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. Priority Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in EP on 10/14/2021 . It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the EP 20203952.5 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b ) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the appl icant regards as his invention. Claims 1 – 5, 7 – 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. In claims 1, 13, 15, the statement “it comprises” is indefinite since the statement does not refer properly to component. In claim 1, the statement “called LNT” is indefinite since it is not clear to which layer the statement is referring and if the statement is a positive recited limitation or just intended use or phrase. The statement “said flexible piezoelectric device” lacks antecedent basis. In claim 1, line 3, the chemical formulas need to be spelled out and also it is not clear which chemical formula refers or is related to the “called LNT”. Also, it is not clear which one is the substrate layer and what element are related to the piezoelectric layer. In claims 2 – 5, 7 – 15, the usage of the word “characterized” does not conform to common US practice claim language. It is not clear how the claims are characterized with respect to the claim elements. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 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 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 (s) 1, 3, 4, 8 – 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guenard et al (US 2018/0316329) in view of Sung (WO 2013/019073) . Guenard et al discloses, regarding, Claim 1 , Flexible piezoelectric device for energy harvesting [0083] characterized in that it comprises a flexible substrate layer 1 which comprises an upper face and a lower face (see Fig. 1c) , and at least one LiNbO 3 and/or LiTaO 3 film [0013] , called LNT film bonded to one of the faces of the flexible substrate layer, wherein thickness t f of said at least one LNT film is chosen between a use range of 5 to 50 micrometers [0013]. The problem to be solve appears to bend the piezoelectric layer according to a certain frequency. Such modification is well-known in the art. For example, Sung discloses, a harvesting device having a piezoelectric layer in which the total thickness (t= ts+tf ) of said flexible piezoelectric device is selected so as to achieve a predetermined magnitude of deflection (Fig s . 2, 6) of said flexible piezoelectric device according to a target resonance frequency (see Tech Solution sub-title; Figs. 2, 6 and spec description related to Figs. 2, 6) The Prior Art further discloses, regarding, Claim 3 , the flexible substrate layer is made of a metallic material since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin , 125 USPQ 416 . Claim 4 , the flexible substrate comprises at least one of nickel (Ni), copper (Cu), iron (Fe), aluminium (Al), titanium (Ti), as well as alloys and combinations thereof since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin , 125 USPQ 416 . Claim 8, thickness tf of said LNT film and thickness ts of said flexible substrate layer are selected so as to optimize the cal coupling k2 of said flexible piezoelectric device, as a function of the thickness ration ts / tf since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller , 105 USPQ 233 . Claim 9, film thickness, tf , of said LNT film is selected so as to extend deflexional limit of said LNT film during use film since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller , 105 USPQ 233 . Claim 10, the orientation [of piezoelectric tensor] of crystals of LiNbO3 and/or LiTaO3 forming said LNT film is chosen so as to optimized the deflexional coupling factor value k23 of said LNT film since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller , 105 USPQ 233 . Claim 12, width of the device is about 10 mm, length is comprised between 40 mm and 100 mm and resonance frequency is comprised between 10 Hz and 200 Hz since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller , 105 USPQ 233. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to design the device as disclosed by Guenard et al and to modify the invention per the limitations disclosed by Sung for the purpose of maximizing the power output of an energy harvesters. Claim(s) 2, 5, 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guenard et al and Sung as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Inman et al (US 2015/0365018) . The combined device discloses all of the elements above. However, the combined device does not disclose the elements below. On the other hand, Inman et al , discloses, regarding, Claim 2 , the thickness t f of said at least one LNT film is adapted according to a target output power to deliver by said flexible piezoelectric device during use Fig. 12; 0034) . Claim 5, the geometry of said flexible piezoelectric device is adapted selected according to a target output power to deliver by said flexible piezoelectric device during use (see Fig. 1, paragraphs 006, 0027, 0032). Claim 11, orientation of piezoelectric tensor around X-axis is defined by 0 angle according to IEEE standard, the bending occurring in the plane perpendicular to X-axis, and the 0 angle value belonging to the group consisting of:- approximatively 360 equivalent to ( YXl )/36°;- approximatively 128° equivalent to ( YXl )/128- approximatively 137° equivalent to ( YXl )/137°;- approximatively 163° equivalent to ( YXl )/163 since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller , 105 USPQ 233 . It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to design the combined device as disclosed above and to modify the invention per the limitations disclosed by Inman et al for the purpose of efficiently using a transducer over a wide range of frequencies. Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guenard et al and Sung as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Funaki (US 2002/0079786) . The combined device discloses all of the elements above. However, the combined device does not disclose the elements below. On the other hand, Funaki , discloses, regarding, Claim 7, the film thickness, tf , of said flexible piezoelectric device is adapted selected so as to achieve a predetermined capacitance of said flexible piezoelectric device according to a target resonance frequency (Fig. 4; paragraph 0031). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to design the combined device as disclosed above and to modify the invention per the limitations disclosed by Funaki for the purpose of improving the attenuation characteristics of a resonator. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 13, 14, 15 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. The cited prior art of record does not disclose the method of manufacturing the device as specifically recited in such claims. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT Julio C. Gonzalez whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-2024 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-F . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Abdullah Riyami can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 5712703119 . 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. FILLIN "Examiner Stamp" \* MERGEFORMAT /Julio C. Gonzalez/ Primary Examiner Art Unit 2831 March 11, 2026