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 .
Election/Restrictions
Newly submitted claims 26-35 are directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons: claims 26-31 drawn to a method for forming a piezoelectric and claims 32-35 drawn to another method for forming a piezoelectric device. Original claims 16-20 and newly added claims 21-15 are independent and distinct from newly added claims 26-35 and are related as subcombinations disclosed as usable together in a single combination. The subcombinations are distinct if they do not overlap in scope and are not obvious variants, and if it is shown that at least one subcombination is separately usable. In the instant case, subcombination of claims 16-25 has separate utility such as forming first and second movable elements having the same layout; while the subcombination of claims 26-31 has separate utility such as performing a third patterning process on the third conductive layer and subcombination of claims 32-35 has separate utility such as forming a plurality of elongated electrode segments adjacent to the first electrode plate. See MPEP § 806.05(d).
The examiner has required restrictions between subcombinations usable together. Where applicant elects a subcombination and claims thereto are subsequently found allowable, any claim(s) depending from or otherwise requiring all the limitations of the allowable subcombination will be examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. See MPEP § 821.04(a). Applicant is advised that if any claim presented in a divisional application is anticipated by, or includes all the limitations of, a claim that is allowable in the present application, such claim may be subject to provisional statutory and/or nonstatutory double patenting rejections over the claims of the instant application.
If applicant has filed these claims prior to the previous Office Action. They would be restricted at that time. Accordingly, claims 26-35 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
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.
Claims 16, 19-21 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent 12,665,572 to Weng et al.
Regarding claim 16, Weng et al disclose a method for forming a piezoelectric device, comprising: forming a stack of piezoelectric layers over a first substrate (see Fig. 3C), wherein the stack of piezoelectric layers comprises a first conductive layer (130) disposed on a piezoelectric structure (100a); performing a first patterning process on the first conductive layer to form a first conductive structure comprising one or more first movable elements (133) on the piezoelectric structure; forming a first dielectric structure (180) on the first conductive structure (see Fig. 3E); performing a bonding process to bond the first dielectric structure to a second substrate (210, see Fig. 3I; and
forming a second conductive structure (160) on an upper surface of the piezoelectric
structure (see Fig. 3K), wherein the second conductive structure comprises one or more second movable elements (163), wherein a layout of the one or more first movable elements (133) is the same as a layout of the one or more second movable elements (163, see Figs. 1B and 1C).
Regarding claim 19, Weng et al disclose the bonding process is
performed without optical alignment (no optical alignment mentions in the bonding process).
Regarding claim 20, Weng et al disclose forming cavity (145) within the first dielectric structure before bonding process (see Fig. 1E).
Regarding claim 21, Weng et al disclose the one or more first movable
elements (IDTs) comprise a first plurality of elongated electrode segments spaced between a first pair of electrode plates (303/304), wherein the one or more second movable elements comprise a second plurality of elongated electrode segments spaced between a second pair of electrode plates (311/312), wherein the first pair of electrode plates (304/312) are vertically spaced from the second pair of electrode plates by a first vertical distance (see Fig. 1A), wherein the first plurality of elongated electrode segments are vertically spaced from the second plurality of elongated electrode segments by a second vertical distance less than the first vertical distance (see Figs. 1B-1E).
Regarding claim 23, Weng et al disclose removing the first substrate (100b) after the bonding process (see Figs. 1I-J).
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.
Claims 17-18 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weng et al in view of U.S. Patent 5,403,701 to Lum et al.
Weng et al does not disclose the patterning process of forming the movable elements on using a plurality of alignment marks. Lum et al teaching the step of patterning (photolithographic processing) a conductive layer a piezoelectric layer using alignment (see Fig. 6) for achieving patterns having critical linewidth (see Col. 4, lines 8-15) as well as aligning the patterns on upper surface to the patterns on bottom surface of the substrate (see Col. 7, lines 18-21). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention Weng et al by utilizing the plurality of alignment marks in the patterning process as taught by Lum et al for aligning the patterns on an upper surface to the patterns on lower surface of the substrate.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 24-25 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim 16, 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. Prior art references cited for their general teaching of forming a piezoelectric device.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DONGHAI D NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-4566. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-5:30.
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, Peter Vo can be reached at 571-272-4690. 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.
/DN/ /DONGHAI D NGUYEN/September 5, 2026 Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3729
Prosecution Insights