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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 2, 5, 16 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.
The statement “perirpheral portion on a peripheral of the post portion” seem to be the same element. It is not clear how the peripheral portion would be different from a peripheral portion of the post.
Claims 3, 4, 6, 7, 12, 17 – 19 are rejected due to their dependency on such claims.
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.
Claim(s) 1 – 3, 5, 8 – 11, 13, 14, 23, 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jomori et al (US 2023/0243710) in view of Kolm et al (US 4,387,318).
Jomori et al discloses, regarding,
Claim 1, A transducer device comprising: a substrate 10, 11 having an opening through the substrate (see Fig. 1); a first tapered cantilever (left cantilever with tapered portion 42; see Fig. 1) having a first edge and a second edge, wherein the first edge is opposite to the second edge, wherein the first edge is on the substrate 10, wherein at least part of the second edge is suspended over the opening (see Fig. 1); and a second tapered cantilever having a third edge and a fourth edge (right cantilever; see Fig. 1), wherein the third edge is opposite to the fourth edge, wherein the third edge is on the substrate 11, wherein at least part of the fourth edge is suspended over the opening (see Fig. 1).
The problem to be solve appears to show a cantilever beam with a shorter edge at the based than at the vibrating end. Such implementation is well-known in the art.
For example, Kolm et al teaches a vibrating piezoelectric device having a cantilever beam in which the second edge (at vibrating end) being longer than the first edge (at base 22 or 20) and the same implementation would have been possible for the fourth edge being longer than the third edge (see Fig. 1).
The Prior Art further discloses, regarding,
Claim 2, the substrate includes a post portion, a peripheral portion, and an extension portion, the peripheral portion on a peripheral of the post portion and connected to the post portion via the extension portion, and the post portion and the extension portion abutting the opening, and wherein the first edge and the second edge are on the post portion (Jomori et al Fig. 8).
Claim 3, the first tapered cantilever is adjacent to the extension portion (Jomori et al, Fig. 1).
Claim 5, the substrate includes a post portion, a peripheral portion, and an extension portion, the peripheral portion on a peripheral of the post portion and connected to the post portion via the extension portion, wherein the first edge and the second edge are on the post portion, and wherein the first tapered cantilever is on the extension portion (Jomori et al, Fig. 4E).
Claim 8, the first tapered cantilever is adjacent to the second tapered cantilever, and wherein the first and second tapered cantilevers are separated by a gap (Jomori et al, Fig. 10, 14).
Claim 9, each of the second edge and the fourth edge includes a respective straight edge (Jomori et al, Fig. 1).
Claim 10, each of the second edge and the fourth edge includes a respective curved edge (Kolm et al, Fig. 1).
Claim 11, the first tapered cantilever includes a first piezoelectric 50 bimorph cantilever , and wherein the second tapered cantilever includes a second piezoelectric bimorph cantilever (Jomori et al, see Fig. 1).
Claim 13, the first tapered cantilever includes first electrodes 61, 62, 63, wherein the second tapered cantilever includes second electrodes (Jomori et al, see Fig. 1), and wherein the transducer device further includes a voltage source electrically coupled to the first and second electrodes (Jomori et al, Fig. 4A).
Claim 14, the first tapered cantilever and the second tapered cantilever are configured as a sensor or a transducer (Jomori et al, abstract).
Claim 23, A method comprising: forming a substrate having an opening through the substrate; forming a first tapered cantilever having a first edge and a second edge, wherein the first edge is opposite to the second edge, wherein the first edge is on the substrate, wherein at least part of the second edge is suspended over the opening, the second edge being longer than the first edge; and forming a second tapered cantilever having a third edge and a fourth edge, wherein the third edge is opposite to the fourth edge, wherein the third edge is on the substrate, wherein at least part of the fourth edge is suspended over the opening, the fourth edge being longer than the third edge (see rejection for claim 1 above since the method is disclosed mutatis mutandis).
Claim 24, forming a piezoelectric layer on a first surface of the substrate; patterning the piezoelectric layer to form the first tapered cantilever (Jomori et al, Figs. 7, 5, 16); patterning the piezoelectric layer to form the second tapered cantilever; and etching the substrate from a second surface opposing the first surface to form the opening (Jomori et al, paragraphs 0006, 0076, 0104 – 0108).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to design the device/method as disclosed by Jomori et al and to modify the invention per the limitations taught by Kolm et al for the purpose of enhancing the oscillation motion of a piezoelectric device.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jomori et al and Kolm et al as applied to claims 1, 2 above, and further in view of Fragala et al (US 2011/0274839).
The combined device/method discloses all of the elements above. However, the combined device/method does not disclose the elements below.
On the other hand, Fragala et al discloses, regarding,
Claim 12, including a protrusion structure on the peripheral portion across the second edge and the fourth edge (see Figs. 2B, 2C).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to design the combined device/method as disclosed above and to modify the invention per the limitations taught by Fragala et al for the purpose of improving a cantilever tip in order to improve a deposition result.
Claim(s) 15 – 17, 20 – 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jomori et al and Kolm et al as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Verbeke et al (Us 2019/0268693).
The Prior Art discloses, regarding,
Claim 16, the substrate includes a post portion, a peripheral portion, and an extension portion, the peripheral portion on a peripheral of the post portion and connected to the post portion via the extension portion, and the post portion and the extension portion abutting the opening, and wherein the first edge and the second edge are on the post portion (Jomori et a, Fig. 1).
Claim 17, the first tapered cantilever is adjacent to the extension portion (Jomori et al Fig. 14, 16).
Claim 15, A system comprising: a case (Jomori et al, 0005);, wherein the transducer device includes: a substrate having an opening through the substrate; a first tapered cantilever having a first edge and a second edge, wherein the first edge is opposite to the second edge, wherein the first edge is on the substrate, wherein at least part of the second edge is suspended over the opening, the second edge being longer than the first edge, and the first tapered cantilever including first electrodes electrically coupled to the integrated circuit; and a second tapered cantilever having a third edge and a fourth edge, wherein the third edge is opposite to the fourth edge, wherein the third edge is on the substrate, wherein at least part of the fourth edge is suspended over the opening, the fourth edge being longer than the third edge, and the second tapered cantilever including second electrodes electrically coupled to the integrated circuit (see rejection for claim 1 above).
Verbeke et al is being cited for explicitly showing that using an integrated circuit in combination with a piezoelectric device is well-known.
For example, Verbeke et al discloses, an integrated circuit; and a transducer device coupled to the integrated circuit (see Figs. 1, 2, 5), wherein the integrated circuit and the transducer device are covered by the case (Figs. 3, 4; see also Jomori et al, Fig. 38).
The Prior Art further discloses, regarding,
Claim 20, the integrated circuit includes a receive circuit configured to receive first signals via the first and second electrodes and generate audio signals based on the first signals (Verbeke et al, Figs. 1, 4, 5).
Claim 21, the integrated circuit includes a transmit circuit configured to transmit DC signals via the first and second electrodes (Verbeke et al, Figs. 4 – 6) to set a first gap between the second edge and the substrate and a second gap between the fourth edge and the substrate (Jomori et al, Fig. 1).
Claim 22, the integrated circuit is configured to operate the transducer device as at least one of: a microphone, a speaker (Verbeke et al, 4 – 6), a stress sensor, an accelerometer, or an energy harvester device.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to design the combined device/method as disclosed above and to modify the invention per the limitations taught by Verbeke et al for the purpose of improving audio communications of a device.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 6, 7, 18, 19, 25 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 and overcoming the 112 rejection noted above.
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
July 29, 2026
Prosecution Insights