DETAILED ACTION
Notice of 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 .
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.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The 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 Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or non-obviousness.
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.
Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kemppinen et al. (U. S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 20210323408) in view of Wallnöfer et al. (U. S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 20240276887).
Regarding independent claim 1, Kemppinen et al. (e. g. see FIG. 2, [0035]) discloses a piezoelectric sensor, comprising: a piezoelectric ceramic layer (28), the piezoelectric ceramic layer (28) comprising a first surface (upper surface of 28) and a second surface (lower surface of 28) opposite to the first surface (upper surface of 28); a first metal shrapnel (34, 36, 38, 40, 42 together on the upper side) mounted on the first surface (upper surface of 28), a first cavity (air space between upper surface of 28 and 34, 36, 38, 40, 42 together on the upper side) formed between the first metal shrapnel (34, 36, 38, 40, 42 together on the upper side) and the piezoelectric ceramic layer (28); a second metal shrapnel (34, 36, 38, 40, 42 together on lower side) mounted on the second surface (lower surface of 28), a second cavity (air space between lower surface of 28 and 34, 36, 38, 40, 42 together on lower side) formed between the second metal shrapnel (34, 36, 38, 40, 42 together on lower side) and the piezoelectric ceramic layer (28) ([0035] On both sides of the piezo actuator 24 or on both sides of the effective direction 30 a conversion gear 32 is located which comprises two metal brackets 34 in this exemplary embodiment. Each metal bracket comprises two end portions 36, 38, wherein between the two end portions 36, 38 two oblique portions, i.e. two inclined portions 40, 42, are arranged. The two inclined portions 40, 42 are flexibly connected to each other, which is realized by a flexure hinge configured by reduction of the thickness of the metal bracket 34 in this exemplary embodiment.)
Kemppinen et al. fails to disclose “a first damping member located in the first cavity and fixed on the first surface; and a second damping member located in the second cavity and fixed on the second surface, the second damping member arranged symmetrically with the first damping member.”
However, Wallnöfer et al. (e. g. see FIG. 1, FIG. 2, FIG. 3, [0020] - [0024], [0031], [0036] - [0037], [0050] - [0052]) teaches a first damping member (mechanical stop 8) located in the first cavity (spaced) and fixed on the first surface (top surface 2); and a second damping member (mechanical stop 8) located in the second cavity (spaced) and fixed on the second surface (bottom surface 3), the second damping member (mechanical stop 8) arranged symmetrically with the first damping member (mechanical stop 8. The mechanical stop 8 attached to the top surface 2 and the bottom surface 3 of the piezoelectric multilayer element 1, respectively because according to [0020] The mechanical stop can be formed either on the active portion or on the piezoelectric element.)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date or the priority date of the application, to modify the piezo driver of Kemppinen et al. to include “a first damping member located in the first cavity and fixed on the first surface; and a second damping member located in the second cavity and fixed on the second surface, the second damping member arranged symmetrically with the first damping member” as taught by Wallnöfer et al. for the purpose of preventing excessive deformation in order to reducing the risk of damage and failure of the device (e. g. [0013]-[0014].)
Since Kemppinen et al. and Wallnöfer et al. are both from the same field of endeavor (piezoelectric device), the purpose disclosed by Wallnöfer et al. would have been recognized in the pertinent art of Kemppinen et al.
Regarding claim 2, Kemppinen et al. fails to disclose “one side of the first damping member is secured to the first surface of the piezoelectric ceramic layer, and the other side of the first damping member is abutted against the first metal shrapnel; one side of the second damping member is secured to the second surface of the piezoelectric ceramic layer, and the other side of the second damping member is abutted against the second metal shrapnel.”
However, Wallnöfer et al. (e. g. see FIG. 1, FIG. 2, FIG. 3, [0020] - [0024], [0031], [0036] - [0037], [0050] - [0052]) teaches one side of the first damping member (mechanical stop 8) is secured to the first surface (2) of the piezoelectric ceramic layer (1), and the other side of the first damping member (mechanical stop 8) is abutted against the first metal shrapnel (4); one side of the second damping member (mechanical stop 8) is secured to the second surface (3) of the piezoelectric ceramic layer (1), and the other side of the second damping member (mechanical stop 8) is abutted against the second metal shrapnel (4).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date or the priority date of the application, to modify the piezo driver of Kemppinen et al. to include “one side of the first damping member is secured to the first surface of the piezoelectric ceramic layer, and the other side of the first damping member is abutted against the first metal shrapnel; one side of the second damping member is secured to the second surface of the piezoelectric ceramic layer, and the other side of the second damping member is abutted against the second metal shrapnel” for preventing excessive deformation in order to reducing the risk of damage and failure of the device (e. g. [0013]-[0014].)
