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
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I, corresponding to claims 1-7, in reply filed on August 12, 2025 is acknowledged. Claims 8-20 are withdrawn from consideration.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 1-5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Rowe (US 11,602,839 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Rowe discloses a film deformation element (see at least Figures 3-4), comprising:
a first stack (see at least Figures 3-4, item 194 | col. 4, lines 58-59, note the (upper) electrode region 194), comprising:
a first passivation layer (see at least Figures 3-4, item 124 | col. 4, lines 32-35, note the housing 110 comprises a second film layer 124 and a first film layer 122);
a first substrate on the first passivation layer (see at least Figures 3-4, item 105 | | col. 5, lines 40-44, note the second electrode 108 may be in contact with the second support polymer 105 which is disposed between the second electrode 108 and the second inner surface 116 of the second film layer 124);
a first metal layer on the first substrate (see at least Figures 3-4, item 108 | col. 5, lines 40, note the second electrode 108 may be in contact with the second support polymer 105); and
a first dielectric layer on the first metal layer (see at least Figures 3-4, item 112 | col. 4, lines 1-6, note the second electrode insulator 112 is coupled with the second electrode 108); and
a second stack (see at least Figures 3-4, item 194 | col. 4, lines 58-59, note the (lower) electrode region 194), bonded to the first stack (see at least col. 7, lines 63-65, note sealed via adhesive, etc.) to form a sealing space (see at least Figures 3-4, item 196 | col. 4, lines 58-59, note the region 196), and comprising:
a second dielectric layer, disposed on the first dielectric layer and facing the first dielectric layer (see at least Figures 3-4, item 111);
a second metal layer on the second dielectric layer (see at least Figures 3-4, item 106);
a second substrate on the second metal layer (see at least Figures 3-4, item 103); and
a second passivation layer on the second substrate (see at least Figures 3-4, item 122).
Regarding claim 2, Rowe, as addressed above, discloses an adhesion layer, wherein the first passivation layer and the second passivation layer are adhered to each other by the adhesion layer (see at least Figures 3-4, items 124 and 122 | col. 7, lines 63-65, note sealed via adhesive, etc.).
Regarding claim 3, Rowe further discloses wherein sidewalls of the first substrate, the first metal layer and the first dielectric layer are substantially flush (see at least Figures 3-4, items 108 and 112 | col. 7, lines 21-27).
With respect to claim 3, it is noted that in column 7, lines 21-27, Rowe states “it should be understood that embodiments are contemplated in which the outer perimeter 178, 180 of the first electrode insulator 111 and the second electrode insulator 112 correspond to the outer perimeter 138 of the first electrode 106 and the outer perimeter 160 of the second electrode 108, respectively, when positioned thereon.”
In this case, when the surface of the first support polymer 103 and the second support polymer 105 that contact the first electrode 106 and the second electrode 108 are interpreted as sidewalls, i.e., a wall forming the side of something, then the first support polymer 103 and the second support polymer 105 provide the overhang for sealing, and all sidewalls are substantially flush.
Regarding claim 4, Rowe, as addressed above, discloses wherein the first passivation layer has a housing space, and the first substrate, the first metal layer and the first dielectric layer are sequentially stacked on a bottom surface of the housing space (see at least Figures 3-4, items 124→105→108→112).
Regarding claim 5, Rowe, as addressed above, discloses wherein a sidewall of the first substrate is separated from an inner sidewall of the first passivation layer by the housing space (see at least Figures 3-4, note the separation between 105 and 124 next to label 180).
Regarding claim 7, Rowe, as addressed above, discloses wherein a schematic top view of at least one of the first metal layer and the second metal layer is a square, a circle, multiple concentric square rings, multiple concentric circular rings, a spiral, patterns in an array or a combination thereof (see at least Figures 1, items 106 and 108, note the first and second metal layers are patterns in an array).
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 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rowe (US 11,602,839 B2) in view of Park (US 2017/0278920 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Rowe further discloses wherein a material of the first passivation layer and the second passivation layer comprises biaxially oriented polypropylene (BOPP) (see at least col. 4, lines 52-64).
However, Rowe does not specifically disclose polydimethylsiloxane (PDMS), trimethylsiloxy group (Si-SH3), hexamethyldisiloxane (HMDSO) or a combination thereof.
It is known to use a variety of different films for protection. For example, Park teaches using polydimethylsiloxane (PDMS), trimethylsiloxy group (Si-SH3), hexamethyldisiloxane (HMDSO) or a combination thereof (see at least [0211] note the first protection film 410 and the second protection film 420 can be biaxially oriented polypropylene (BOPP) or polydimethylsiloxane (PDMS)).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features of Park into Rowe. This provides a known alternative film that can be use in place of, or in addition to, Rowe’s film while providing predictable results.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN WILSON whose telephone number is 571-270-5884. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00-5:00pm.
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, CURTIS KUNTZ can be reached at 571-272-7499. 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.
/BRIAN WILSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2687