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
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 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murakami et al. (US 2019/0157542; “Murakami”; reference of record) in view of Murakami et al. (US 2018/0254406; “Murakami406”; reference of record).
Regarding claim 1, Murakami teaches a piezoelectric laminate (figure 1) comprising, on a substrate (11) in the following order:
a lower electrode layer (12) made of a metal (Ti; para. [0050]); and
a piezoelectric film (14),
wherein a seed layer (13) consisting of a conductive oxide (para. [0051]) is provided between the lower electrode layer (12) and the piezoelectric film (14), and
the piezoelectric film (14) contains a perovskite-type oxide (para. [0030]) represented by General Formula I,
Pb1-y2+αAy2{(Ti, Zr)1-x-y1NbxB1y1}O3 General Formula I
wherein,
A is an A site element, which is one or more elements (para. [0031]),
B1 is a B site element, which is one or more divalent or trivalent elements (para. [0032]),
O is an oxygen element (O), and
x, y1, y2, and α satisfy:
0.05<x≤0.3 (Variable x in Murakami corresponds to variable x in claim 1; para. [0030]),
0.2x≤y1+y2≤0.5x (See values of x and y in para. [0030] and [0034] of Murakami. Also, y2=0 in Murakami.),
0≤y1≤0.15 (Variable y in Murakami corresponds to variable y1 in claim 1; para. [0034]),
0≤y2≤0.15 (y2=0 in Murakami), and
0≤α≤0.2 (Variable δ in Murakami corresponds to variable α in claim 1; para. [0031]).
Murakami fails to teach the A site element including La.
However, it is well-known to those of ordinary skill in the to utilize La as an element for the A-site in a perovskite oxide. For example, see para. [0031]-[0034] of Murakami406.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize La for the A-site element of Murakami because such a modification would have been utilizing a well-known A-site element in a perovskite oxide.
As for claim 2, Murakami teaches wherein B1 is at least one of Ni, Co, or Sc (para. [0032]).
Regarding claim 3, Murakami teaches wherein the seed layer is cubic crystalline or pseudo-cubic crystalline and has a lattice constant of 0.4 nm or less (Seed layer 13 can be formed from LaNiO3 and SrRuO3, which are cubic crystalline structures with lattice constants of 0.4 nm or less. Para. [0051]).
Regarding claim 4, Murakami teaches wherein the piezoelectric film has crystal aligning properties in which crystals are preferentially aligned in a film thickness direction (para. [0040]-[0041]).
Regarding claims 5 and 6, Murakami teaches wherein in the piezoelectric film, an internal stress is a tensile stress in a range of 50 to 250 MPa; wherein the piezoelectric film has a characteristic that a slope changes in electric field-strain characteristics in a case where an electric field of 0 kV/cm to 200 kV/cm is applied in a film thickness direction (Because the piezoelectric film of Murakami is represented by the same General Formula I as the instant application (discussed above in the rejection of claim 1), the piezoelectric film of Murakami will have values of tensile stress and slope changes in electric field-strains within the same ranges as the instant application.).
As for claim 7, Murakami teaches wherein the seed layer (13) is LaNiO3 or SrRuO3 (Para. [0051]).
Regarding claim 8, Murakami teaches a piezoelectric element comprising: the piezoelectric laminate according to claim 1; and an upper electrode layer (15) formed on the piezoelectric film (14).
Regarding claim 9, Murakami modified by Murakami406 teaches wherein, in General Formula I, at least one of the following is satisfied:
A is La (See modification discussed in rejection of claim 1 above), or
B1 is at least one selected from the group consisting of Ni, Co, and Sc (para. [0032] of Murakami).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/06/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s comments directed to the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murakami in view of Murakami406, Applicant argues:
Argument #1: Murakami fails to teach seed layer 13 consisting of a conductive oxide. See bottom of page 5 of Applicant’s remarks.
Response to Argument #1: Para. [0051] teaches seed layer 13 consisting of conductive oxide LaNiO3 or conductive oxide SrRuO3.
Argument #2: “Neither Murakami, nor Murakami '406, discloses a functional laminated structure in which a seed layer consisting of a conductive oxide is specifically interposed between a metal lower electrode and a piezoelectric film, to control the crystal orientation and stress of the piezoelectric film.” See top of page 6 of Applicant’s remarks.
Response to Argument #2: Murakami teaches a seed layer (13) consisting of a conductive oxide (para. [0051]) provided between a lower metal electrode layer (Layer 12 is made of Ti. Para. [0050]) and a piezoelectric film (14).
Argument #3: Combining a conductive oxide seed layer with a specific addition amount (0.2x≤y1+y2≤0.5x) provides remarkable results that are not realized by the combination of Murakami and Murakami406. See bottom of page 6 and top of page 7 of Applicant’s remarks.
Response to Argument #3: An allegation of unexpected/remarkable results is an argument to overcome a rejection under 35 U.S.C 103 by demonstrating that a novel combination of elements could not be formed from a combination of references because the novel combination of elements provides unexpected results realized only by the Applicant (MPEP § 716.02).
However, in the instant case, the alleged novel combination of elements (a combination of a conductive oxide seed layer with a specific addition amount (0.2x≤y1+y2≤0.5x)) does not require teaching from the secondary reference to Murakami406 (See page 7 of Applicant’s remarks). As discussed in the rejection of claim 1 above, the primary reference to Murakami teaches this combination of claim elements.
Because the allegation of remarkable results stems from a combination of a conductive oxide seed layer with a specific addition amount (0.2x≤y1+y2≤0.5x) and this combination is taught by the primary reference to Murakami without requiring additional features from the secondary reference to Murakami406, this argument is found unpersuasive to overcome the combination of references to Murakami and Murakami406.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 LEVI GANNON whose telephone number is (571)272-7971. The examiner can normally be reached 7:00AM-4:30PM.
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, Menatoallah Youssef can be reached at 571-270-3684. 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.
/LEVI GANNON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2836 July 20, 2026
Prosecution Insights