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 .
Response to Amendment
1. The amendment filed March 12, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-22 are still pending in the application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
2. 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.
3. Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 7, 11-14, 18-20, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Umeda et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0238996 A1, hereinafter "Umeda") in view of Grosh et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2015/0350792 A1, hereinafter "Grosh").
Regarding Claim 1, Umeda teaches an apparatus (piezoelectric microphone 30, Fig. 9, Para. [0064]) comprising:
a substrate having an opening (substrate 36 having an opening, Fig. 9); and
a cantilever device (cantilever device 31, Fig. 9, Para. [0066]) having a first end on the substrate (first end of cantilever device 31 is on substrate 36, Fig. 9) and a second end suspended over the opening (second end of cantilever device is suspended over the opening, Fig. 9), the cantilever device including:
a first piezoelectric layer having a first surface (first piezoelectric layer 4 having a first surface, Fig. 9, Para. [0030]), the first piezoelectric layer having a first poling direction (first piezoelectric layer 4 has a first poling direction P1, Fig. 9, Para. [0030]);
a second piezoelectric layer having a second surface opposing the first surface (second piezoelectric layer 5 having a second surface, Fig. 9, Para. [0031]), the second piezoelectric layer having a second poling direction, and the second poling direction being different from the first poling direction (second piezoelectric layer 4 has a second poling direction P2 different from the first poling direction, Fig. 9, Para. [0031]);
a first electrode on the first surface (first electrode 3a on the first surface, Fig. 9, Para. [0030]); and
a second electrode on the second surface (second electrode 33b, Fig. 9).
Umeda fails to explicitly teach the first and second piezoelectric layers having a same piezoelectric material.
However, Grosh teaches the first and second piezoelectric layers having a same piezoelectric material (first and second piezoelectric layers 32 are made of aluminum nitride (AIN), Fig. 3b, Para. [0068]).
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 apparatus (as taught by Umeda) to include identical piezoelectric layer materials (as taught by Grosh). Doing so provides maximized or near-maximized ratio of output energy to sensor area for a given bandwidth, pressure, and piezoelectric material (Grosh Para. [0071]).
Regarding Claim 2, Umeda in view of Grosh teach wherein the first poling direction has a first component along an axis orthogonal to the first surface (Umeda, first poling direction P1 has a first component along an axis orthogonal to the first surface, Fig. 9), the second poling direction has a second component along the axis (Umeda, the second poling direction P2 has a second component along the axis, Fig. 9), the first component and the second component having same magnitude and opposite directions (Umeda, the first component and second component have the same magnitude (P1, P2) and opposite directions, Fig. 9, Paras. [0030] and [0031]).
Regarding Claim 3, Umeda in view of Grosh teach to explicitly teach wherein the first poling direction has a first component along a first axis (Umeda, first poling direction has a first component P1 along a first axis in a thickness direction, Fig. 9, Para. [0030]), wherein the first axis is orthogonal to a second axis between the first end and the second end (Umeda, the first axis is orthogonal to a second axis between first and second end of cantilever 31, Fig. 9).
Regarding Claim 5, Umeda in view of Grosh teach wherein the first piezoelectric layer abuts the second piezoelectric layer (Umeda, first piezoelectric layer 4 abuts second piezoelectric layer 5, Fig. 9).
Regarding Claim 7, Umeda in view of Grosh teach wherein the first piezoelectric layer and the second piezoelectric layer have identical thickness (Umeda, first and second piezoelectric layer have identical thickness, Para. [0060]).
Regarding Claim 11, Umeda in view of Grosh teach wherein the first electrode and the second electrode extend along no more than half of a respective length of the first piezoelectric layer and the second piezoelectric layer (Grosh, first and second electrode layers 142 extend along no more than half the length first and second piezoelectric layers 144, Fig. 30, Para. [0063]).
Regarding Claim 12, Umeda in view of Grosh teach wherein the cantilever device is configured as one of: a piezoelectric microphone, piezoelectric speaker, a piezoelectric micromachine ultrasonic transducer, a piezoelectric accelerometer, or an audio accelerometer (Umeda, piezoelectric microphone 30, Fig. 9, Para. [0064]).
Regarding Claim 13, it similarly rejected as Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 14, it is similarly rejected as Claim 2.
