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 .
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.
Should applicant desire to obtain the benefit of foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) prior to declaration of an interference, a certified English translation of the foreign application must be submitted in reply to this action. 37 CFR 41.154(b) and 41.202(e).
Failure to provide a certified translation may result in no benefit being accorded for the non-English application.
Applicant cannot rely upon the certified copy of the foreign priority application to overcome this rejection because a translation of said application has not been made of record in accordance with 37 CFR 1.55. When an English language translation of a non-English language foreign application is required, the translation must be that of the certified copy (of the foreign application as filed) submitted together with a statement that the translation of the certified copy is accurate. See MPEP §§ 215 and 216.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 3/26/2024 and 3/8/2024 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
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 following title is suggested: Piezoelectric Substrate with a Plurality of Centers of Curvature
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show "X, Y, and Z" as described in the specification (Paragraph [0018]). Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
Claims 1 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Sumi et al. (US 20160284969A1 hereinafter Sumi), in view of Yamamoto et al. (US20200313650 hereinafter Yamamoto).
Regarding Claim 1, Sumi discloses (Fig. 4C) a piezoelectric substrate comprising: a substrate (110) including a first region and a second region (see annotated figure 4C below); a first electrode layer (60) formed above the substrate; a seed layer (65) formed in the first region above the substrate; a piezoelectric layer (70) formed in the first region and the second region above the substrate and containing potassium, sodium, and niobium ([0053]).
Sumi does not disclose a substrate that includes a plurality of centers of curvature. Yamamoto, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a device with a piezoelectric substrate wherein the substrate includes a plurality of centers of curvature (Fig 13, see annotated Figure 13 below). The support substrate includes protruding portions (51) and recessed portions (52) ([0004]; "...a support substrate having protruding portions and/or recessed portions"). These protruding portions and recessed portions can be curved (Fig. 4J) and are made to create uniform periodic unevenness to replace random roughness to reduce unwanted spurious emissions (Paragraphs [0045],[0080], [0081]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, to modify the piezoelectric element of Sumi to include “a plurality of centers of curvature” as taught by Yamamoto to create a uniform structure to create a uniform magnitude of spurious emission (Yamamoto [0080] - [0081]).
Regarding claim 3, Sumi discloses the piezoelectric device as described in claim 1. Sumi fails to explicitly disclose that the surface roughness of the piezoelectric layer in the second region is greater than the surface roughness of the piezoelectric layer in the second region is greater than the surface roughness of the piezoelectric layer in the first region. However, Sumi discloses that the orientation of the piezoelectric layer is controlled by the presence of a seed layer. Specifically, the piezoelectric layer is grown on the seed layer in the first region, whereas the piezoelectric layer is grown without the underlying seed layer in the second region. Sumi teaches that the seed layer controls the crystallographic orientation of the piezoelectric layer such that the piezoelectric layer is Preferentially oriented along the (110) plane (Sumi [0054], see annotated Fig. 4C below).
It is well known in the art that growing a piezoelectric layer on a seed layer promotes uniform crystallographic orientation thereby improving the uniformity of the resulting piezoelectric layer and reducing its surface roughness. Conversely, in the absence of a seed layer the crystallographic orientation of the piezoelectric layer is less controlled resulting in less uniform crystal growth and increased surface roughness.
Thus, Sumi discloses a first region in which the crystallographic orientation of the piezoelectric layer is controlled by an underlying seed layer and a second region in the crystallographic orientation is not controlled by such a seed layer.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the piezoelectric layer of Sumi with a greater surface roughness in the second region where the seed layer is absent, than in the first region, where the seed layer is present in order to control cracks in a piezoelectric element as suggested by Sumi ([0064]).
PNG
media_image1.png
522
1274
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 4C (Sumi)
PNG
media_image2.png
694
1157
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 13 (Yamamoto)
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sumi et al. (US 20160284969A1 hereinafter Sumi), in view of Yamamoto et al. (US20200313650 hereinafter Yamamoto) and further in view of Miyazawa et al. (US20160346808, hereinafter Miyazawa).
Regarding Claim 2, Sumi, in view of Yamamoto, discloses the invention of claim 1 but fails to explicitly disclose a seed layer containing bismuth, iron, titanium, and lead and a thickness of the seed layer as smaller than a thickness of the piezoelectric layer.
Miyazawa discloses, in Figs 7A-C, a piezoelectric device including a seed layer containing bismuth, iron, titanium, and lead ([0011]: “The first surface of the piezoelectric body may be formed as an orientation control layer that is formed of a transition metal oxide having a perovskite structure that contains bismuth in an A site and iron and titanium in a B site…. lead(Pb) may be further included in the A site”).
Further, Miyazawa discloses this seed layer such that a thickness of the seed layer may be 3 nm to 100 nm and the piezoelectric layer formed on the seed layer may be 100 nm to 2000nm, but not less than 100 nm to avoid a loss of receiving sensitivity ([0079], [0080], [0085]). Thus, a thickness of the seed layer is smaller than a thickness of the piezoelectric layer.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, to modify the seed layer of the piezoelectric elements of Sumi to include “bismuth, titanium, iron, and lead” and modify the thickness of the seed layer such that a thickness of the seed layer is smaller than a thickness of the piezoelectric layer as taught by Miyazawa for the purpose growing a piezoelectric layer in a preferential orientation to control electrical sensitivity or cracks (Miyazawa [0064]).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Sumi et al. (US 20160284969A1 hereinafter Sumi), in view of Yamamoto et al. (US20200313650 hereinafter Yamamoto) and further in view of Miyoshi et al. (JP2010103811A, hereinafter Miyoshi).
Regarding Claim 4 Sumi discloses the invention of claim 1, but fails to disclose a piezoelectric substrate, wherein a thermal mark is formed in the substrate in the second region.
Miyoshi discloses the process of marking of a piezoelectric substrate from which laser light passes through the piezoelectric substrate (Miyoshi [0004]-[0010]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, to modify the second region of the piezoelectric substrate of Sumi using the marking method taught in Miyoshi of forming a thermal mark through laser irradiation for the purpose of creating controlled cracks in a region in the piezoelectric substrate. It is also well known in the art to form traces at specific positions for alignment purposes or manufacturing purposes from laser irradiation.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAURA JANE KELLEY whose telephone number is (571)272-1368. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8am-5pm.
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 5712707938. 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.
/MAURA J KELLEY/Examiner, Art Unit 2837
/DEDEI K HAMMOND/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2837
Prosecution Insights