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 .
Foreign Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on January 10, 2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and 37 CFR 1.98. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings were received on January 10, 2024. These drawings are accepted.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities:
(i) With regard to claim 7 (lines 17-18), the phrase "and an end portion of the first slit is separated from the first peripheral edge" should be deleted or otherwise amended since it is a duplicate of the claim language set forth in lines 15-16 of claim 7, which also recites "an end portion of the first slit is separated from the first peripheral edge".
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 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sato (JP 2014-241312 A).
As per claim 1, Sato (JP 2014-241312 A) discloses a piezoelectric element (e.g., 16) comprising: a piezoelectric body (e.g., 17) having a first main surface (e.g., upper surface of (17) on which electrode (18) resides) and a second main surface (e.g., lower surface of (17) which contacts lower electrode (19) - see Fig. 1) located on a side opposite to the first main surface; a first electrode (e.g., 18) provided on the first main surface (e.g., see Fig. 1); and a second electrode (e.g., 19) provided on the second main surface, wherein the first electrode (18) includes a first peripheral edge (outer peripheral edge of (18), on the left -side as depicted in the upper Fig. of Fig. 1) and a first slit (e.g., 20a or 20c) extending from the first peripheral edge, and an end portion (22a or 22c) of the first slit (e.g., 20a or 20c) is separated from the first peripheral edge. See Fig. 1.
As per claim 2, wherein a plurality of first slits (e.g., 20a and 20c) are provided along the first peripheral edge.
Claims 1-3 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nojima et al. (US 2010/0246071 A1).
As per claim 1, Nojima et al. (US 2010/0246071 A1) discloses a piezoelectric element (e.g., microactuator (32)) comprising: a piezoelectric body (e.g., 15 and/or 16) having a first main surface (e.g. upper surface of (15/16) on which electrode (first electrode (17) resides) and a second main surface (e.g. lower surface of (15/16) which contacts lower electrode (13)) located on a side opposite to the first main surface; a first electrode (e.g., 17 - see, inter alia, paragraph [0031]) provided on the first main surface; and a second electrode (e.g., 13 - see, inter alia, paragraph [0031]) provided on the second main surface, wherein the first electrode (17) includes a first peripheral edge (outer periphery edges of (17)) and a first slit (e.g., 17f and/or 17d and/or 17e) extending from the first peripheral edge, and an end portion (distal, inward-most portions of 17e, 17f, 17d) of the first slit is separated from the first peripheral edge - see Fig. 3.
As per claim 2, wherein a plurality of first slits (e.g., 17e, 17f, 17d) are provided along the first peripheral (outer) edge.
As per claim 3, wherein the first peripheral edge includes a first edge portion (e.g., left-most edge of (17) as depicted in Fig. 3) extending in a first direction, and a second edge portion (e.g., right-most edge of (17) as depicted in Fig. 3) extending in the first direction and aligned with the first edge portion in a second direction (e.g., the width direction, perpendicular to the longitudinal direction of the suspension assembly) that intersects the first direction, and the first slits (17f) extending from the first edge portion are spaced apart from the first slits (17e) extending from the second edge portion, in the second direction - see Figs. 3, 4.
As per claim 8, a disk drive suspension (e.g., 24) is provided comprising the piezoelectric element of claim 1.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Satoi et al. (EP 2 511 968 B1).
As per claim 1, Satoi et al. (EP 2 511 968 B1) discloses a piezoelectric element (e.g., 1) comprising: a piezoelectric body (e.g., 2) having a first main surface (e.g., right-side surface of (1) as depicted in Fig. 1) and a second main surface (e.g., left-side surface of (1) as depicted in Fig. 1) located on a side opposite to the first main surface; a first electrode (e.g., 5b) provided on the first main surface; and a second electrode (e.g. 5a) provided on the second main surface (see Fig. 1), wherein the first electrode (5b) includes a first peripheral edge (outermost peripheral edge(s) of (5b)) and a first slit (e.g., 51) extending from the first peripheral edge, and an end portion (distal-most portion of slit(s) extending inward from the peripheral edges) of the first slit (51) is separated from the first peripheral edge. See Figs. 1-3, 6-8, 10.
