DETAILED ACTION
1. Applicant's amendments and remarks submitted on March 17, 2026 have been entered. Claims 13-17, 19 and 21 have been cancelled. Claims 27-33 have been added. Claims 1-11, 18, 24 and 27-33 are still pending on this application, with claims 1-11, 18, 24 and 27-33 being rejected. All new grounds of rejection were necessitated by new claims 27-33. Accordingly, this action is made final.
2. The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
3. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
4. Claims 27-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
5. Claims 27-33 each recite “a fixed end” in line 2 of claims 27 and 30-33, and lines 1-2 of claims 28-29. It is not clear to what structure this limitation is corresponding, e.g. if the fixed end is a fixed end of the electrode, the piezoelectric layer, the cantilever beam (for claims 27-29) or the piezoelectric plate or film (for claims 30-33), etc. Similarly, the claims recite “a free end” and/or “an intermediate region” in line 3 of claims 27 and 30-33, lines 2-3 of claims 28-29, line 4 of claims 30-32, and line 5 of claim 33, with no corresponding indication of what structure these limitations are in reference to. The structure of the claims is therefore not clear, rendering the claims indefinite.
6. Claim 33 further recites “the free end” in line 4 of the claim and “a free end” in line 5 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation “the free end” in line 4 of the claim. In addition, it is not clear if the latter limitation in line 5 is referring to the former. Appropriate correction or clarification is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
7. Claim(s) 1-3 and 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US Patent No 12391546 B1 to Qian et al. (“Qian”).
As to claim 1, Qian discloses a piezoelectric transducer (see col. 1, lines 16-19) comprising: a piezoelectric layer; and an electrode, wherein the electrode covers at least one surface of the piezoelectric layer (see figures 3A-3B, 6 and 7A-7B; col. 2, lines 8-18; col. 5, lines 62-67; col. 6, lines 1-19; col. 7, lines 32-49), and the electrode or the piezoelectric layer includes a plurality of concave structures recessed in a thickness direction of the electrode or the piezoelectric layer (corrugated section with grooves, see figures 7A-7E; col. 7, lines 55-67; col. 8, lines 1-153), wherein an effective area of the electrode is within a range of 30% to 70% of an area of the piezoelectric layer (electrode in proximal portion covering about 1/3 of beam structure, or can extend at least partially to distal portion, see figure 6; col. 6, lines 66-67; col. 7, lines 1-10).
As to claim 2, Qian further discloses comprising a piezoelectric cantilever beam (see figures 3A-4B and 6-7B; col. 2, lines 8-18; col. 7, lines 24-31).
As to claim 3, Qian further discloses wherein the plurality of concave structures include a plurality of grooves distributed along a length direction of the piezoelectric cantilever beam, and each of the plurality of grooves extends in a width direction of the piezoelectric cantilever beam (grooves 148’, see figure 8; col. 9, lines 16-29).
As to claim 7, Qian further discloses comprising a piezoelectric plate or a piezoelectric film (see col. 9, lines 64-67).
As to claim 8, Qian further discloses wherein the plurality of concave structures include a plurality of grooves distributed along a first direction, where the first direction extends from a center of the piezoelectric layer to an edge of the piezoelectric layer (see figures 14B-14C; col. 8, lines 5-9; col. 11, lines 2-32).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
8. Claim(s) 4-6, 9, 18 and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qian in view of US Patent Pub No 2019/0189896 A1 to Miyachi.
As to claim 4, Qian discloses the piezoelectric transducer of claim 2.
Qian does not expressly disclose wherein the plurality of concave structures include an array of holes distributed along a length direction and a width direction of the piezoelectric cantilever beam. However such a configuration is known in the art, as taught by Miyachi, which discloses a similar piezoelectric transducer, and further discloses the cantilever beam can include grooves or spaces between the electrodes and/or the piezoelectric layer (see figures 3B and 5B; pg. 6, ¶ 0085, ¶ 0088), wherein the grooves can be distributed along a length and width of the beam (see figures 3A and 5A), and can be in the form of holes or openings (see figures 4A-4C; pg. 8, ¶ 0110). The proposed modification is therefore considered obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the motivation being as a matter of design, as both Qian and Miyachi disclose that a variety of shapes for the recessed portions can be adopted (Miyachi figures 4A-4C; pg. 8, ¶ 0110).
As to claim 5, Qian in view of Miyachi further discloses wherein the plurality of concave structures are distributed in a region near a fixed end of the piezoelectric cantilever beam (Miyachi figures 4A-5B).
As to claim 6, Qian in view of Miyachi further discloses wherein a length of the region near the fixed end of the piezoelectric cantilever beam is within a range of 1/3 to 1/4 of a length of the piezoelectric cantilever beam (Qian figures 6 and 15A).
