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 .
Drawings
The drawings were received on July 4, 2023. These drawings are accepted.
Claim Objections
Applicant is advised that should claim 7 be found allowable, claim 8 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Examiner Comments
The Examiner has cited particular columns and line numbers, paragraphs, or figures in the reference(s) as applied to the claims for the convenience of the Applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the Applicant, in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
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, 3, 4, 6-9, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim (US 2018/0009003 A1).
As per claim 1, Kim (US 2018/0009003 A1) discloses a vibration device (e.g., 2; see, inter alia, Fig. 13), comprising: a vibration element (e.g., 6); a substrate (e.g., 4 and/or 16 and/or 20) having a placement surface (e.g., surface upon which the piezoelectric element layer (6) is placed - e.g. see Fig. 13) on which the vibration element (e.g., 6) is placed; a wall portion (e.g. vertical walls of (20) - see Fig. 13) formed around the placement surface; and a potting layer (e.g., 10) for sealing the vibration element (6) placed on the placement surface of the substrate (e.g., 4 and/or 16 and/or 20) inside the wall portion surrounded by the wall portion (e.g., vertical walls of (20) - see Fig. 13), wherein the substrate (e.g., 4 and/or 16 and/or 20) comprises: a base film (e.g., 4 and/or 16) on which the placement surface is formed; and a protective film (e.g., 20) laminated on the base film (e.g., 4 and/or 16) and having an opening (e.g., the space between the vertical walls of (20)) corresponding to the placement surface, wherein the wall portion is formed by a step between by the placement surface of the base film and the protective film. That is, the wall portion, particularly that vertical portion extending above the plane in which element (6) horizontality resides, is vertically formed, and as such, is considered a step, wherein the potting layer (e.g., 10) has a height from the placement surface (e.g., surface upon which the piezoelectric element layer (6) is placed - e.g. see Fig. 13) equal to or less than the wall portion (e.g., vertical walls of (20) - see Fig. 13, wherein the height of the vertical wall portions of (20) clearly exceeds the height of the layer (10) in an upward direction), wherein a thickness of the protective film (e.g., 20) is substantially the same as a thickness of the base film (e.g., 4) – see Examiner mark-up of Fig. 13 of Kim (US 2018/0009003 A1).
PNG
media_image1.png
622
820
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As per claims 3 and 4, wherein the potting layer (e.g. 10) is formed so as not to protrude from the inside of the wall portion. Fig. 13.
As per claim 6, wherein the potting layer (10) has a height from the placement surface equal to or less than the wall portion - see Fig. 13, wherein the potting layer (10) does not extend above the vertical walls of (20).
As per claims 7 and 8, wherein the vibration element (6) is a thin-film piezoelectric element that vibrates when energized, and the substrate (e.g., including layer (4)) is a thin-film flexible printed circuit board. See paragraph [0033].
As per claim 9, a vibration apparatus, comprising a vibration device (2).
As per claim 11, Kim (US 1) further discloses a method for manufacturing a vibration device (e.g., 2; see, inter alia, Fig. 13) provided with a vibration element (e.g., 6), the method comprising: forming a substrate (e.g., 4 and/or 16 and/or 20) by laminating a protective film (e.g., 20) having an opening (e.g., the space between the vertical walls of (20)) on a base film (e.g., 4 and/or 16); placing the vibration element (e.g., 6) in the opening of the protective film (20) on the substrate (e.g., 4 and/or 16 and/or 20); and sealing the vibration element (e.g., 6) placed in the opening of the protective film (20) on the substrate by potting (e.g., via layer (10)),
wherein a thickness of the protective film (e.g., 20) is substantially the same as a thickness of the base film (e.g., 4) – see Examiner mark-up of Fig. 13 of Kim (US 2018/0009003 A1), supra - note that method steps are not expressly enumerated in a particular order, and as such, the Examiner maintains that Kim (US 2018/0009003 A1) anticipates such steps as articulated, supra.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed July 21, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant alleges that “the soundproof case 20 of Kim is a separate cover formed of metal, plastic, etc. and placed on the substrate (see para. [0058] of Kim), rather than a protective film laminated on the base file. Therefore, Kim does not disclose the feature ‘a protective film laminated on the base film and having an opening corresponding to the placement surface’ as recited in the amended claim 1 of the application.”
The Examiner maintains that the element (2) of Kim (US 2018/0009003 A1) functionally and structurally meets the limitations as provided for in the claims, as currently drafted.
More concretely, the protective film (e.g., 20) is laminated on the base film (e.g., 4 and/or 16) and has an opening (e.g., the space between the vertical walls of (20)) corresponding to the placement surface, wherein the wall portion is formed by a step between by the placement surface of the base film and the protective film. That is, the wall portion, particularly that vertical portion extending above the plane in which element (6) horizontality resides, is vertically formed, and as such, is considered a step, wherein the potting layer (e.g., 10) has a height from the placement surface (e.g., surface upon which the piezoelectric element layer (6) is placed - e.g. see Fig. 13) equal to or less than the wall portion (e.g., vertical walls of (20) - see Fig. 13, wherein the height of the vertical wall portions of (20) clearly exceeds the height of the layer (10) in an upward direction).
The Applicant further opines that the insulation member 10 of Kim as the potting “is merely a film or coating for preventing voltage leakage (see para. [0034] of Kim), which is not filled and sealed inside the wall portion. Therefore, Kim does not disclose the feature ‘a potting
layer for sealing the vibration element placed on the placement surface of the substrate
inside the wall portion surrounded by the wall portion’ as recited in claim 1 of the application.”
The Examiner maintains that the element (10) functionally and structurally meets the limitations as provided for in the claims, as currently drafted.
More specifically, a potting layer (e.g., 10) is provided for sealing the vibration element (6) placed on the placement surface of the substrate (e.g., 4 and/or 16 and/or 20) inside the wall portion surrounded by the wall portion (e.g., vertical walls of (20) - see Fig. 13).
The Applicant additionally alleges:
Further, Since Kim does not disclose any element can be interpreted as the protective film as defined by the amended claim 1 of the application as described above, the feature "wherein a thickness of the protective film is substantially the same as a thickness of the base film" as recited in the amended claim 1 of the application, which is related to the protective film, is not disclosed, taught or implied by Kim. According to this technical feature of the application, the opening (step) of the protective film laminated on the base film is utilized as a dam (wall portion), and the potting layer is filled there as an extremely thin layer below the height of the wall portion. A technical effect of protecting the vibration element within an extremely small space (e.g. 50 µm) while suppressing vibration damping (increasing vibration intensity) is achieved by this configuration of the application, which is unpredictable from the separate cover structure of Kim.
It is also worth nothing [sic] that the Taiwanese counterpart application (Application No. 112124910) directed to this configuration has already been allowed and granted. This prior allowance by a foreign patent office strongly supports the patentability of the amended claim 1 of the application.
However, as note in the rejection, supra, a thickness of the protective film (e.g., 20) is substantially the same as a thickness of the base film (e.g., 4) – see Examiner mark-up of Fig. 13 of Kim (US 2018/0009003 A1).
PNG
media_image1.png
622
820
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding the Applicant’s comment the Taiwanese counterpart application (Application No. 112124910) has already been allowed and granted, that point is moot. The U.S. Patent Office has their own patent laws and policies and are not bound to follow the determination of allowable subject matter from a counterpart application, examined in another country.
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 William J Klimowicz whose telephone number is (571)272-7577. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 8:00AM-6PM, ET.
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, Steven Lim can be reached at (571)270-1210. 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.
/WILLIAM J KLIMOWICZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2688
Prosecution Insights