CTNF 18/479,155 CTNF 78030 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention. 07-34-01 Claims 1 – 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. In claims 1, 9, the statement “a value of IR2/IR1 obtained” is indefinite since it is not clear what the acronyms IR1 and IR2 stand for and how the value obtained is related to the piezoelectric layer. The acronyms IR1 and IR2 should be defined in the claims. The statements “peak 2” and “peak 1” are indefinite since it is not clear how the different peak values (peak 1 and peak 2) are obtained and how the peak values are related to the IR1 and IR2 acronyms and piezoelectric layer. It is also not clear if the area intensity is related to the ratio (IR2/IR1) or to the piezoelectric layer. Claims 2 – 8, 10 are rejected due to their dependency on claims 1, 9. In order to advance prosecution in the merits, the Prior Art will be applied as best understood by the examiner. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 1 – 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yonemura et al in view of Kosugi . Yonemura et al discloses, regarding, Claim 1, A piezoelectric substrate comprising: a base body 210; an electrode 202 formed at the base body (see Fig. 5); and a piezoelectric layer 100 formed at the electrode (see Fig. 5) and containing potassium, sodium, and niobium [0052], wherein a value of IR2/IR1 obtained by dividing an integrated intensity IR2 of a peak 2 (Example 1, Fig. 10) by an integrated intensity IR1 of a peak 1 (Example 2, Fig. 10), and the peak 1 has a strongest area intensity among peaks detected (see Fig. 10) The problem to be solve appears to use a Fourier transform procedure. Such implementation is well-known. For example, Kosugi discloses, a piezoelectric element in which a surface of the piezoelectric layer is measured by Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy (see Fig. 9, 10a). It is further noted that obtaining a value of less than a Fourier value of 0.086 would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was filed, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller , 105 USPQ 233. It is also noted that the different values for the wavenumbers (wavenumbers of 475 cm -1 to 700 cm -1 , and the peak 2 has an area intensity that is a sum of area intensities of peaks detected at wavenumbers of 1200 cm -1 to 1645 cm -1 ) require only engineering skill in the art since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller , 105 USPQ 233. The Prior Art further discloses, regarding, Claim 2, the IR2/IR1 is 0.05 or more since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller , 105 USPQ 233. Claim 3, the piezoelectric layer contains lithium since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin , 125 USPQ 416. Claim 4, a content of the lithium is 10 mol% or less since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller , 105 USPQ 233. Claim 5, the piezoelectric layer contains a first transition metal (Yonemura et al, 0052). Claim 6, the first transition metal contains manganese or copper (Yonemura et al, 0052). Claim 7, a total content of the first transition metal is 5 mol% or less since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller , 105 USPQ 233. Claim 8, an orientation control layer between the piezoelectric layer and the electrode (Yonemura et al, Fig. 7). Claim 9, A piezoelectric element comprising: a base body; a first electrode 10 or 202 formed at the base body; a piezoelectric layer 20 or 100 formed at the first electrode and containing potassium, sodium, and niobium; and a second electrode 30 formed at the piezoelectric layer, wherein a value of IR2/IR1 obtained by dividing an integrated intensity IR2 at a peak 2 by an integrated intensity IR1 at a peak 1, when a surface of the piezoelectric layer is measured by Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy, is less than 0.086, and the peak 1 has a strongest area intensity among peaks detected at wavenumbers of 475 cm -1 to 700 cm -1 , and the peak 2 has an area intensity that is a sum of area intensities of peaks detected at wavenumbers of 1200 cm -1 to 1645 cm -1 (see rejection for claim 1 above). Claim 10, A piezoelectric element application device comprising: the piezoelectric element (Yonemura et al, Figs, 1, 5). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to design the substrate as disclosed by Yonemura et al and to modify the invention per the limitations disclosed by Kosugi for the purpose of improving the reliability of piezoelectric elements. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Julio C. Gonzalez whose telephone number is (571)272-2024. The examiner can normally be reached 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, Abdullah Riyami can be reached at 5712703119. 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. /Julio C. Gonzalez/ Primary Examiner Art Unit 2831 June 10, 2026 Application/Control Number: 18/479,155 Page 2 Art Unit: 2831 Application/Control Number: 18/479,155 Page 3 Art Unit: 2831 Application/Control Number: 18/479,155 Page 4 Art Unit: 2831 Application/Control Number: 18/479,155 Page 5 Art Unit: 2831 Application/Control Number: 18/479,155 Page 6 Art Unit: 2831 Application/Control Number: 18/479,155 Page 7 Art Unit: 2831
Prosecution Insights