As per claim 2, wherein a plurality of first slits (51) are provided along the first peripheral edge. See Figs. 1-3, 6-8, 10.
As per claim 4, wherein the first peripheral edge includes a first edge portion (e.g., the left-most edge as depicted in Figs. 1-3, 7, 8) extending in a first direction (e.g., the up-down direction in Figs. 1-3, 7, 8), and a second edge portion (e.g., the left-most edge as depicted in Figs. 1-3, 7, 8) extending in the first direction and aligned with the first edge portion in a second direction (right-left direction in Figs. 1-3, 7, 8) that intersects the first direction, and the first slits (e.g., left-sided slits 51) extending from the first edge portion are spaced apart from and arranged alternately with the first slits (e.g., right-sided slits 51) extending from the second edge portion, in the second direction. Figs. 1-3, 7, 8
As per claim 6, wherein the first slit (51) includes a first slit portion (see Fig. 2, top row embodiment, third from the left - see also mark-up of such embodiment, infra) extending from the first peripheral edge, and a pair of second slit portions (portion at distal end of horizontal slit (51), extending up-down perpendicular thereto) connected to the first slit portion, the first slit portion is located between the pair of second slit portions (it bisects the pair of second slit portions), the pair of second slit portions extend along the first slit portion (by being formed of a distal endmost portion of the first slit portion), and each of end portions of the pair of second slit portions is separated from the first peripheral edge - see Examiner's mark-up, infra.
PNG
media_image1.png
766
465
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As per claim 7, Satoi et al. (EP 2 511 968 B1) discloses a piezoelectric element (e.g. 1) comprising: a piezoelectric body (e.g., 2) having a first main surface (e.g., right-side surface of (1) as depicted in Fig. 1) and a second main surface (e.g., left-side surface of (1) as depicted in Fig. 1) located on a side opposite to the first main surface; a first electrode (e.g., 5b) provided on the first main surface; and a second electrode (e.g. 5a) provided on the second main surface (see Fig. 1), wherein the first electrode (5b) includes a first peripheral edge (outermost peripheral edge(s) of (5b)) and a first slit (e.g., 51) extending from the first peripheral edge, the second electrode (e.g., 5a) includes a second peripheral edge and a second slit (51) extending from the second peripheral edge (note that the first electrode (5b) and the second electrode (5a) both contain the slits (51) - see, inter alia, abstract "The external electrode plate (5a, 5b) is provided with slits (51) which extend from opposite long sides toward a center thereof in such a manner that tips of the respective slits overlap each other when viewed in the stacking direction of the stacked body (2), and a portion thereof where the tips of the respective slits (51) overlap each other is provided with a hole extending along an extension direction of the slit (51)") and an end portion (distal-most portion of slit(s) extending inward from the peripheral edges) of the first slit (51) is separated from the first peripheral edge. See Figs. 1-3, 6-8, 10.
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.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato (JP 2014-241312 A) in view of Nakamura et al. (US 2022/0158071 A1).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nojima et al. (US 2010/0246071 A1) in view of Nakamura et al. (US 2022/0158071 A1).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Satoi et al. (EP 2 511 968 B1) in view of Nakamura et al. (US 2022/0158071 A1).
See the descriptions of Sato (JP 2014-241312 A)/ Nojima et al. (US 2010/0246071 A1)/ Satoi et al. (EP 2 511 968 B1), supra.
As per claim 5, neither Sato (JP 2014-241312 A) nor Nojima et al. (US 2010/0246071 A1) nor Satoi et al. (EP 2 511 968 B1) disclose wherein the first slit has a spiral shape.