Regarding claim 3, Kemppinen et al. fails to disclose “each of the first damping member and the second damping member is selected from one or more of foam, thermosetting glue, rubber, and silicone.”
Wallnöfer et al. (e. g. see FIG. 1, FIG. 2, FIG. 3, [0020] - [0024], [0031], [0036] - [0037], [0050] - [0052]) teaches each of the first damping member (mechanical stop 8) and the second damping member (mechanical stop 8). Wallnöfer et al. is silent about the material of the damping members as one or more of foam, thermosetting glue, rubber, and silicone.
However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice bounded by well known manufacturing constraints and ascertainable by routine experimentation and optimization to choose these particular “one or more of foam, thermosetting glue, rubber, and silicone” for the damping members because foam, thermosetting glue, rubber, and silicone are well known in the art for its excellent capability in vibration and shock absorption. A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date or the priority date of the application will apply this quality in order to maximize the durability of the damping members and reduce the risk of damage and failure of the device.
Regarding claim 4, Kemppinen et al. fails to disclose “a length of the first damping member accounts for 10% to 90% of a length of the piezoelectric ceramic layer, and a length of the second damping member accounts for 10% to 90% of the length of the piezoelectric ceramic layer.”
Wallnöfer et al. (e. g. see FIG. 1) teaches a length of the first damping member (mechanical stop 8) accounts for 10% to 90% of a length of the piezoelectric ceramic layer (1), and a length of the second damping member (mechanical stop 8) accounts for 10% to 90% of the length of the piezoelectric ceramic layer (1).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date or the priority date of the application, to modify the piezo driver of Kemppinen et al. to include “a length of the first damping member accounts for 10% to 90% of a length of the piezoelectric ceramic layer, and a length of the second damping member accounts for 10% to 90% of the length of the piezoelectric ceramic layer” as thought by Wallnöfer et al. for the purpose of preventing excessive deformation in order to reducing the risk of damage and failure of the device.
Regarding claim 5, Kemppinen et al. (e. g. see FIG. 2, [0035]) discloses each of the first metal shrapnel (34, 36, 38, 40, 42 together on the upper side) and the second metal shrapnel (34, 36, 38, 40, 42 together on the lower side) comprises a fixation portion (36, 38) fixed with the piezoelectric ceramic layer (28), an extension portion (42) extending obliquely from the fixation portion (36, 38) in a direction away from the piezoelectric ceramic layer (28), and a horizontal portion (40) extending horizontally from the extension portion (42).
Regarding claim 6, Kemppinen et al. (e. g. see FIG. 2, [0035]) discloses the fixation portion (36, 38) of the first metal shrapnel (34, 36, 38, 40, 42 together on the upper side) and the fixation portion (36, 38) of the second metal shrapnel (34, 36, 38, 40, 42 together on the lower side) are fixed with the piezoelectric ceramic layer (28) by glue ([0035] The end portions 36, 38 of the two brackets 34 are connected in a shear-resistant manner to the ends 26 of the piezo actuator 24 by means of an adhesive 44.)
Regarding independent claim 7, Kemppinen et al. (e. g. see FIG. 2, [0035]) discloses an electronic device (10), comprising: a housing (18); a frame (34) received in the housing (18); a button (22) fixed to the housing (18); and a piezoelectric sensor (piezo driver 14 provides tactical feedback) located between the frame (34) and the button (22), the piezoelectric sensor (14) comprising: a piezoelectric ceramic layer (28), the piezoelectric ceramic layer (28) comprising a first surface (upper surface of 28) and a second surface (lower surface of 28) opposite to the first surface (upper surface of 28); a first metal shrapnel (34, 36, 38, 40, 42 together on the upper side) mounted on the first surface (upper surface of 28), a first cavity (air space between upper surface of 28 and 34, 36, 38, 40, 42 together on upper side) formed between the first metal shrapnel (34, 36, 38, 40, 42 together on the upper side) and the piezoelectric ceramic layer (28); a second metal shrapnel (34, 36, 38, 40, 42 together on lower side) mounted on the second surface (lower surface of 28), a second cavity (air space between lower surface of 28 and 34, 36, 38, 40, 42 together on lower side) formed between the second metal shrapnel (34, 36, 38, 40, 42 together on lower side) and the piezoelectric ceramic layer (28) ([0035] On both sides of the piezo actuator 24 or on both sides of the effective direction 30 a conversion gear 32 is located which comprises two metal brackets 34 in this exemplary embodiment. Each metal bracket comprises two end portions 36, 38, wherein between the two end portions 36, 38 two oblique portions, i.e. two inclined portions 40, 42, are arranged. The two inclined portions 40, 42 are flexibly connected to each other, which is realized by a flexure hinge configured by reduction of the thickness of the metal bracket 34 in this exemplary embodiment.)
