezoelectric element (10) and the electrically insulating body (3, 9) is a metallic surface (5, 7) substantially consisting of a metallic material ([0026-0028]) in order to reduce a noise signal, in particular a noise signal originating from differing thermal expansion of the at least one of the piezoelectric element and the electrically insulating body and the adjacent second body (because the material of Janssen is a metallic material as required by the claim, the material of Janssen would have the property of “reduce a noise signal” as claimed).
However, Janssen is silent regarding wherein the metallic surface is a layer of a precious metal or of an alloy comprising at least 50 wt.-% of a precious metal.
Shih teaches a piezoelectric thin film sensor (abstract) similar to Janssen and the instant invention. Shih further teaches the metallic surface (114, 118) on each side of the piezoelectric layer (116) is a layer of a precious metal or of an alloy comprising at least 50 wt.-% of a precious metal (col. 5, lines 39-60).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to replace one known metal material usable as a layer in a piezoelectric sensor as taught by Janssen with another known metal material as taught by Shih with reasonable expectation of functioning as originally intended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 03/04/2026, with respect to the previously rejected claims have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. § 102 rejection of claims 1-14 has been withdrawn.
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 QUANG X.L NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1585. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9AM-5PM.
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, STEPHEN D. MEIER can be reached at (571) 272-2149. 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.
/QXN/Examiner, Art Unit 2853
/STEPHEN D MEIER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2853
Prosecution Insights