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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDSs) submitted on March 15, 2024 and December 3, 2024 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and 37 CFR 1.98. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements have been considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings were received on January 4, 2024.
(i) Figures 2 and 4 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
(ii) The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the patterned first metal layer being located between the PMUT membrane layer and the piezoelectric layer (as per claim 2) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
(i) With regard to page 6 (line 5 of paragraph [0027] and page 7, line 6), the term "communication interface 110" should be changed to the term --communication interface 120-- in order to remain consistent with Fig. 1.
(ii) With regard to page 16 (line 13 of paragraph [0045]), the term "top metal layer portion 606b" should be changed to the term --top metal layer portion 608b-- in order to remain consistent with Fig. 6.
(iii) With regard to page 17 (line 11 of paragraph [0047]), the term "central top metal layer 706a" should be changed to the term -- central top metal layer 708a-- in order to remain consistent with Fig. 7.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-13, 17, and 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Goericke et al. (US 2021/0177378 A1).
As per claim 1, Goericke et al. (US 2021/0177378 A1) discloses a piezoelectric micromachined ultrasonic transducer (PMUT) (e.g., see abstract; para. [0043]; see, inter alia, Figs. 2-4), comprising: a PMUT membrane layer (e.g., 204); a first metal layer (e.g., BE1, BE2 or, alternatively, e.g., TE1, TE2, TE3, TE4); a second metal layer (e.g., TE1, TE2, TE3, TE4, or alternatively, BE1, BE2); and a piezoelectric layer (e.g., 203) patterned into at least a first piezoelectric layer portion over only some of the PMUT membrane layer (e.g., para. [0062]; Figs. 2-4; bottom electrode BE1, BE2), wherein the first piezoelectric layer portion is at least partially located between the first metal layer (e.g., BE1, BE2 or, alternatively, e.g., TE1, TE2, TE3, TE4) and the second metal layer (e.g., TE1, TE2, TE3, TE4, or alternatively, BE1, BE2), and wherein the first metal layer (e.g., BE1, BE2 or, alternatively, e.g., TE1, TE2, TE3, TE4) is patterned to define an active region of the first piezoelectric layer portion and an inactive region of the first piezoelectric layer portion (e.g., paras. [0062, 0072]; Figs. 2-4; piezoelectric layer (203): the top electrodes TE1 and TE4 are grounded, thereby defining the inactive region whereas the electrodes TE2, TE3 (Fig. 2) are connected to the differential amplifier (e.g., 310)).
As per claim 2, wherein the first metal layer (e.g., in this interpretation, BE1, BE2) is located between the PMUT membrane layer (204) and the piezoelectric layer (203) - Figs. 2-4.
As per claim 3, wherein the second metal layer (e.g., in this interpretation, BE1, BE2), are located between the PMUT membrane layer (204) and the first metal layer (e.g., in this interpretation, TE1, TE2, TE3, TE4).
As per claim 4, wherein the active region corresponds to a first patterned portion of the first metal layer (e.g., TE1, TE2, TE3, TE4), and wherein the first patterned portion of the first metal layer (e.g., TE1, TE2, TE3, TE4) is connected to an active electronic signal path for transmitting and receiving signals with the active region of the first piezoelectric layer portion (203) - via, inter alia, signal/pulse generator; see Figs. 2-4.
As per claim 5, wherein the inactive region corresponds to a second patterned portion of the first metal layer (e.g., TE1, TE2, TE3, TE4), and wherein the second patterned portion of the first metal layer (e.g., TE1, TE2, TE3, TE4) is at a floating potential or is connected to ground - see Figs. 4A, 4B, wherein TE1, TE4 is connected to ground potential.
As per claim 6, wherein the inactive region corresponds to a portion of the first metal layer (e.g., TE1, TE2, TE3, TE4) that has been removed such that the inactive region is not coupled to the first metal layer (e.g., TE1, TE2, TE3, TE4) - Figs. 2-4.