Kemppinen et al. fails to disclose “a first damping member located in the first cavity and fixed on the first surface; and a second damping member located in the second cavity and fixed on the second surface, the second damping member arranged symmetrically with the first damping member.”
However, Wallnöfer et al. (e. g. see FIG. 1, FIG. 2, FIG. 3, [0020] - [0024], [0031], [0036] - [0037], [0050] - [0052]) teaches a first damping member (mechanical stop 8) located in the first cavity (spaced) and fixed on the first surface (top surface 2); and a second damping member (mechanical stop 8) located in the second cavity (spaced) and fixed on the second surface (bottom surface 3), the second damping member (mechanical stop 8) arranged symmetrically with the first damping member (mechanical stop 8. The mechanical stop 8 attached to the top surface 2 and the bottom surface 3 of the piezoelectric multilayer element 1, respectively because according to [0020] The mechanical stop can be formed either on the active portion or on the piezoelectric element.)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date or the priority date of the application, to modify the piezo driver of Kemppinen et al. to include “a first damping member located in the first cavity and fixed on the first surface; and a second damping member located in the second cavity and fixed on the second surface, the second damping member arranged symmetrically with the first damping member” as taught by Wallnöfer et al. for the purpose of preventing excessive deformation in order to reducing the risk of damage and failure of the device (e. g. [0013]-[0014].)
Regarding claim 8, Kemppinen et al. (e. g. see FIG. 2, [0035]) discloses the electronic device (10) further comprises a supporting member (16) connecting the piezoelectric sensor (14) to the frame (34) and a connecting member (32) connecting the piezoelectric sensor (14) and the button (22).
Regarding claim 9, Kemppinen et al. fails to disclose “one side of the first damping member is secured to the first surface of the piezoelectric ceramic layer, and the other side of the first damping member is abutted against the first metal shrapnel; one side of the second damping member is secured to the second surface of the piezoelectric ceramic layer, and the other side of the second damping member is abutted against the second metal shrapnel.”
However, Wallnöfer et al. (e. g. see FIG. 1, FIG. 2, FIG. 3, [0020] - [0024], [0031], [0036] - [0037], [0050] - [0052]) teaches one side of the first damping member (mechanical stop 8) is secured to the first surface (2) of the piezoelectric ceramic layer (1), and the other side of the first damping member (mechanical stop 8) is abutted against the first metal shrapnel (4); one side of the second damping member (mechanical stop 8) is secured to the second surface (3) of the piezoelectric ceramic layer (1), and the other side of the second damping member (mechanical stop 8) is abutted against the second metal shrapnel (4).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date or the priority date of the application, to modify the piezo driver of Kemppinen et al. to include “one side of the first damping member is secured to the first surface of the piezoelectric ceramic layer, and the other side of the first damping member is abutted against the first metal shrapnel; one side of the second damping member is secured to the second surface of the piezoelectric ceramic layer, and the other side of the second damping member is abutted against the second metal shrapnel” for preventing excessive deformation in order to reducing the risk of damage and failure of the device (e. g. [0013] - [0014].)
Regarding claim 10, Kemppinen et al. fails to disclose “each of the first damping member and the second damping member is selected from one or more of foam, thermosetting glue, rubber, and silicone.”
Wallnöfer et al. (e. g. see FIG. 1, FIG. 2, FIG. 3, [0020] - [0024], [0031], [0036] - [0037], [0050] - [0052]) teaches each of the first damping member (mechanical stop 8) and the second damping member (mechanical stop 8). Wallnöfer et al. is silent about the material of the damping members as one or more of foam, thermosetting glue, rubber, and silicone.
However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice bounded by well known manufacturing constraints and ascertainable by routine experimentation and optimization to choose these particular “one or more of foam, thermosetting glue, rubber, and silicone” for the damping members because foam, thermosetting glue, rubber, and silicone are well known in the art for its excellent capability in vibration and shock absorption. A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date or the priority date of the application will apply this quality in order to maximize the durability of the damping members and reduce the risk of damage and failure of the device.
Regarding claim 11, Kemppinen et al. fails to disclose a length of the first damping member accounts for 10% to 90% of a length of the piezoelectric ceramic layer, and a length of the second damping member accounts for 10% to 90% of the length of the piezoelectric ceramic layer.