Nakamura et al. (US 2022/0158071 A1) discloses an analogous piezoelectric element, in the same field of endeavor as Sato (JP 2014-241312 A)/ Nojima et al. (US 2010/0246071 A1)/ Satoi et al. (EP 2 511 968 B1), wherein an electrode (e.g. 44) of the piezoelectric element is spiral shaped, and the non-conductive portion between the bends of the spiral electrode are non-conducting (corresponding to a non-conducting spiral slit) - see Fig. 6B of Nakamura et al. (US 2022/0158071 A1).
As such, given the disclosures of Sato (JP 2014-241312 A)/ Nojima et al. (US 2010/0246071 A1)/ Satoi et al. (EP 2 511 968 B1), that the shape of the slits can vary and can be a multitude of shapes, 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 non-conducting slits of the piezoelectric electrodes of Sato (JP 2014-241312 A)/ Nojima et al. (US 2010/0246071 A1)/ Satoi et al. (EP 2 511 968 B1) as being spiral-shaped (in conformance with a spiral piezoelectric electrode) as taught by Nakamura et al. (US 2022/0158071 A1), in order to simply provide a slit which relieves stress and/or minimizes cracks.
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.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Satoi et al. (EP 2 511 968 B1) in view of Nakamura (US 2012/0187211 A1).
See the description of Satoi et al. (EP 2 511 968 B1), supra.
As per claim 3, Satoi et al. (EP 2 511 968 B1) does not expressly disclose wherein the first peripheral edge includes a first edge portion extending in a first direction, and a second edge portion extending in the first direction and aligned with the first edge portion in a second direction that intersects the first direction, and the first slits extending from the first edge portion are spaced apart from the first slits extending from the second edge portion, in the second direction. Instead, Satoi et al. (EP 2 511 968 B1) discloses the slits as being alternately positioned (as per claim 4, above).
Nakamura (US 2012/0187211 A1) discloses an analogous piezoelectric element, in the same field of endeavor as Satoi et al. (EP 2 511 968 B1), wherein as per claim 3, in the embodiment of Fig. 5(d), the corresponding slits in an external electrode of the piezoelectric element are aligned in the second direction, extending inward from the two opposing first edge portion and second edge portion.
Given the express teachings and motivations, as espoused by Nakamura (US 2012/0187211 A1), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include the features of claim 3, to the analogous external piezoelectric electrode of Satoi et al. (EP 2 511 968 B1), as taught by Nakamura (US 2012/0187211 A1), in order to advantageously provide stress relaxation to the piezoelectric element via such aligned slits. See abstract of Nakamura (US 2012/0187211 A1).
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.
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Satoi et al. (EP 2 511 968 B1) in view of White et al. (S 2006/0077594 A1).
See the description of Satoi et al. (EP 2 511 968 B1), supra.
As per claims 8 and 9, Satoi et al. (EP 2 511 968 B1) does not expressly disclose wherein the piezoelectric element is used with a conventional disk drive suspension piezoelectric actuator.
White et al. (S 2006/0077594 A1) disclose a conventional disk drive suspension that utilizes a piezoelectric actuator element (140) (see, inter alia, paragraph [0001]) to provide "a high resolution microactuator in addition to the conventional low resolution actuator motor" (see paragraph [0006] of White et al. (S 2006/0077594 A1)).
Given the express teachings and motivations, as espoused by the piezoelectric actuator as taught by Satoi et al. (EP 2 511 968 B1), 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 piezoelectric actuator of White et al. (S 2006/0077594 A1) with the features of the piezoelectric electrodes of Satoi et al. (EP 2 511 968 B1) in order to advantageously provide "a multi-layer piezoelectric element in which an external electrode plate can adapt itself to displacement of a stacked body successfully and development of cracks and occurrence of breaking in an electrically conducting bonding material can thus be suppressed." See paragraph [0009] of Satoi et al. (EP 2 511 968 B1).
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 external electrodes provided with a piezoelectric body sandwiched therebetween, include slits provided therein. 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