As per claim 7, based upon the positively claimed structure and patterned metal electrodes, as met by Goericke et al. (US 2021/0177378 A1), the active region corresponds to areas of the piezoelectric layer (203) with a higher transduction efficiency compared to area of the piezoelectric layer (203) corresponding to the aforementioned inactive region. Figs. 2-4
As per claim 8, based upon the positively claimed structure and patterned metal electrodes, as met by Goericke et al. (US 2021/0177378 A1), the aforementioned active region having the higher transduction efficiency is "identified based on PMUT vibration modeshape properties" in the piezoelectric layer (203).
As per claim 9, wherein the active region (portion of PMUT that includes patterned electrodes that are connected to the amplifier and/or the signal/pulse generator) comprises a first active region (e.g., portion(s) of patterned electrodes, and underlying piezoelectric material (203), that are connected to the amplifier and/or the signal/pulse generator) and the inactive region (e.g., portion(s) of patterned electrodes, and underlying piezoelectric material (203), that are connected to ground) comprises a first inactive region, wherein a second piezoelectric layer portion is at least partially located between the first metal layer (e.g., BE1, BE2 or, alternatively, e.g., TE1, TE2, TE3, TE4) and the second metal layer (e.g., TE1, TE2, TE3, TE4, or alternatively, BE1, BE2), and wherein the first metal layer is patterned to define a second active region of the second piezoelectric layer portion and a second inactive region of the second piezoelectric layer portion - Figs. 2-4.
As per claim 10, wherein the first active region corresponds to a first capacitor formed between the first metal layer (e.g., BE1, BE2 or, alternatively, e.g., TE1, TE2, TE3, TE4) and the second metal layer (e.g., TE1, TE2, TE3, TE4, or alternatively, BE1, BE2) and the second active region corresponds to a second capacitor formed between the first metal layer and the second metal layer, and wherein the first capacitor and the second capacitor have substantially matched capacitances. The piezoelectric layer sandwiched by the electrodes is considered to be the "dielectric" of the aforementioned "capacitors."
As per claim 11, wherein the first active region and the second active region have "substantially" matched transduction efficiencies - based upon the positively claimed structure and patterned metal electrodes, as met by Goericke et al. (US 2021/0177378 A1).
As per claim 12, wherein the first active region corresponds to a first capacitor formed between the first metal layer (e.g., BE1, BE2 or, alternatively, e.g., TE1, TE2, TE3, TE4) and the second metal layer (e.g., TE1, TE2, TE3, TE4, or alternatively, BE1, BE2) and the second active region corresponds to a second capacitor formed between the first metal layer (e.g., BE1, BE2 or, alternatively, e.g., TE1, TE2, TE3, TE4) and the second metal layer (e.g., TE1, TE2, TE3, TE4, or alternatively, BE1, BE2), and wherein a received acoustic signal generates a first electrical signal output from the first capacitor that is a differential signal compared to a second electrical signal output from the second capacitor (e.g., see the differential amplifier and/or the signal/pulse generator depicted in Fig. 3) - based upon the positively claimed structure and patterned metal electrodes, as met by Goericke et al. (US 2021/0177378 A1). The piezoelectric layer sandwiched by the electrodes is considered to be the "dielectric" of the aforementioned "capacitors."
As per claim 13, wherein a first electrical signal input provided to the first capacitor to generate a first transmitted acoustic signal output from the first capacitor is a differential signal compared to a second electrical signal input provided to the second capacitor to generate a second transmitted acoustic signal - e.g., see the differential amplifier and/or the signal/pulse generator depicted in Fig. 3.
As per claim 17, wherein the active region comprises a plurality of separated active regions within the first piezoelectric layer portion - see, inter alia, paras. [0062, 0072]; Figs. 2-4.
As per claim 19, wherein the active region (portion of PMUT that includes patterned electrodes that are connected to the amplifier and/or the signal/pulse generator) comprises a plurality of separated inactive regions (portion of PMUT that includes patterned electrodes that are connected to ground) within the first piezoelectric layer portion - see, inter alia, paras. [0062, 0072]; Figs. 2-4.