Regarding Claim 18, Umeda in view of Grosh teach a case (Grosh, casing 200, Fig. 29, Para. [0057]);
an integrated circuit (Grosh, ASIC, Fig. 29); and
a device coupled to the integrated circuit (Grosh, device 100 coupled to ASIC, Fig. 29), wherein the integrated circuit and the device are covered by the case (Grosh, ASIC and device 100 are contained withing casing 200, Fig. 29), and wherein the device includes the substrate and the cantilever device (Grosh, device 100 includes substrate 160 and cantilever beam 120, Fig. 29, Para. [0059]).
Regarding Claim 19, Umeda in view of Grosh teach wherein the integrated circuit is configured to operate the device as one of a piezoelectric microphone, piezoelectric speaker, a piezoelectric micromachine ultrasonic transducer, a piezoelectric accelerometer, or an audio accelerometer (Grosh, ASIC operates the piezoelectric microphone 100, Paras. [0057]-[0061]).
Regarding Claim 20, it similarly rejected as Claim 1. The method can be found in Umeda (Paras. [0029]-[0051]).
Regarding Claim 22, Umeda in view of Grosh teach wherein forming the second piezoelectric layer includes forming the second piezoelectric layer on the first piezoelectric layer (Umeda, second piezoelectric layer 5 may be formed on the first piezoelectric layer 4, Fig. 9, Para. [0049]).
4. Claim(s) 4, 6, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Umeda et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0238996 A1, hereinafter "Umeda") in view of Grosh et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2015/0350792 A1, hereinafter "Grosh"), and further in view of Lesieutre et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 6,236,143 B1, hereinafter "Lesieutre").
Regarding Claim 4, Umeda in view of Grosh fail to explicitly teach wherein the first piezoelectric layer has a first piezoelectric coupling coefficient, wherein the second piezoelectric layer has a second piezoelectric coupling coefficient, and wherein the second piezoelectric coupling coefficient and the first piezoelectric coupling coefficient have an identical magnitude and opposite polarities.
Regarding Claim 6, Umeda in view of Grosh fail to explicitly teach wherein the cantilever device further includes a bonding layer between the first piezoelectric layer and the second piezoelectric layer.
However, Lesieutre teaches wherein the cantilever device further includes a bonding layer between the first piezoelectric layer and the second piezoelectric layer (bonding layer 10, Fig. 1, Col. 4, Lns. 46-59).
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 apparatus (as taught by Umeda in view of Grosh) to include the bonding layer (as taught by Lesieutre). Doing so improves the mechanical properties of the cantilever device.
Regarding Claim 16, it is similarly rejected as Claim 4.
5. Claim(s) 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Umeda et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0238996 A1, hereinafter "Umeda") in view of Grosh et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2015/0350792 A1, hereinafter "Grosh"), and further in view of Zhang et al. (WIPO Pub. No. 2022/266783 A1, hereinafter "Zhang").
Regarding Claim 8, Umeda in view of Grosh fail to explicitly teach wherein the first piezoelectric layer and the second piezoelectric layer have opposite crystal orientations.
However, Zhang teaches wherein the first piezoelectric layer and the second piezoelectric layer have opposite crystal orientations (first and second piezoelectric layers have opposite crystal orientations, Fig. 6b, Para. [0056]).
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 apparatus (as taught by Umeda in view of Grosh) to include the opposing crystal orientation of the piezoelectric layers (as taught by Zhang). Doing so suppresses unwanted vibration improving sensitivity.
6. Claim(s) 9, 10, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Umeda et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0238996 A1, hereinafter "Umeda") in view of Grosh et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2015/0350792 A1, hereinafter "Grosh"), and further in view of Bibl et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0297080 A1, hereinafter "Bibl").
Regarding Claim 9, Umeda in view of Grosh fail to explicitly teach wherein the first piezoelectric layer and the second piezoelectric layer include the same piezoelectric material with a same intrinsic poling direction and are bonded together with one of the first and second piezoelectric layers flipped before bonding.
However, Grosh teaches wherein the first piezoelectric layer and the second piezoelectric layer include identical piezoelectric material (first and second piezoelectric layers 32 are made of aluminum nitride (AIN), Fig. 3b, Para. [0068]).
However, Bibl teaches the process of flipping over the piezoelectric layer and bonding to another to obtain the desired poling direction (Para. [0095]).
