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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has not been able to be retrieved.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) submitted on 15 August 2024 in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the Information Disclosure Statement has been considered 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.
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.
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.
Claims 1-7 & 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JOMORI et al. (US 2023/0243710 A1) in view of MARTIN et al. (US 2022/0123715 A1).
As related to independent claim 1, JOMIRI et al. teaches a piezoelectric element comprising: a substrate having a lower electrode, a piezoelectric film, and an upper electrode, in that order (JOMIRI et al. – Page 1, Paragraph 4 and Figure 28, Reference #61, #22, & #63, shown below), wherein one of the side surfaces of the piezoelectric film has a plurality of step portions, each of the plurality of step portions has a first side surface and a second side surface, an angle of inclination of the first side surface with respect to an upper surface of the substrate is different from an angle of inclination of the second side surface with respect to the upper surface of the substrate, and an angle between the first side surface and the second side surface is 90° or more (JOMIRI et al. – Page 4, Paragraph 91 and Figure 32, Reference #22 & #22a, shown below).
PNG
media_image1.png
376
434
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
212
460
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Continuing with claim 1, while JOMIRI et al. teaches an insulating film (JOMIRI et al. – Page 4, Paragraph 90), JOMIRI et al. does not specifically teach an insulating film covering the piezoelectric film. However, MARTIN et al. teaches a piezoelectric element comprising: a substrate having a lower electrode, a piezoelectric film, and an upper electrode, in that order (MARTIN et al. – Figure 8, Reference #141, #150, & #161, shown below) and specifically teaches an insulating film that covers at least a side surface of the piezoelectric film (MARTIN et al. – Figure 8, Reference #155 & #150 and Figure 14, Reference #590 & #550, both shown below).
PNG
media_image3.png
238
690
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
274
710
media_image4.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to recognize the use of the insulating film of JOMIRI et al. in the piezoelectric element of MARTIN et al. in an effort to provide a passivation overcoating and prevent leakage across components (MARTIN et al. – Page 3, Paragraphs 31-32 and Page 5, Paragraph 48).
As related to dependent claim 2, the combination of JOMIRI et al. and MARTIN et al. remains as applied above and continues to teach the first side surface and the second side surface are inclined with respect to the upper surface of the substrate, and the angle of inclination of the second side surface with respect to the upper surface of the substrate is smaller than the angle of inclination of the first side surface with respect to the upper surface of the substrate (JOMIRI et al. – Figure 32, Reference #22 and MARTIN et al. – Figure 8, Reference #150, both shown above).
As related to dependent claim 3, the combination of JOMIRI et al. and MARTIN et al. remains as applied above and continues to teach the first side surface is inclined with respect to the upper surface of the substrate, and the second side surface is parallel to the upper surface of the substrate (JOMIRI et al. – Figure 32, Reference #22 and MARTIN et al. – Figure 8, Reference #150, both shown above).
As related to dependent claim 4, the combination of JOMIRI et al. and MARTIN et al. remains as applied above and continues to teach a width of the piezoelectric film in a direction perpendicular to a film thickness direction monotonically increases from the upper electrode to the lower electrode (JOMIRI et al. – Figure 32, Reference #22 and MARTIN et al. – Figure 8, Reference #150, both shown above).
As related to further dependent claim 5, the combination of JOMIRI et al. and MARTIN et al. remains as applied above and continues to teach one of the side surfaces of the piezoelectric film has a stepped shape including a step portion with a convex shape formed by the first side surface and the second side surface connected to an upper end of the first side surface, and a step portion with a concave shape formed by the second side surface and the first side surface connected to an upper end of the second side surface (JOMIRI et al. – Figure 32, Reference #22 and MARTIN et al. – Figure 8, Reference #150, both shown above).
As related to further dependent claim 6, the combination of JOMIRI et al. and MARTIN et al. remains as applied above and continues to teach the step portion with a convex shape has a protrusion that protrudes in the film thickness direction of the piezoelectric film (JOMIRI et al. – Figure 32, Reference #22 and MARTIN et al. – Figure 8, Reference #150, both shown above).
As related to dependent claim 7, the combination of JOMIRI et al. and MARTIN et al. remains as applied above and continues to teach the insulating film further covers a portion of an upper surface of the lower electrode where the piezoelectric film is not formed, a portion of an upper surface of the piezoelectric film where the upper electrode is not formed, and an upper surface of the upper electrode (MARTIN et al. – Figure 14, Reference #590, shown above).
