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.
Foreign Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 14 May 2025, 23 October 2024, 16 October 2024 and 4 October 2023 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yong et al. (U. S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 20110281172).
Regarding independent claim 1, Yong et al. (e. g. see FIG. 1, claim 2, claim 20, [0039], [0089]) discloses a polymer piezoelectric film element in which electrode sheets (electrode (+), electrode (-)) are formed on both surfaces of a polymer piezoelectric film (organic/inorganic composite porous film), wherein the polymer piezoelectric film film (organic/inorganic composite porous film) has a structure that is a structure with bumps and dips or a wave-shaped structure with peaks and valleys in an axis perpendicular to the surfaces (curved shape in an axis perpendicular to the surfaces).
Regarding claim 10, Yong et al. (e. g. see FIG. 1, claim 2, claim 20, [0039], [0089]) discloses a power storage device, wherein the power storage device stores electricity generated by application of a stress to the polymer piezoelectric film element (FIG. 1) in a capacitor [(0076] Such electrochemical devices include any devices in which electrochemical reactions occur and particular examples thereof include all kinds of primary batteries, secondary batteries, fuel cells, solar cells or capacitors.)
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 nonobviousness.
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 3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yong et al. (U. S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 20110281172) in view of Tajitsu et al. (U. S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 20190273199).
Regarding claim 3, Yong et al. does not disclose “the polymer piezoelectric film is a uniaxially stretched film of polyvinylidene fluoride having a constitutional unit represented by following general formula 1, the uniaxially stretched film having been subjected to polarization.”
However, Tajitsu et al. (e.g. see [0104]) teaches the polymer piezoelectric film is a uniaxially stretched film of polyvinylidene fluoride having a constitutional unit represented by following general formula 1, the uniaxially stretched film having been subjected to polarization.
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 organic/inorganic composite porous film and electrochemical device of Yong et al. to include “the polymer piezoelectric film is a uniaxially stretched film of polyvinylidene fluoride having a constitutional unit represented by following general formula 1, the uniaxially stretched film having been subjected to polarization” as taught by Tajitsu et al. because uniaxially stretching polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF) film mechanically forces the polymer chains to align. This mechanical draw drives the crystal transformation from the non-polar alpha phase into the highly polar, all-trans beta phase, which multiplies the material's piezoelectric coefficient (d₃₃) and overall electromechanical response.
Since Yong et al. and Tajitsu et al. are both from the same field of endeavor (polymer piezoelectric), the purpose disclosed by Tajitsu et al. would have been recognized in the pertinent art of Yong et al.
Regarding claim 5, Yong et al. does not disclose “the polymer piezoelectric film is a uniaxially stretched film of poly-L-lactic acid having a constitutional unit represented by following general formula 3.”
However, Tajitsu et al. (e.g. see [0478]) teaches the polymer piezoelectric film is a uniaxially stretched film of poly-L-lactic acid having a constitutional unit represented by following general formula 3.
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 organic/inorganic composite porous film and electrochemical device of Yong et al. to include “the polymer piezoelectric film is a uniaxially stretched film of poly-L-lactic acid having a constitutional unit represented by following general formula 3” as taught by Tajitsu et al. because Poly-L-lactic acid (PLLA) provides vital biocompatibility and biodegradability alongside unique shear-mode piezoelectricity, making it an eco-friendly and safe polymer choice for implantable medical sensors, tissue engineering scaffolds, and wearable electronics that traditional materials like PVDF cannot safely dissolve inside the body.
Since Yong et al. and Tajitsu et al. are both from the same field of endeavor (polymer piezoelectric), the purpose disclosed by Tajitsu et al. would have been recognized in the pertinent art of Yong et al.
Claims 4, 6 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yong et al. (U. S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 20110281172) in view of Ishida (U. S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 20220103949).
Regarding claim 4, Yong et al. does not disclose “the polymer piezoelectric film is a uniaxially stretched film of a copolymer of vinylidene fluoride and trifluoroethylene, the uniaxially stretched film having been subjected to polarization, the copolymer having a constitutional unit represented by following general formula 2.”