As to claim 9, Qian in view of Miyachi further discloses wherein the plurality of concave structures include an array of holes distributed along a first direction and a second direction, where the first direction extends from a center of the piezoelectric layer to an edge of the piezoelectric layer, and the second direction is parallel to the edge of the piezoelectric layer (Miyachi figures 4A-4C; pg. 6, ¶ 0085, ¶ 0088; pg. 8, ¶ 0110).
As to claim 18, Qian in view of Miyachi further discloses wherein a ratio of a thickness of the electrode to a thickness of the piezoelectric layer is greater than or equal to 1:10 and less than or equal to 1:4 (e.g. electrode thickness of 200 nm and piezo layer thickness of 1 µm results in ratio of 0.2 or 1:5, see Qian col. 7, lines 44-45; Miyachi figure 2B; pg. 7, ¶ 0105)
As to claim 24, Qian in view of Miyachi further discloses wherein the plurality of concave structures are distributed on the electrode and the piezoelectric layer, and recessions of the plurality of concave structures extend from the electrode to the piezoelectric layer (Miyachi figure 5B; pg. 8, ¶ 0088).
9. Claim(s) 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qian.
As to claim 10, Qian further discloses wherein the plurality of concave structures are distributed in a sub-region of the piezoelectric layer (see figures 13A and 14A-14K), but does not expressly disclose the sub-region is a region enclosed by midpoints of distances between a center and an edge of the piezoelectric layer. However such a configuration is considered obvious given the teachings of Qian, particularly as it discloses the grooves can vary in number, angle relative to the center line, and length or width (see col. 8, lines 5-9). The claimed configuration is therefore considered an obvious variation given the teachings of Qian, which already discloses variations in groove locations, and further can vary depending on the size and shape of the beam structure, the size, shape and number of grooves, and the desired rigidity or deflection of the beams (see figures 8-9; col. 8, lines 5-9; col. 9, lines 16-43).
As to claim 11, Qian further discloses wherein the plurality of concave structures are distributed outside a sub-region of the piezoelectric layer and within the edge of the piezoelectric layer (see figures 13A and 14A-14K), but does not expressly disclose where the sub-region is a region enclosed by midpoints of distances between a center and an edge of the piezoelectric layer. However such a configuration is considered obvious given the teachings of Qian, particularly as it discloses the grooves can vary in number, angle relative to the center line, and length or width (see col. 8, lines 5-9). The claimed configuration is therefore considered an obvious variation given the teachings of Qian, which already discloses variations in groove locations, and further can vary depending on the size and shape of the beam structure, the size, shape and number of grooves, and the desired rigidity or deflection of the beams (see figures 8-9; col. 8, lines 5-9; col. 9, lines 16-43).
Allowable Subject Matter
10. Claims 27-33 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
11. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
New claims 27-33 further limit the structure of the piezoelectric transducers of respective parent claims 2 and 7, with claims 27 and 30-31 further limiting the width of the concave structures, and claims 28-29 and 32-33 further limiting the distribution of the plurality of concave structures. Specifically, claims 27 and 30-31 further recite the width of the concave structures in a region near a fixed end as being greater than the widths of the concave structures in a region near a free end or an intermediate region, or the width of the concave structures in a region near a fixed end as being less than the widths of the concave structures in an intermediate region. Claims 28-29 and 32-33 further recite the plurality of concave structures in a region near a fixed end being unevenly spaced, and the plurality of concave structures in an intermediate region being evenly spaced, or the plurality of concave structures in a region near a fixed end being evenly spaced, and the plurality of concave structures in a region near the free end or an intermediate region being unevenly spaced.
The claimed configurations are directed to the plurality of concave structures having different configurations or arrangements based on the region in which they are located. The closest prior art, cited by Applicant and Examiner, disclose various arrangements for the plurality of concave structures, including variations in size including width and shape, as well as variations in placement on the structure. The closest prior art however does not disclose or suggest, either alone or in combination, the piezoelectric transducers as claimed, including the plurality of concave structures in the piezoelectric element having different configurations depending on the region in which they are positioned relative to the fixed and free ends, and particularly the widths being greater in a region near the fixed end than the widths on a region near a free or intermediate region, the widths being less in a region near the fixed end than the widths on a region near an intermediate region, or the uneven and even spacing of the concave structures in different regions of the same piezoelectric element.
Response to Arguments
12. Applicant's arguments filed March 17, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 1, Applicant argues “figures 6 and 7A-7C do not clearly show how the electrodes are arranged, the effective area of the electrode is not substantially related to the length shown in Figure 6,” as “the near-end portion 15A in Figure 6 and the first portion 142 in Figure 7 are merely examples and do not represent a true proportional relationship.” Applicant further argues “the specific location to which the electrodes extend is not clearly defined,” therefore “Qian does not disclose wherein an effective area of the electrode is within a range of 30% to 70% of an area of the piezoelectric layer.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Regarding the use of drawing as prior art, it has been held that drawings must be evaluated for what they reasonably disclose and suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Aslanian, 590 F.2d 911, 200 USPQ 500 (CCPA 1979). In this case, the description of the piezoelectric portions as taught by Qian has been relied on, in combination with the drawings, for what they would reasonably teach one of ordinary skill in the art. That is, Qian was not relied on for showing specific measurements of the distal portion and the proximal portion, and instead was relied on for showing approximate areas for the distal and proximal portions based on the drawings and the disclosure.
