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
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Specification
The specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant's cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: the dependency is not clear. For examination purposes, Claim 10 depends from claim 1. Appropriate correction is required.
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 of this title, 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.
Claims 1 and 3-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morishita (US20200227621, hereinafter Morishita) in view of Kawada et al. (US20080061263, hereinafter Kawada).
Regarding claim 1, Morishita discloses piezoelectric thin-film element (Fig. 1), comprising: a first electrode layer (2); a piezoelectric thin film (3) stacked on the first electrode layer; and a second electrode layer (4) stacked on the piezoelectric thin film.
However, Morishita fails to disclose the performance index of the piezoelectric film as between 10% and 80.1%. Kawada discloses a piezoelectric ceramic composition having a performance index of 22.3%. In paragraph [0017], Kawada discloses the equation
d
=
k
p
ε
T
Y
. Rearranging the equation, P=(kp)2. Specifically, in Table 2, Morita discloses kp(%) values, equivalent to a performance index of the ceramic is between 10% to 80.1%. The lead-free piezoelectric ceramic composition disclosed by Kawada has superior properties and is better for the environment. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to utilize the ceramic composition disclosed by Kawada in the piezoelectric thin film element disclosed by Morishita since the piezoelectric characteristics of the ceramic were demonstrated to be superior and is considered environmentally friendly.
Regarding claim 3, Morishita discloses an intermediate layer comprising SrRuO₃ and LaNiO₃ (paragraph [0082]).
Regarding claim 4, Morishita discloses the piezoelectric thin film contains a metal oxide having a perovskite structure, the metal oxide contains bismuth, potassium, titanium, iron, and an element M, and the element M is at least one element between magnesium and nickel. (Abstract, paragraph [0045])
Regarding claim 5, please refer to the abstract and paragraphs [0051-52].
Regarding claim 6, Morita discloses c/a >1 (paragraph [0051]).
Regarding claim 7, the thickness of the piezoelectric thin film is between 10nm-10mm. (paragraph [0060])
Regarding claim 8, the claimed limitation is not a structural limitation and therefore given little patentable weight.
Regarding claims 9 and 10, the combination of Morishita and Kawada describes the claimed invention. See paragraph [0086] of Morishita.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 2 is 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jaydi San Martin whose telephone number is (571)272-2018. The examiner can normally be reached on M-Th 7:45-6:00pm.
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 Hammond can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/J. San Martin/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2837
Prosecution Insights