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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
Claim(s) 1-6 and 8-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yonemura et al. (U.S. 2018/0277742, hereafter referred to as Yonemura) in view of Isshiki et al. (U.S. 2020/0269579, hereafter referred to as Isshiki) and further in view of Prir Art I (JP 5510663, hereafter referred to as PAI).
Regarding claim 1, Yonemura teaches a pressure detection element comprising: a pressure detection chamber 12 (see figure 12) for detecting pressure inside (see para. 0058, 0062); a first electrode 60; a second electrode 80; and a first piezoelectric body 70 that is disposed between the first and second electrodes and capacitance of which changes in accordance with the pressure of the pressure detection chamber (see para. 0165; see figure 21),
However, Yonemura does not explicitly teach wherein the first piezoelectric body includes a first piezoelectric layer positioned on the first electrode side and a second piezoelectric layer positioned on the second electrode side, the second piezoelectric layer is in the tetragonal, cubic, or monoclinic crystal system, the first piezoelectric layer is in the rhombohedral crystal system, and thickness of the second piezoelectric layer is smaller than thickness of the first piezoelectric layer.
Isshiki teaches a similar device comprising a piezoelectric body 20 which includes a first piezoelectric layer 22 and a second piezoelectric layer 24, wherein any piezoelectric layer is assumed to be pseudo-cubic (‘that is any one or more of rhombohedral, tetragonal, and monoclinic’; see para. 0008, 0044, 0094).
However, Isshiki nor Yonemura teach wherein the first and second piezoelectric layers are in different crystal systems.
PAI teaches a similar piezoelectric structure 1000 wherein the piezoelectric layer 12 includes a first piezoelectric layer 12a, positioned on the lower electrode 10 side, and a second piezoelectric layer 12b positioned between the first piezoelectric layer 12a and the upper electrode 14. The first piezoelectric layer 12a may have a tetragonal structure. The second piezoelectric layer can have a monoclinic structure.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the device of Yonemura with the teaching of Isshiki and PAI since a change in the shape of a prior art device is a design consideration within the skill of the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Neither reference explicitly teaches wherein the thickness of the second piezoelectric layer is smaller than thickness of the first piezoelectric layer.
it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify the teaching of Isshiki and PAI since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Regarding claims 2-5, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings of Yonemura and Isshiki since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable (young’s modulus; thickness) involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272,205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Additionally, Isshiki teaches that piezoelectric layer 24 is a PMN-PZT layer, while piezoelectric layer 22 is PZT, which is known to have a smaller young’s modulus.
Regarding claim 6, Yonemura further teaches wherein the second electrode 80 is positioned on a side opposite the first piezoelectric body 70 with respect to the pressure detection chamber 12, and the first electrode 60 is positioned on the pressure detection chamber side of the first piezoelectric body (see figure 4).
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the device of Yonemura since it has been held that a mere reversal of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Einstein, 8 USPQ 167.
Regarding claim 8, Yonemura teaches a pressure detection element comprising: a pressure detection chamber 12 for detecting pressure inside; a first electrode 60; a second electrode 80; and a first piezoelectric body 70 that is disposed between the first and second electrodes and capacitance of which changes in accordance with the pressure of the pressure detection chamber (see para. 0165; see figure 21),
However, Yonemura does not explicitly teach wherein the first piezoelectric body includes a first piezoelectric layer positioned on the first electrode side and a second piezoelectric layer positioned on the second electrode side, the second piezoelectric layer is in the tetragonal, cubic, or monoclinic crystal system, the first piezoelectric layer is in the rhombohedral crystal system, and thickness of the second piezoelectric layer is smaller than thickness of the first piezoelectric layer.
Isshiki teaches a similar device comprising a piezoelectric body 20 which includes a first piezoelectric layer 22 and a second piezoelectric layer 24, wherein any piezoelectric layer is assumed to be pseudo-cubic (‘that is any one or more of rhombohedral, tetragonal, and monoclinic’; see para. 0008, 0044, 0094).
However, Isshiki nor Yonemura teach wherein the first and second piezoelectric layers are in different crystal systems.
PAI teaches a similar piezoelectric structure 1000 wherein the piezoelectric layer 12 includes a first piezoelectric layer 12a, positioned on the lower electrode 10 side, and a second piezoelectric layer 12b positioned between the first piezoelectric layer 12a and the upper electrode 14. The first piezoelectric layer 12a may have a tetragonal structure. The second piezoelectric layer can have a monoclinic structure.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the device of Yonemura with the teaching of Isshiki and PAI since a change in the shape of a prior art device is a design consideration within the skill of the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
None of the references explicitly teach wherein a Young's modulus of the second piezoelectric layer is smaller than Young's modulus of the first piezoelectric layer, and thickness of the second piezoelectric layer is smaller than thickness of the first piezoelectric layer.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings of Yonemura and Isshiki since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable (young’s modulus; thickness) involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272,205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 9, Yonemura as modified by Isshiki teaches a liquid discharge head 26 comprising: the pressure detection element according to claim 1; nozzle substrate 52 provided with a nozzle that discharges liquid; and a pressure chamber substrate 10 including a pressure chamber 12 in which pressure for discharging liquid from the nozzle N is applied to liquid and the pressure detection chamber adjacent to the pressure chamber; and a second piezoelectric body (see figures 9-12) that is provided corresponding to the pressure chamber 12 and applies pressure to the pressure chamber upon voltage application, wherein the pressure detection element is provided corresponding to the pressure detection chamber (see para. 0069).
Regarding claim 10, Yonemura further teaches wherein the pressure detection chamber has a function to absorb liquid vibration (via vibration absorber 54) that occurs when pressure is applied to liquid in the pressure chamber.
Regarding claim 11, Neither reference explicitly teaches wherein the thickness of the second piezoelectric layer is smaller than thickness of the first piezoelectric layer.
it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify the teaching of Isshiki and PAI since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Regarding claim 12, Neither reference explicitly teaches wherein the thickness of the second piezoelectric layer is smaller than thickness of the first piezoelectric layer.
it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify the teaching of Isshiki and PAI since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Regarding claim 13, Isshiki teaches a control section configured to control discharge operation from the liquid discharge head (see para. 0013, 0079; see claim 6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the device of Yonemura with the teaching of Isshiki in order to increase sensitivity.
Claim(s) 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yonemura in view of Isshiki and PAI, and further in view of Suzuki (U.S. 2015/0202873).
Regarding claim 7, neither Yonemura, Isshiki or PAI explicitly teach wherein the pressure of the pressure detection chamber is detected based on change in capacitance when voltage corresponding to coercive electric field of the first piezoelectric body is applied.
Suzuki teaches a similar device wherein the pressure of the pressure detection chamber is detected based on change in capacitance when voltage corresponding to coercive electric field of the first piezoelectric body is applied (see para. 0147).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the device of Yonemura and Isshiki with the teaching of Suzuki in order to monitor chamber volume.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMEL E WILLIAMS whose telephone number is (571)270-7027. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 10am-4pm.
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, John Breene can be reached at (571)272-4107. 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.
/JAMEL E WILLIAMS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855
