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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 1 – 16 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.
In claim 1, the statement “direction of application of the voltage” is indefinite since it is not clear how a voltage would have a “direction”. It is not clear if the direction may be related to a current flow.
Also, it is not clear if the claim refers to a voltage displacement (phase displacement) or mechanical displacement.
In claims 2, 3, 4, an input signal is disclosed. It is not clear if the “input signal” is the same input signal mentioned in claim 1 or if the input signals in such claims may be referring to a second input signal.
In claims 6, 7, 11 – 16, the statement “each different frequency” is indefinite since it is not clear if the frequency is related to a certain voltage or if the frequencies are related to the input signal and how “each different frequency” is obtained.
The rest of the dependent claims are rejected due to their dependency on claim 1.
In order to advance prosecution in the merits, the Prior Art will be applied
as best understood by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cruz-Uribe et al (US 8,668,311) hereafter refers as “Cruz et al” in view of Fukuhara et al (US 2023/0069327) OR Yamazaki (JP 2018-133647).
Cruz et al discloses, regarding,
Claim 1, A piezoelectric device comprising: a substrate 102, 106 having a cavity 112; a piezoelectric film 114 covering the cavity and laminated (via sheets 604, 608 and supported on the substrate; and a first electrode and a second electrode 202A, 202B being provided to be spaced apart from each other so as to sandwich a part of the piezoelectric film, wherein the first electrode and the second electrode pass through the piezoelectric film in the thickness direction of the piezoelectric film (see Fig. 7) and are disposed above the cavity, and wherein an input signal is converted to an output signal based on displacement in a direction of application of a voltage to the piezoelectric film polarized in the direction of application of the voltage by applying the voltage between the first electrode and the second electrode (column 3, lines 35 – 45; column 1, lines 59 – 64).
Fukuhara et al is being cited for explicitly showing that a first and second electrode 22, 23 (since such devices are connected to the electrodes 18, 19 and form part of the electrical path to the piezoelectric film) are spaced apart from each other so as to sandwich a part of the piezoelectric film 12 and the first and second electrodes 22, 23 pass through the piezoelectric film 12 (see Fig. 1A; 0095, 0096) in the thickness direction.
It is noted also that Yamazaki also teaches explicitly a first and second electrode 5a, 5b, being provided spaced apart from each other so as to sandwich the piezoelectric film 3b and the first and second electrode 5a, 5b, pass through the piezoelectric film 3b (see Fig. 6) in the thickness direction of the piezoelectric film and are disposed above the cavity (see Fig. 6). It is also disclose that by applying a voltage to the electrode, mechanical deformations are obtained (see Fig. 2 description in English machine translation).
The Prior Art further discloses, regarding,
Claim 3, the piezoelectric device comprises a plurality of piezoelectric units above the cavity (Yamazaki, Figs. 2, 4, 5) wherein each of the piezoelectric units includes the first electrode, the second electrode and a part of the piezoelectric film between the first electrode and the second electrode, and wherein an input signal is converted to an output signal based on the displacement of the piezoelectric film in the plurality of piezoelectric units and displacement of the piezoelectric film at a part between the plurality of piezoelectric units (Yamazaki, Fig. 2 description; Cruz et al, column 3, lines 35 – 45; column 1, lines 59 – 64).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to design the device as disclosed by Cruz and to modify the invention per the limitations disclosed by Fukuhara et al for the purpose of efficiently protecting resonators or to modify the invention per the limitations disclosed by Yamazaki for the purpose of improving the sensitivity of a piezoelectric device.
Claim(s) 2, 4, 6, 11, 12, 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cruz et al, Fukuhara et al or Yamazaki as applied to claims 1, 3 above, and further in view of Goericke et al (US 2021/0177378).
The combined device discloses all of the elements above. However, the combined device does not disclose the elements below.
On the other hand, Goericke et al discloses, regarding,
Claim 2, the first electrode and the second electrode are disposed concentrically, and wherein an input signal is converted to an output signal (see Figs. 3, 5A) based on the displacement of a donut-shaped part of the piezoelectric film between the first electrode and the second electrode (see Figs. 2A, 2C).
Claim 4, an input signal is converted to an output signal based on the displacement of the donut-shaped part of the piezoelectric film (see Figs. 3, 5A) and displacement of a circular part, which is surrounded by a piezoelectric unit including the first electrode and the second electrode and the donut-shaped part of the piezoelectric film, of the piezoelectric film (Figs. 2A, 2C).
Claim 6, 11, 12, 13, each of the piezoelectric devices has the piezoelectric film to be displaced at each different frequency by applying a voltage between the first electrode and the second electrode (Fig. 3, 2B; 0057, 0046).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to design the combined device as disclosed above and to modify the invention per the limitations disclosed by Goericke et al for the purpose of improving the signal to noise ratio of transducers.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 14, 15, 16 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The prior art fails to disclose the description of the piezoelectric films as specifically described in claim 5 and the similar claims of claim 5.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Julio C. Gonzalez whose telephone number is (571)272-2024. The examiner can normally be reached M-F.
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, Abdullah Riyami can be reached at 5712703119. 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.
/Julio C. Gonzalez/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2831
September 8, 2026
Prosecution Insights