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 .
EXAMINER’S COMMENTS
To facilitate processing of the internet communication authorization or withdrawal of authorization, the Office strongly encourages use of Form PTO/SB/439, available at www.uspto.gov/PatentForms. The form may be filed via the USPTO patent electronic filing system using the document description Internet Communications Authorized to facilitate processing. If applicant authorizes Internet communications, USPTO employees may respond to email and initiate communications with applicants via email.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I directed to claims 1-6 and 12-16 in the reply filed on March 27, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
4. 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 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.
5. 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.
6. Claims 1, 6, 12 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Pan et al. (Hereinafter Pan) CN 114513729 (For examination purports English Machine Translation of Pan would be use as cited reference).
Regarding claim 1, Pan teaches
A piezoelectric speaker (A MEMS acoustic transducer is a micro-speaker which vibrates sound under the action of the electric field by using the piezoelectric cantilever…..Pg. 2, Lines 5-6), comprising:
a frame (Fig. 18 shows a supporting piece 200);
a cantilever plate actuator (Fig. 18 shows a piezoelectric cantilever 310) disposed on the frame (i.e. supporting piece 200);
a spring (Fig. 18 shows an elastic sealing piece 400) connected to the frame (i.e. supporting piece 200) and the cantilever plate actuator (i.e. piezoelectric cantilever 310) as shown in Fig. 18; and
a central diaphragm (Fig. 18 shows a diaphragm/vibration film 320) connected to the spring (i.e. elastic sealing piece 400) as shown in Fig. 18, wherein when the cantilever plate actuator 3 vibrates, the central diaphragm 5 vibrates with the spring (by connecting the vibration film on the piezoelectric cantilever via the elastic sealing piece, so that the piezoelectric cantilever can be used as the driving piece, when warping and deforming, driving the vibration film to vibrate…..Pg. 3, Lines 41-45 and Pg. 30, Lines 1-6) as shown in Fig. 18.
Regarding claim 6, Pan teaches
The piezoelectric speaker as claimed in Claim 1, wherein the cantilever plate actuator (i.e. shows a piezoelectric cantilever 310) has a fixed end and a vibrating end, the vibrating end is connected to the spring (i.e. elastic sealing piece 400/430), and the fixed end is connected to the frame (i.e. supporting piece 200) as shown in Fig. 17.
Regarding claim 12, Pan teaches
A piezoelectric speaker (A MEMS acoustic transducer is a micro-speaker which vibrates sound under the action of the electric field by using the piezoelectric cantilever…..Pg. 2, Lines 5-6), comprising:
a piezoelectric element (Fig. 18 shows a piezoelectric cantilever 310); and
a substrate (Fig. 18 shows a supporting piece 200) carrying thereon the piezoelectric element (i.e. piezoelectric cantilever 310), and comprising:
a central diaphragm (Fig. 18 shows a diaphragm/vibration film 320) disposed in the center of the substrate to generate a second vibration in response to a first vibration of the piezoelectric element (by connecting the vibration film on the piezoelectric cantilever, so that the piezoelectric cantilever can be used as the driving piece, when warping and deforming, driving the vibration film to vibrate……Pg. 3, Lines 41-45); and
an amplitude enhancement mechanism (Fig. 18 shows an elastic sealing piece 400) disposed on the central diaphragm (i.e. diaphragm/vibration film 320) to enhance a vibration amplitude of the second vibration (On the other hand, the elastic sealing piece 400 can be elastic deformation in the piezoelectric cantilever 310 or diaphragm 320 vibration process, so as to release the piezoelectric cantilever 310 end stress, so that the piezoelectric cantilever 310 of the second end of the free degree will not be affected, Compared with the piezoelectric cantilever 310 is rigidly connected with the diaphragm 320, improves the vibration amplitude of the piezoelectric cantilever 310, correspondingly, also improves the vibration amplitude of the diaphragm 320…Pg. 30, Lines 1-6).
Regarding claim 14, Pan teaches
The piezoelectric speaker as claimed in Claim 12, wherein the central diaphragm and the amplitude enhancement mechanism are formed of a material the same as that of the substrate ( The diaphragm/vibration film 320 and the elastic sealing piece 400 are formed of silicon…Pg. 28, Lines 7-13).
Regarding claim 15, Pan teaches
The piezoelectric speaker as claimed in Claim 12, wherein the piezoelectric element (i.e. piezoelectric cantilever 310) has a fixed end and a vibrating end, the vibrating end is connected to the amplitude enhancement mechanism (i.e. elastic sealing piece 400/430), and the fixed end is connected to the substrate (i.e. supporting piece 200) as shown in Fig. 17.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
7. 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 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.
8. 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 of this title, 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.
9. Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pan in view of Riddle et al. (Hereinafter Riddle) CN 105246984 (For examination purports English Machine Translation of Riddle would be use as cited reference).
Regarding claim 2, Pan teaches all the features with respect to claim 1 as outlined above.
Pan teaches that a supporting piece (i.e. substrate 200a) 200 includes a bottom silicon layer 210, a silicon oxide layer 220, and a top layer silicon 230, which are sequentially stacked as shown in Fig. 33.
Pan does not explicitly teach that the frame comprises a second silicon dioxide layer.