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 apparatus (as taught by Umeda in view of Grosh) to include identical piezoelectric layer materials with same poling direction with one piezoelectric layer flipped before bonding (as taught by Bibl). Doing so, the desired poling directions are achieved improving sensitivity.
Regarding Claim 10, Umeda in view of Grosh fail to explicitly teach wherein the first piezoelectric layer and the second piezoelectric layer include the same piezoelectric material and are grown to have different intrinsic poling directions.
However, Grosh teaches wherein the first piezoelectric layer and the second piezoelectric layer include the same piezoelectric material (first and second piezoelectric layers 32 are made of aluminum nitride (AIN), Fig. 3b, Para. [0068]).
However, Bibl teaches piezoelectric material grown to have different intrinsic poling directions (piezoelectric membrane can be deposited on a profile-transferring substrate and then flipped over and bonded to another substrate to obtain the desired poling direction, Para. [0095]).
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 apparatus (as taught by Umeda in view of Grosh) to include the piezoelectric material grown to have different poling directions (as taught by Bibl). Doing so, the desired poling directions are achieved improving sensitivity.
Regarding Claim 17, it is similarly rejected as Claim 9.
7. Claim(s) 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Umeda et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0238996 A1, hereinafter "Umeda") in view of Grosh et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2015/0350792 A1, hereinafter "Grosh"), and further in view of Zhang et al. (WIPO Pub. No. 2022/266783 A1, hereinafter "Zhang").
Regarding Claim 15, Umeda in view of Grosh fail to explicitly teach wherein the first intrinsic polarization direction corresponds to a first crystal orientation of the first piezoelectric layer, wherein the second intrinsic polarization direction corresponds to a second crystal orientation of the second piezoelectric layer, and wherein the second crystal orientation is different from the first crystal orientation.
However, Zhang teaches second crystal orientation is different from the first crystal orientation (first and second piezoelectric layers have opposite crystal orientations, Fig. 6b, Para. [0056]).
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 apparatus (as taught by Umeda in view of Grosh) to include the first and second polarization directions to correspond to the first and second crystal orientation (as taught by Zhang). Doing so improves the mechanical properties of the cantilever device.
8. Claim(s) 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Umeda et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0238996 A1, hereinafter "Umeda") in view of Grosh et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2015/0350792 A1, hereinafter "Grosh"), and further in view of Karuthedath et al. (WIPO Pub. No. WO 2022/096790 A1, hereinafter "Karuthedath").
Regarding Claim 21, Umeda in view of Grosh fail to explicitly teach wherein:
forming the first electrode and forming the first piezoelectric layer includes forming the first electrode and the first piezoelectric layer on a first wafer including the substrate, the first piezoelectric layer having a third surface opposing the first surface;
forming the second electrode and forming the second piezoelectric layer includes forming the second electrode and the second piezoelectric layer on a second wafer, the second piezoelectric layer having a fourth surface opposing the second surface; and
forming the cantilever device includes:
bonding the third surface to the fourth surface; removing the second wafer from the second piezoelectric layer and the second electrode; and
etching the substrate to form the opening.
However, Karuthedath teaches wherein:
forming the first electrode and forming the first piezoelectric layer includes forming the first electrode and the first piezoelectric layer on a first wafer including the substrate, the first piezoelectric layer having a third surface opposing the first surface (first electrode and first piezoelectric layer are formed a first wafer which can include the substrate and having a third surface opposing the first surface, Pg. 4, Ln. 22 thru Pg. 6, Ln. 7);
forming the second electrode and forming the second piezoelectric layer includes forming the second electrode and the second piezoelectric layer on a second wafer, the second piezoelectric layer having a fourth surface opposing the second surface (second electrode and second piezoelectric layer are formed a second wafer and having a fourth surface opposing the second surface, Pg. 4, Ln. 22 thru Pg. 6, Ln. 7); and
forming the cantilever device includes:
bonding the third surface to the fourth surface (components are bonded together, Pg. 4, Ln. 22 thru Pg. 6, Ln. 7); removing the second wafer from the second piezoelectric layer and the second electrode (the second wafer is removed by etching, Pg. 4, Ln. 22 thru Pg. 6, Ln. 7); and
etching the substrate to form the opening (substrate can be etched to form the opening, Pg. 4, Ln. 22 thru Pg. 6, Ln. 7).