Regarding claims 20 and 21, Goericke et al. (US 2021/0177378 A1)is seen to meet such method claims since the structure of utilizing/designing a patterned metal layer of a piezoelectric micromachined ultrasonic transducer (PMUT), sets forth no steps that are not achieved by the structure, its operation and the manner in which such structure is designed to give rise to the response of the PMUT.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 14-16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goericke et al. (US 2021/0177378 A1) in view of Haque et al. (US 2018/0153510 A1).
See the description of Goericke et al. (US 2021/0177378 A1), supra.
As per claim 14, Goericke et al. (US 2021/0177378 A1) remains silent with regard to wherein the second active region surrounds the first active region.
As per claim 15, Goericke et al. (US 2021/0177378 A1) remains silent with regard to wherein the second active region and the first active region form concentric shapes
As per claim 16, Goericke et al. (US 2021/0177378 A1) remains silent with regard to wherein the concentric shapes are a circle for the first active region and at least a portion of an annular ring for the second active region.
Such features, however, are known in the art.
As just one example, Haque et al. (US 2018/0153510 A1) discloses an analogous PMUT, in the same field of endeavor as Goericke et al. (US 2021/0177378 A1), wherein as per claim 14, Haque et al. (US 2018/0153510 A1) discloses a corresponding second active region surrounds the first active region e.g., see Fig. 10G and para. [0102].
Additionally, as per claim 15, Haque et al. (US 2018/0153510 A1) further discloses wherein a corresponding second active region and the first active region form concentric shapes - e.g., see Fig. 10G and para. [0102].
As per claim 16, Haque et al. (US 2018/0153510 A1) further discloses wherein the corresponding concentric shapes are a circle for the first active region and at least a portion of an annular ring for the second active region e.g., see Fig. 10G and para. [0102].
Moreover, as per claim 18 (which depends from claim 16), Goericke et al. (US 2021/0177378 A1) already discloses wherein the plurality of separated active regions (portion of PMUT that includes patterned electrodes that are connected to the amplifier and/or the signal/pulse generator) are distributed within the first piezoelectric layer portion - see, inter alia, paras. [0062, 0072]; Figs. 2-4.
Given the express teachings and motivations, as espoused by Haque et al. (US 2018/0153510 A1), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide the features of claims 14-16, as taught by the analogous PMUT of Haque et al. (US 2018/0153510 A1) to the PMUT of Goericke et al. (US 2021/0177378 A1) in order to advantageously provide a well-known annular-shaped PMUT which is applicable to the desired piezoelectric response characteristics in its intended operating environment, for which such shape is desired (e.g., a fingerprint sensor, etc.)
In an obviousness analysis, it is not necessary to find precise disclosure directed to the specific subject matter claimed because inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ can be taken into account. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). In this regard, "[a] person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton." Id. at 421.
As the U.S. Supreme Court has stated, obviousness requires an "expansive and flexible" approach that asks whether the claimed improvement is more than a "predictable variation" of "prior art elements according to their established functions." KSR, 550 U.S. at 415, 417.
Citation of Prior or Relevant Art on enclosed PTO-892
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The cited art made of record (see the enclosed PTO-892), not applied to the rejection of the claims, supra, each disclose aspects of the claimed invention, including wherein PMUTs include annular-shaped transducer, and transducers with patterned metal electrodes adjacent to piezoelectric layers. See attached PTO-892.
The best prior art has been applied to the claimed invention (see the rejection of the claims on the applied prior art, supra). However, if Applicant chooses to amend the claims in a manner to obviate the applied prior art, as noted in the rejection, supra, the Applicant is advised to not only carefully review the applied prior art for all it teaches and/or suggests, but also the cited prior art of record in order to obviate any potential rejections based on potential amendment(s); by doing so, compact prosecution on the merits can be enhanced.
Conclusion
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