Qian discloses the piezoelectric beam or structure as having a distal portion and a proximal portion. The distal portion has a corrugated or concave section including one or more grooves that extend generally in the first direction between the proximal portion and the free end. Qian further describes the proximal portion as having one or more electrodes, the electrode layer(s) positioned over a surface of the piezoelectric layer (see col. 7, lines 32-46). With reference to figure 6, the sensing electrode(s) are designated as 15A and extending over a proximal portion of the substrate. Portion 15B is described as the distal portion of the structure that does not have electrodes thereon, or at most, the electrodes extend at least partially into the distal portion (see figure 6; col. 6, lines 66-67; col. 7, lines 1-10).
A reason for the electrode(s) not fully covering the piezoelectric structure is to not significantly affect the sensing of the signal by the electrode. As taught by Qian, the corrugated section being applied to the distal portion limits the bending of the distal portion by increasing the rigidity of the distal portion in the longitudinal direction, and does so without adding mass that could negatively affect the operation of the sensor. By limiting the bending of the distal portion in this way, there is little to no effect on the bending of the proximal portion (i.e. the portion without corrugated elements), and this allows the sensing of the signal by the electrode in the proximal portion to not be significantly affected (see col. 7, lines 12-23; col. 8, lines 16-29). The figures of Qian generally disclose this arrangement, as all the figures disclose separate portions for the proximal and distal sections of the piezoelectric structure, and the corrugated elements of the distal section in particular as being generally arranged over more than half to 1/3 of the distal length of the piezoelectric structure (see figures 6-8, 13A, 14F-15A).
Examiner respectfully maintains Qian teaches the effective area of the electrode as being within a range of 30% to 70% of an area of the piezoelectric layer as claimed, as it teaches a separate proximal portion for the electrode to be positioned, and this portion is described in the specification as not including the corrugated elements to allow the sensing of the of the signal by the electrode. The figures further show this configuration, and generally consistently show the proximal portion without the corrugated elements as being approximately half to 1/3 of the surface of piezoelectric structure, which falls within the claimed broad range of 30% to 70% (see figures 6-8, 13A, 14F-15A; col. 6, lines 66-67; col. 7, lines 1-10).
Regarding claim 8, Applicant argues that “the structure Qian demonstrated is suitable for cantilever beams, rather than the piezoelectric film in claim 8,” therefore Qian does not disclose the transducer of claim 8. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Claim 8, dependent on claim 7, recites the piezoelectric transducer as a piezoelectric plate or a piezoelectric film. Qian teaches the sensor as being made of multiple layers or films of materials, including the piezoelectric layer, and the layers or films defining the beam (see col. 7, lines 32-54; col. 14, lines 54-57). Qian is therefore considered to teach the limitations as claimed.
Regarding claim 10, Applicant argues that “the plurality of concave structure 730 may be distributed at positions of higher stress in the piezoelectric film 700 to increase an output electrical signal or output mechanical quantity,” therefore “the feature defined in claim 10 is a technical feature with substantial technical effect, and is not obvious.” Similarly, regarding claim 11, Applicant argues that “on the one hand, the stress distribution on the piezoelectric film 700 can be improve, enhancing the output electrical signal or output mechanical quantity in the piezoelectric layer 711,” and “on the other hand, the sensitivity of the piezoelectric film 700 can be increase, thereby improving signal-to-noise ratio,” therefore “the feature defined in claim 11 is a technical feature with substantial technical effect, and is not obvious.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to Applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., concave structures distributed at positions of higher stress in the piezoelectric film to increase an output electrical signal or output mechanical quantity, improving the stress distribution on the piezoelectric film, and increasing the sensitivity of the piezoelectric film thereby improving signal-to-noise ratio) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). In addition, it is noted that 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 this case, Qian teaches the concave or corrugated structures being distributed at the distal portion of the piezoelectric structure and symmetrical about the center line in order to increase rigidity of the distal portion and thereby increase the ability of the structure to resist deflection. This placement of the concave or corrugated structures allows the sensor to resist deflection in the distal portion and reduce the gap between beams, thus providing better sensitivity of the sensor, particularly in the low frequency range, as well as improving stress distribution (see figures 5, 7A-8 and 14A-14K; col. 6, lines 50-65; col. 7, lines 12-23; col. 8, lines 16-37; col. 9, lines 10-15). The claimed invention is therefore considered obvious in view of the teachings of Qian.
Conclusion
13. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, 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.
14. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SABRINA DIAZ whose telephone number is (571)272-1621. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-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, Ahmad Matar can be reached at 5712727488. 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.
/SABRINA DIAZ/Examiner, Art Unit 2693
/AHMAD F. MATAR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2693
Prosecution Insights