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 method (as taught by Umeda in view of Grosh) to include the forming electrodes and piezoelectric layers on wafers, bonding the components and etching to form the opening (as taught by Karuthedath). Doing so provides robust integration, packaging, and precise structure definition of the device.
Response to Arguments
9. Applicant's arguments filed March 12, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Independent Claims 1, 13, and 20, applicant argues (see applicant’s remark, pages 6-9), Grosh teaches that, when the same piezoelectric material is used, a middle electrode layer is needed in order to achieve high sensitivity and low noise. Thus, to replace the different piezoelectric materials in Umeda with the same piezoelectric material as disclosed in Grosh without sacrificing the sensitivity, a person skilled in the art would need to include the middle electrode layer in Umeda as well, which would defeat the purpose of using two materials with different polarization axis directions in Umeda.
In response to the argument above, Grosh does not teach that the middle electrode layer is needed to achieve high sensitivity and low noise. Instead Grosh teaches a stack of multiple electrode and piezoelectric layers in which the stack combination (i.e. the whole five layers) has an high sensitivity and low noise. So modifying the piezoelectric material of Umeda with that of Grosh will in no way affect the sensitivity of the apparatus taught by Umeda as Umeda also teaches a stack of multiple electrodes and piezoelectric layers. It appears that the applicant tried to argue that it is not possible to “physically” combine Umeda and Grosh. However, It is well-established that a determination of obviousness based on teachings from multiple references does not require an actual, physical substitution of elements." In re Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1322, 1332, 103 USPQ2d 1219, 1226 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (citing In re Etter, 756 F.2d 852, 859, 225 USPQ 1, 6 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (en banc)) ("Etter's assertions that Azure cannot be incorporated in Ambrosio are basically irrelevant, the criterion being not whether the references could be physically combined but whether the claimed inventions are rendered obvious by the teachings of the prior art as a whole."). See also In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981) ("The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference.... Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of those references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art."); In re Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544, 1550, 218 USPQ 385, 389 (Fed. Cir. 1983) ("[I]t is not necessary that the inventions of the references be physically combinable to render obvious the invention under review."); and In re Nievelt, 482 F.2d 965, 179 USPQ 224, 226 (CCPA 1973) ("Combining the teachings of references does not involve an ability to combine their specific structures."). Combining the “teachings” of Grosh into Umeda does not change the principle of operation of the primary reference or render the reference inoperable for its intended purpose.
Independent Claims 1, 13, and 20 have been rejected on a new ground of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Umeda in view of Grosh.
The rejections of Claims 1, 13, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Umeda in view of Grosh are maintained.
Dependent Claims 2, 3, 5, 7, 11, 12, 14, 18, 19, and 22 have been rejected on a new ground of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Umeda in view of Grosh.
The rejections of Claims 2, 3, 5, 7, 11, 12, 14, 18, 19, and 22 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Umeda in view of Grosh are maintained.
Dependent Claims 4, 6, and 16 have been rejected on a new ground of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Umeda in view of Grosh, and further in view of Lesieutre.
The rejections of Claims 4, 6, and 16 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Umeda in view of Grosh, and further in view of Lesieutre are maintained.
Dependent Claims 8 and 15 have been rejected on a new ground of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Umeda in view of Grosh, and further in view of Zhang.
The rejections of Claims 8 and 15 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Umeda in view of Grosh, and further in view of Zhang are maintained.
Dependent Claims 9, 10, and 17 have been rejected on a new ground of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Umeda in view of Grosh, and further in view of Bibl.
The rejections of Claims 9, 10, and 17 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Umeda in view of Grosh, and further in view of Bibl are maintained.
Dependent Claim 21 has been rejected on a new ground of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Umeda in view of Grosh, and further in view of Karuthedath.
The rejection of Claim 21 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Umeda in view of Grosh, and further in view of Karuthedath is maintained.
Conclusion
10. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Weijie Dong et al 2007 Meas. Sci. Technol. 18 601 "Measurement on the actuating and sensing capability of a PZT microcantilever" which discloses increasing sensitivity of PZT microcantilever by polling.
11. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
12. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHIMEZIE E BEKEE whose telephone number is (571)272-0202. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7.30-5.
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, Duc Nguyen can be reached at 571-272-7503. 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.
/CHIMEZIE EZERIWE BEKEE/ Examiner, Art Unit 2691
/DUC NGUYEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2691
Prosecution Insights