However, Wallnöfer et al. (e. g. see FIG. 1, FIG. 2, FIG. 3, [0020] - [0024], [0031], [0036] - [0037], [0050] - [0052]) teaches a length of the first damping member accounts (mechanical stop 8) for 10% to 90% of a length of the piezoelectric ceramic layer (1), and a length of the second damping member (mechanical stop 8) accounts for 10% to 90% of the length of the piezoelectric ceramic layer (1).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date or the priority date of the application, to modify the piezo driver of Kemppinen et al. to include “a length of the first damping member accounts for 10% to 90% of a length of the piezoelectric ceramic layer, and a length of the second damping member accounts for 10% to 90% of the length of the piezoelectric ceramic layer” as thought by Wallnöfer et al. for the purpose of preventing excessive deformation in order to reducing the risk of damage and failure of the device.
Regarding claim 12, Kemppinen et al. (e. g. see FIG. 2, [0035]) discloses each of the first metal shrapnel (34, 36, 38, 40, 42 together on the upper side) and the second metal shrapnel (34, 36, 38, 40, 42 together on the lower side) comprises a fixation portion (36, 38) fixed with the piezoelectric ceramic layer (28), an extension portion (42) extending obliquely from the fixation portion (36, 38) in a direction away from the piezoelectric ceramic layer (28), and a horizontal portion (40) extending horizontally from the extension portion (42).
Regarding claim 13, Kemppinen et al. (e. g. see FIG. 2, [0035]) discloses the fixation portion of the first metal shrapnel (34, 36, 38, 40, 42 together on the upper side) and the fixation portion (36, 38) of the second metal shrapnel (34, 36, 38, 40, 42 together on the lower side) are fixed with the piezoelectric ceramic layer (28) by glue ([0035] The end portions 36, 38 of the two brackets 34 are connected in a shear-resistant manner to the ends 26 of the piezo actuator 24 by means of an adhesive 44.)
Examiner’s Remark:
In this Office Action, Examiner has cited particular figures, column numbers, paragraph numbers, and line numbers of the prior arts applied in the rejections. However, other figures and passages of the same prior arts may anticipate the claim limitations as well. Therefore, Applicants are respectfully requested to consider the prior arts in their entirety as potentially teaching claimed invention.
For amendment purpose, Applicants are very much appreciated for indicating the portion(s) of the specification which dictates the structure(s) relied on for proper interpretation as well as for verification and determination of the metes and bounds of the claimed invention. Applicants’ indication of the specific figures and items of figures which represent features of the invention disclosed in the amended claims, is also expected.
Additionally, in the event that other prior art(s) is/are provided and made of record by the Examiner as being relevant or pertinent to applicant's disclosure but not relied upon, the examiner requests that the reference(s) be considered in any subsequent amendments, as the reference(s) is also representative of the teachings of the art and may apply to the specific limitations of any newly amended claim(s).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Knowles et al. (U. S. Patent No. 6465936) discloses a flextensional transducer assembly having a single flextensional cell with a transducer housed with a platten. The transducer expands and contracts in a transverse direction to cause inverse movement in the platten in the axial direction. The platten may include either an elbow at the intersection of walls or corrugated pattern along the top and bottom walls. The platten is fabricated or milled from single block piece of material (metal block).
Pentscher-Stani (U. S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 20220255468) discloses a mechanical reinforcing element configured to deform as a result of a change in expansion or contraction of an expanding or contracting object coupled to the end regions, such as an actuator, such that the connecting portion of the reinforcing element is moved relative to the movement of the end regions in a direction perpendicular thereto. Thus, the direction of movement of the expanding object is redirected to another direction of movement of the connecting portion perpendicular thereto.
Neuwirth et al. (U. S. Patent No. 11592905) discloses an apparatus including a base plate, an interface with a touch-sensitive surface, a piezoelectric actuator and a mechanical reinforcing element, wherein the mechanical reinforcing element is fastened to the piezoelectric actuator, wherein the mechanical reinforcing element is fastened to the interface, wherein the mechanical reinforcing element is configured to deform, as a result of a change of an extension of the piezoelectric actuator.
Stanje et al. (U. S. Patent No. 12545320) discloses a control element for use, for example with a vehicle. The control element includes at least one tubular section with a cavity at least partially surrounded by a wall, and a piezoelectric component. The piezoelectric component is arranged in the cavity and generates a haptic signal at least one partial region of the control element and/or detects the action of pressure on at least one part of the piezoelectric component. The piezoelectric actuator is in stacking with defined direction and height. two amplification elements deform at least partially as a result of the change in the extension of the piezoelectric actuator.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EMILY P. PHAM whose telephone number is (571) 270-3046. The examiner can normally be reached on MON-FRI 8:00AM-5:00PM.
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, DEDEI HAMMOND, can be reached at (571) 270-7938. 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.
24 September 2026
/EMILY P PHAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2837
