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 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. 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 1-4, 6, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0303619 A1 to Kodani et al. in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0015120 A1 to Kaimori et al . Kodani et al. discloses a bimorph-type piezoelectric film, comprising: a piezoelectric base film (14) made of “ a polymer as a base material ” (see paragraphs [0049], [0221], [0223], and [0225]) ; and a transparent (see paragraphs [0080], [0140], [0125], [0156], [0190], and [0198]) coating layer (12) having a thickness of 0.20 µ m or more (see paragraph [0159]) ; and a transparent adhesive layer ( 13; see Figure 1) . However, it fails to disclose s a id piezoelectric base film being made of a fluororesin . Kaimori et al. discloses a piezoelectric element including fluororesin film, comprising : “ a piezoelectric element formed of a highly-transparent fluororesin film, 2.5 µ m is preferably used as the threshold value ” (see paragraph [0065]). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to use the “ highly-transparent fluororesin film ” disclosed by Kaimori et al . on the bimorph-type piezoelectric film disclosed by Kodani et al., for the purpose of obtaining the “ effect of reducing diffused reflection of light at the surface and easily obtaining a highly-transparent piezoelectric element ” (see paragraph [0086]) . With regards to claim 2, Kodani et al. discloses: the thickness of the transparent coating layer be i ng 4.0 µ m or less (see paragraph [0 154 ]) . With regards to claim 3, Kodani et al. discloses: the transparent coating layer be i ng made of a (meth)acrylic acid ester resin (see paragraph [006 3 ] , [0148], and [0149] ) . With regards to claim 4, Kodani et al. discloses: the transparent adhesive layer contains an acrylic resin-based adhesive (see paragraphs [0 14 2], [0 143 ], [01 45 ], and [0148] – [0155] ) . With regards to claim 6 , Kodani et al. discloses: the transparent coating layer and the transparent adhesive layer be i ng disposed on both surface sides of the transparent piezoelectric film , respectively (see Figure 1) . With regards to claim 7 , Kodani et al. discloses: a touch panel (see paragraphs [0002] – [0004], [0007], [0008], [0022], [0023], [0025], [0026], [0185] – [0189], [0192] – [0197], and [0241]) comprising the transparent piezoelectric laminated film described in paragraph 6 above . Claims 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0303619 A1 to Kodani et al. in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0015120 A1 to Kaimori et al . as applied to claim s 1-4, 6, and 7 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2001/0045880 A1 to Czimmek . Kodani et al. in view of Kaimori et al. disclose a bimorph-type piezoelectric film as described in paragraph 6 above. However, they fail to disclose a Δ E , when the transparent piezoelectric laminated film is left in an environment of 85°C and 85% RH for 300 hours , being 4.0 or less. Czimmek discloses a magnetostrictive electronic valve timing actuator, comprising: a piezoelectric transducer (see paragraph [0007]) having a Δ E that, if and when the transparent piezoelectric laminated film is left in an environment of 85°C and 85% RH for 300 hours , would be in the range of 4.0 or less (see Figure 3) . It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to use the ΔE disclosed by Czimmek on the bimorph-type piezoelectric film disclosed b y Kodani et al. in view of Kaimori et al., for the purpose of obtaining a desired electric field from a specific piezoelectric material . Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Enter examiner's name" \* MERGEFORMAT PEDRO J CUEVAS whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-2021 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT 9:00 AM - 6:00 PM . 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 Jessica Han can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571) 272-2078 . 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. /PEDRO J CUEVAS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2896 March 25, 2026