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
Claims 24-26 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 12 August 2026.
Applicant’s election without traverse of the invention of group I in the reply filed on 12 August 2026 is acknowledged.
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 1-4, 9, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Guedes et al. (US 2017/0021391).
With respect to claim 1, Guedes et al. discloses a piezoelectric element (Figs 2-4) comprising: a support (item 100); and a vibration unit (items 101-106) disposed on the support, the vibration unit including a piezoelectric film (item 102), and an electrode film (items 104 and 106) that is connected to the piezoelectric film to extract charges generated by a deformation of the piezoelectric film (Fig 2), the vibration unit having a support region supported by the support (Fig 2), and a vibration region connected to the support region and floating from the support (Fig 2), and the vibration unit being configured to output a pressure detection signal based on the charges (Paragraph 26), wherein the vibration region includes a plurality of slits (item 103, figs 3-4) extending from a support region side toward a center of the vibration region (Figs 3-4), and the vibration region is supported at both ends with respect to the support region (Fig 2).
With respect to claim 2, Guedes et al. discloses the piezoelectric element according to claim 1, wherein the vibration region has a resonance frequency of 20 kHz or more (Paragraph 22).
With respect to claim 3, Guedes et al. discloses the piezoelectric element according to claim 1, wherein the plurality of slits are extended from the support region side and are terminated on the support region side of the vibration region closer to the support region than the center of the vibration region (Figs 3-4).
With respect to claim 4, Guedes et al. discloses the piezoelectric element according to claim 1, wherein at least some of the plurality of slits have different slit lengths along an extending direction of the slits (Figs 3-4).
With respect to claim 9, Guedes et al. discloses the piezoelectric element according to claim 1, wherein in the vibration region, a region on the support region side and a region including the center are defined as a first region, and a region different from the first region is defined as a second region, and the electrode film is disposed at least in the first region (Figs 2-4).
With respect to claim 10, Guedes et al. discloses the piezoelectric element according to claim 1, wherein the vibration region and the electrode film are disposed in a state of being symmetric with respect to the center of the vibration region in a normal direction with respect to one surface of the vibration region, the one surface being on an opposite side from the support (Figs 2-4).
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 6-8 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guedes et al. in view of Ikeuchi et al. (US 2022/80303693).
With respect to claim 6, Guedes et al. discloses the piezoelectric element according to claim 1, wherein the plurality of slits intersect each other at the center (Figs 2-4).
Guedes et al. does not disclose that a coupling member is embedded in a portion where the plurality of slits intersect each other.
Ikeuchi et al. teaches a piezoelectric element in which a coupling member is embedded in a portion where the plurality of slits intersect each other (Paragraphs 64-68).
Before the effective filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the coupling member of Ikeuchi et al. with the piezoelectric element of Guedes et al. for the benefit of reducing the chance that the portions separated by the slits will break off (Paragraph 65 of Ikeuchi et al.).
With respect to claim 7, Guedes et al. discloses the piezoelectric element according to claim 1, wherein the plurality of slits intersect each other at the center (Figs 2-4).
Guedes et al. does not disclose that a coupling member that covers a portion where the plurality of slits intersect each other is disposed on one surface of the vibration region, the one surface being on an opposite side from the support.
Ikeuchi et al. teaches a piezoelectric element in which a coupling member that covers a portion where the plurality of slits intersect each other is disposed on one surface of the vibration region, the one surface being on an opposite side from the support (Paragraphs 64-68).
Before the effective filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the coupling member of Ikeuchi et al. with the piezoelectric element of Guedes et al. for the benefit of reducing the chance that the portions separated by the slits will break off (Paragraph 65 of Ikeuchi et al.).
With respect to claim 8, the combination of Guedes et al. and Ikeuchi et al. discloses the piezoelectric element according to claim 6. Ikeuchi et al. discloses that the coupling member has a rigidity equal to or lower than a rigidity of a material constituting the piezoelectric film (Paragraph 74).
With respect to claim 17, the combination of Guedes et al. and Ikeuchi et al. discloses the piezoelectric element according to claim 6, wherein the coupling member is solid (Paragraph 74).
Claims 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guedes et al. in view of Kishimoto (US 2001/0004180).
With respect to claim 18, Guedes et al. discloses a piezoelectric device (Fig 2) including a piezoelectric element (items 101-106), the piezoelectric element including a vibration unit that outputs a pressure detection signal according to a pressure (Abstract), the piezoelectric device comprising: the piezoelectric element according to claim 1.
Guedes et al. does not disclose a casing including a mounted member on which the piezoelectric element is mounted and a lid fixed to the mounted member with the piezoelectric element being accommodated, the casing having a through hole communicating with an outside and through which the pressure is introduced.
Kishimoto teaches a piezoelectric element (Fig 4) that includes a casing (items 4 and 10) including a mounted member (item 10) on which the piezoelectric element is mounted and a lid (item 4) fixed to the mounted member with the piezoelectric element being accommodated (Fig 4), the casing having a through hole (item 4d) communicating with an outside and through which the pressure is introduced (Fig 4).
Before the effective filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the casing of Kishimoto with the piezoelectric element of Guedes et al. for the benefit of better protecting the piezoelectric element (Fig 4 of Kishimoto).
With respect to claim 19, the combination of Guedes et al. and Kishimoto disclose the piezoelectric device according to claim 18. Guedes et al. discloses that each of the slits is formed in a portion different from a portion facing the through hole in the vibration region (Figs 2-4).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5, 11-16. And 20-23 are 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art does not disclose or suggest the subject matter of claims 5, 11, 12, 13, 14, 20, or 21 in combination with the remaining elements of those claims, including the subject matter of their respective parent claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Derek John Rosenau whose telephone number is (571)272-8932. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7 am to 5:30 pm Central Time.
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 at (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 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.
/DEREK J ROSENAU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2837
Prosecution Insights