Riddle teaches of an outermost silicon dioxide layer 12 as shown in Fig. 4.
Pan and Riddle each disclose a multilayer coating. One of ordinary skill in the art could have modify the frame of Pan with the second silicon dioxide layer as taught by Riddle. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the frame of Pan with the second silicon dioxide layer as taught by Riddle. The motivation is to improve the strength of the frame by using a four-layer multilayer coating.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Pan and Riddle teach all the features with respect to claim 2 as outlined above. Pan teaches that the central diaphragm and the spring are formed of a material the same as that of the first silicon layer of the frame ( The diaphragm/vibration film 320 and the elastic sealing piece 400 are formed of silicon…Pg. 28, Lines 7-13).
10. Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pan in view of Riddle and further in view of Matova et al. (Hereinafter Matova) US-PG-PUB No. 2012/0007469.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Pan and Riddle teach all the features with respect to claim 3 as outlined above. Pan teaches that a piezoelectric cantilever (i.e. vibrating film layer 300a) 310 includes a top electrode layer 313, a piezoelectric layer 312 and a bottom electrode layer 311 as shown in Fig. 33, the bottom electrode layer 311 is connected to the substrate 200a as shown in Fig. 33; the piezoelectric layer 312 is made of a lead zirconate titanate (PZT) (Pg. 18, Lines 30-31); the top electrode layer 313 is made of chromium gold film (Pg. 18, Lines 25-27).
The combination of Pan and Riddle do not explicitly teach that the bottom electrode is made of platinum.
Matova teaches of a bottom electrode is made of platinum (Para. [0067], Lines 1-7).
The combination of Pan and Riddle and Matova each disclose a piezoelectric element. One of ordinary skill in the art could have modify the piezoelectric element of the combination of Pan and Riddle with the bottom electrode made of platinum as taught by Matova. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the piezoelectric element of the combination of Pan and Riddle with the bottom electrode made of platinum as taught by Matova. The motivation is to improve the electrical conductivity of the piezoelectric element by using a platinum electrode.
11. Claims 5 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pan in view of Chen et al. (Hereinafter Chen) US-PG-PUB No. 2023/0105699.
Regarding claim 5, Pan teaches all the features with respect to claim 1 as outlined above.
Pan does not explicitly teach that the spring is a plate having a plurality of slits.
Chen teaches of a spring region 319 is a plate having a plurality of slits 321 as in Fig. 3A and 3B.
Pan and Chen each disclose a piezoelectric element. One of ordinary skill in the art could have modify the spring of Pan with the spring having the plurality of slits as taught by Chen. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the spring of Pan with the spring having the plurality of slits as taught by Chen. The motivation is to change resonant frequency of the piezoelectric speaker by using the slits.
Regarding claim 13, Pan teaches all the features with respect to claim 12 as outlined above.
Pan does not explicitly teach that the amplitude enhancement mechanism is formed by a specific slot pattern.
Chen teaches of a spring region 319 is a plate having a plurality of slits 321 as in Fig. 3A and 3B.
Pan and Chen each disclose a piezoelectric element. One of ordinary skill in the art could have modify the spring of Pan with the spring formed by a specific slot pattern as taught by Chen. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the spring of Pan with the spring formed by a specific slot pattern as taught by Chen. The motivation is to change resonant frequency of the piezoelectric speaker by using the specific slot pattern.
12. Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pan in view of Matova et al. (Hereinafter Matova) US-PG-PUB No. 2012/0007469.
Regarding claim 16, Pan teaches all the features with respect to claim 12 as outlined above.
Pan teaches that a piezoelectric cantilever (i.e. vibrating film layer 300a) 310 includes a top electrode layer 313, a piezoelectric layer 312 and a bottom electrode layer 311 as shown in Fig. 33, the bottom electrode layer 311 is connected to the substrate 200a as shown in Fig. 33; the piezoelectric layer 312 is made of a lead zirconate titanate (PZT) (Pg. 18, Lines 30-31); the top electrode layer 313 is made of chromium gold film (Pg. 18, Lines 25-27).
Pan does not explicitly teach that the bottom electrode is made of platinum.
Matova teaches of a bottom electrode is made of platinum (Para. [0067], Lines 1-7).
Pan and Matova each disclose a piezoelectric element. One of ordinary skill in the art could have modify the piezoelectric element of Pan with the bottom electrode made of platinum as taught by Matova. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the piezoelectric element of Pan with the bottom electrode made of platinum as taught by Matova. The motivation is to improve the electrical conductivity of the piezoelectric element by using a platinum electrode.
Conclusion
13. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Dan et al. CN 215581695, MEMS Acoustic Sensor, Fig. 12 shows a MEMS acoustic sensor MEMS acoustic sensor, comprising a substrate with a cavity and several structure layers fixed on the substrate, each of the structure layer comprises a fixed end fixed on the substrate and a suspension end extending from the fixed end to the suspended end above the cavity.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANGELICA M MCKINNEY whose telephone number is (571)270-3321. The examiner can normally be reached 7AM-3PM EST M-F. 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, Fan Tsang can be reached at (571)272-7574. 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.
/ANGELICA M MCKINNEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2694
Prosecution Insights