As related to independent claim 9, the combination of JOMIRI et al. and MARTIN et al. remains for the reasons indicated above and additionally teaches a method for manufacturing a piezoelectric element, the method comprising the steps of: forming a lower electrode on an upper surface of a substrate; forming a piezoelectric film on an upper surface of the lower electrode by forming a piezoelectric layer multiple times using a liquid phase method; patterning the piezoelectric film by wet etching; forming a metal film on an upper surface of the piezoelectric film; forming an upper electrode on the upper surface of the piezoelectric film by patterning the metal film by dry etching; processing a side surface of the piezoelectric film by dry etching; and forming an insulating film to cover at least the piezoelectric film (JOMIRI et al. – Page 4, Paragraphs 82-91; Page 6, Paragraph 108; Page 8, Paragraph 129; Page 11, Paragraph 164; & Figure 28, shown above and MARTIN et al. – Page 2, Paragraphs 22-28; Figures 8 & 14, shown above; and Figure 9, shown below).
PNG
media_image5.png
502
414
media_image5.png
Greyscale
As related to dependent claim 10, the combination of JOMIRI et al. and MARTIN et al. remains as applied above and continues to teach the insulating film is formed by CVD or a combination of ALD and CVD (MARTIN et al. – Page 2, Paragraph 26).
As related to dependent claim 11, the combination of JOMIRI et al. and MARTIN et al. remains as applied above and continues to teach in the processing step, dry etching is performed for a first processing time (JOMIRI et al. – Page 4, Paragraphs 82-91; Page 6, Paragraph 108; Page 8, Paragraph 129; Page 11, Paragraph 164; & Figure 28, shown above and MARTIN et al. – Page 2, Paragraphs 22-28 and Figures 8 & 14, shown above), one of the side surfaces of the piezoelectric film obtained in the processing step has a plurality of step portions, each of the plurality of step portions has a first side surface and a second side surface, an angle of inclination of the first side surface with respect to the upper surface of the substrate is different from an angle of inclination of the second side surface with respect to the upper surface of the substrate, and an angle between the first side surface and the second side surface is 90° or more (JOMIRI et al. – Page 4, Paragraph 91 and Figure 32, Reference #22 & #22a, shown above and MARTIN et al. – Figure 8, Reference #150, both shown above).
As related to further dependent claim 12, the combination of JOMIRI et al. and MARTIN et al. remains as applied above and continues to teach in the processing step, dry etching is performed for a second processing time that is longer than the first processing time, and a step portion with a convex shape among the step portions on one of the side surfaces of the piezoelectric film obtained in the processing step has a protrusion that protrudes in a film thickness direction of the piezoelectric film (JOMIRI et al. – Page 4, Paragraphs 82-91; Page 6, Paragraph 108; Page 8, Paragraph 129; Page 11, Paragraph 164; & Figure 28, Reference #22 shown above and MARTIN et al. – Page 2, Paragraphs 22-28 and Figures 8 & 14, Reference #150 & #550 & Figure 9, shown above).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NAKAYAMA et al. in view of the combination of JOMORI et al. (US 2023/0243710 A1) and MARTIN et al. (US 2022/0123715 A1).
NAKAYAMA et al. teaches a liquid ejection head comprising a piezoelectric element, wherein the liquid ejection head eject liquid by driving the piezoelectric element, wherein the piezoelectric element includes: a substrate having a lower electrode, a piezoelectric film, and an upper electrode, in that order (NAKAYAMA et al. – Page 1, Paragraph 9; Figure 24, shown below; and Figure 1, Reference #10, #20, & #30, shown below); and an insulating film that covers at least a side surface of the piezoelectric film (NAKAYAMA et al. – Figure 17, Reference #40, shown below). One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have been motivated to modify the piezoelectric film of NAKAYAMA et al. with the structure of the combination of JOMORI et al. and MARTIN et al. in an effort to obtain high reliability of the piezoelectric element (NAKAYAMA et al. – Page 2, Paragraph 27). The combination of NAKAYAMA et al. as modified by JOMORI et al. and Martin et al. teaches wherein one of the side surfaces of the piezoelectric film has a plurality of step portions, each of the plurality of step portions has a first side surface and a second side surface, an angle of inclination of the first side surface with respect to an upper surface of the substrate is different from an angle of inclination of the second side surface with respect to the upper surface of the substrate, and an angle between the first side surface and the second side surface is 90° or more (JOMIRI et al. – Page 4, Paragraph 91 and Figure 32, Reference #22 & #22a, shown above and MARTIN et al. – Figure 8, Reference #150, both shown above).
PNG
media_image6.png
538
384
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
260
384
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
280
430
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. NAWANO (US 2013/0229464 A1) teaches a piezoelectric element in a liquid ejection head which covers a ramped electrode and an adhesive layer. KUROKAWA et al. (US 2023/0264474 A1) teaches a piezoelectric element in a liquid ejection head which is has piezoelectric film between an upper electrode and a lower electrode and formed as a step.
Examiner's Note: Examiner has cited particular Figures & Reference Numbers, Columns, Paragraphs and Line Numbers in the references as applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to JOHN P ZIMMERMANN whose telephone number is (571)270-3049. The Examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 0700-1730 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, Stephen Meier can be reached at (571) 272-2149. 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.
/John P Zimmermann/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853