However, Ishida (e. g. see [0053], [0106], [0107], [0116], [0277], [0292], [0295], [0297]-[0299], [0301], [0303]) teaches the polymer piezoelectric film is a uniaxially stretched film of a copolymer of vinylidene fluoride and trifluoroethylene, the uniaxially stretched film having been subjected to polarization, the copolymer having a constitutional unit represented by following general formula 2.
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 organic/inorganic composite porous film and electrochemical device of Yong et al. to include “the polymer piezoelectric film is a uniaxially stretched film of a copolymer of vinylidene fluoride and trifluoroethylene, the uniaxially stretched film having been subjected to polarization, the copolymer having a constitutional unit represented by following general formula 2” as taught by Ishida because the copolymer of vinylidene fluoride and trifluoroethylene, known as P(VDF-TrFE), spontaneously crystallizes into the polar ferroelectric beta-phase from the melt. This eliminates the difficult mechanical stretching step required by pure PVDF, yielding higher crystallinity, superior thermal stability, and consistent piezoelectric responses for flexible electronics and sensors.
Since Yong et al. and Ishida are both from the same field of endeavor (polymer piezoelectric), the purpose disclosed by Ishida would have been recognized in the pertinent art of Yong et al.
Regarding claim 6, Yong et al. does not disclose “at least one of the electrode sheets has a Young's modulus of 1 MPa or more and a thickness of 100 nm or more and 100 μm or less.
However, Ishida (e. g. see [0053], [0106], [0107], [0116], [0277], [0292], [0295], [0297]-[0299], [0301], [0303]) teaches at least one of the electrode sheets has a Young's modulus of 1 MPa or more and a thickness of 100 nm or more and 100 μm or less.”
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 organic/inorganic composite porous film and electrochemical device of Yong et al. to include “at least one of the electrode sheets has a Young's modulus of 1 MPa or more and a thickness of 100 nm or more and 100 μm or less” as taught by Ishida because Young's modulus and thickness control how a polymer piezoelectric material responds to force and voltage. A lower Young's modulus makes the polymer flexible and sensitive to small touches, while a thinner profile increases voltage output per unit of force and broadens frequency response for sensors and actuators.
Regarding claim 11, Yong et al. does not disclose “a load detection device, wherein the load detection device outputs a constant voltage from an operational amplifier by application of a load to the polymer piezoelectric film element.”
However, Ishida (e. g. see [0042], FIG. 7) teaches a load detection device (pressure sensitive sensors, power generation elements, and the like), wherein the load detection device (pressure sensitive sensors, power generation elements, and the like) outputs a constant voltage from an operational amplifier (a constant current type power amplifier) by application of a load to the polymer piezoelectric film element (14).
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 organic/inorganic composite porous film and electrochemical device of Yong et al. to include “a load detection device, wherein the load detection device outputs a constant voltage from an operational amplifier by application of a load to the polymer piezoelectric film element” as taught by Ishida because detecting loads at a constant voltage using a Polyvinylidene Fluoride (PVDF) polymer piezoelectric sensor enables direct measurement of quasi-static and continuous forces. This approach overcomes the traditional limitation where piezoelectric outputs rapidly decay to zero under static conditions. It maintains a stable baseline, lowers signal drift, and simplifies electronic readout for flexible touch or pressure systems
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.
Edelman (U. S. Patent No. 4406323) discloses a piezoelectric polymer heat exchanger.
Sato et al. (U. S. Patent No. 5288551) discloses a laminated piezoelectric device formed by sandwiching a relatively rigid central electrode layer with a pair of piezoelectric polymer films and then with a pair of outer electrode layers which are less rigid than the central electrode layer.
Cho et al. (U. S. Patent No. 10714675) discloses a piezoelectric device and a method of fabricating the same and the piezoelectric device may include a substrate including a 3-dimensional pattern surface layer; and a piezoelectric material layer, which is formed on the pattern surface layer and forms a 3-dimensional interface with the pattern surface layer.
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.
22 August 2026
/EMILY P PHAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2837
Prosecution Insights