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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-6 and 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mizuno et al. (JP 2016219804 A and English machine translation thereof).
Regarding Claims 1 and 5: Mizuno et al. teaches a piezoelectric film comprising having a total light transmittance of at least 90%, an internal haze value of 2.0% at a thickness of 33 µm (0.06%/µm), and a piezoelectric constant d33 of 22.3 pC/N (Table 1, entry 7 of JP 2016219804 A and [0013], [0076] of English machine translation). The piezoelectric constant of Mizuno et al. is higher than 21.6 and 20.6 pC/N in the Examples 1 and 2 of the instant specification before heating to 110 °C, therefore, the constant of Mizuno et al. is considered to also be higher than 10 after heating to 110 °C for 10 minutes.
Regarding Claims 2-3: Mizuno et al. teaches the film comprising a vinylidene fluoride/trifluoroethylene copolymer film ([0021] of English machine translation).
Regarding Claim 4: Mizuno et al. teaches the film wherein the vinylidene fluoride monomers are present in 78-82 mol% ([0024]).
Regarding Claim 6: Mizuno et al. teaches an embodiment wherein the film has a retardation of 0.5-200 nm ([0092]).
Regarding Claim 13: A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In the present case, the film of Mizuno et al. is capable of being used as claimed.
Regarding Claim 14: Mizuno et al. teaches the piezoelectric film on a surface of an electrode ([0110] of English machine translation).
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.
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.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mizuno et al. (JP 2016219804 A and English machine translation thereof) in view of Kanemura et al. (English machine translation of WO 2015064328 A1).
Mizuno et al. teaches the film of claim 1 as set forth above.
Mizuno et al. is silent as to the YI value of the film. However, Kanemura et al. teaches a piezoelectric film having a YI of 4 or less (Pg. 4). Mizuno et al. and Kanemura et al. are analogous art because they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely piezoelectric films. At the time of the invention a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to include the YI of Kanemura et al. in the film of Mizuno et al. and would have been motivated to do so to avoid looking discolored (Kanemura et al. Pg. 2).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mizuno et al. (JP 2016219804 A and English machine translation thereof) in view of Kodani et al. (WO 2020/080382, English equivalent US Pub. No. 2021/0384411 used for citation purposes).
Mizuno et al. teaches the film of claim 1 as set forth above.
Mizuno et al. is silent as to the residual polarization of the film. However, Kodani et al. teaches a piezoelectric film having a residual polarization amount of 40 mC/m2 or more (abstract). Mizuno et al. and Kodani et al. are analogous art because they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely piezoelectric films. At the time of the invention a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to include the residual polarization amount of Kodani et al. in the film of Mizuno et al. and would have been motivated to do so to lower power consumption and provide better material stability.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mizuno et al. (JP 2016219804 A and English machine translation thereof).
Mizuno et al. teaches a method of producing an organic piezoelectric film comprising casting a solution of vinylidene fluoride to form a non-polarized polymer film (Step A), subjecting the film to a polarization treatment (Step B), and heat treatment performed at any point in time relative to Step B (polarization treatment) including before the polarization step (Step A3) ([0093]-[0105] of English machine translation). Mizuno et al. teaches the temperature of the heat treatment is in a range of (T-100)°C to (T+40)°C where T is the melting point of the polymer film ([0105]). M
Mizuno et al. does not teach claimed temperature range. However, in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10-11 are allowed.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETER F GODENSCHWAGER whose telephone number is (571)270-3302. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30-5:00, M-F EST.
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, Mark Eashoo can be reached at 571-272-1197. 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.
/PETER F GODENSCHWAGER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1767 June 9, 2026
Prosecution Insights