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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “voltage application means,” “a measurement means,” and “a determination means” recited in claims 5 & 6.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3, & 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) & (a)(2) as being anticipated by Obata et al (U.S. PGPub # 2020/0209302.).
Regarding Independent claim 1, Obata teaches:
A crack detection method for a piezoelectric element, comprising the steps of:
applying a voltage having a single or multiple resonant frequencies to a piezoelectric element (Fig. 1 Elements 14a & 14b. See paragraphs 0037 & 0061-0063.);
measuring a resistive component of an impedance between a pair of electrodes of the piezoelectric element alone due to the application of the voltage (Paragraphs 0061-0064.); and
taking a peak value of the resistive component of the impedance having been measured into consideration and determining whether a crack has occurred in the piezoelectric element based on a preset threshold value (Paragraph 0063.).
PNG
media_image1.png
242
350
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, Obata teaches all elements of claim 1, upon which this claim depends.
Obata teaches wherein when determining whether a crack has occurred in the piezoelectric element based on the preset threshold value, the method further comprises using a plurality of the peak values of the resistive component of the impedance having been measured, and all of these determination results are taken into consideration to determine whether a crack has occurred in the piezoelectric element (Paragraph 0063.).
Regarding Independent claim 5, Obata teaches:
A crack detection device for a piezoelectric element, comprising:
a voltage application means operable to apply a voltage having a single or multiple resonant frequencies to a piezoelectric element (Fig. 1 Elements 14a & 14b. See paragraphs 0037 & 0061-0063.);
a measurement means operable to measure a resistive component of an impedance between a pair of electrodes of the piezoelectric element alone due to the application of the voltage (Paragraphs 0061-0064.); and
a determination means operable to take a peak value of the resistive component of the impedance having been measured into consideration and operable to determine whether a crack has occurred in the piezoelectric element based on a preset threshold value (Paragraph 0063.).
PNG
media_image1.png
242
350
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 6, Obata teaches:
A crack detection device for a piezoelectric element, comprising:
a voltage application means operable to apply a voltage having a single or multiple resonant frequencies and also applies an arbitrary DC voltage to a piezoelectric element (Fig. 1 Elements 14a & 14b. See paragraphs 0037 & 0061-0063.);
a measurement means operable to measure a resistive component of an impedance between a pair of electrodes of the piezoelectric element alone due to the application of the voltage (Paragraphs 0061-0064.); and
a determination means operable to take a peak value of the resistive component of the impedance having been measured into consideration and operable to determine whether a crack has occurred in the piezoelectric element based on a preset threshold value (Paragraph 0063.).
PNG
media_image1.png
242
350
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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.
Claims 2 & 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Obata et al (U.S. PGPub # 2020/0209302.) in view of Kaku et al (Translation of JP 5926063).
Regarding claim 2, Obata teaches:
A crack detection method for a piezoelectric element, comprising the steps of:
applying a voltage having a single or multiple resonant frequencies (Fig. 1 Elements 14a & 14b. See paragraphs 0037 & 0061-0063.);
measuring a resistive component of an impedance between a pair of electrodes of the piezoelectric element alone due to the application of the voltage (Paragraphs 0061-0064.); and
taking a peak value of the resistive component of the impedance having been measured into consideration and determining whether a crack has occurred in the piezoelectric element based on a preset threshold value (Paragraph 0063.).
PNG
media_image1.png
242
350
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Obata does not explicitly teach:
and also applying an arbitrary DC voltage to a piezoelectric element.
Kaku teaches:
and also applying an arbitrary DC voltage to a piezoelectric element (Paragraph 0024 of translation.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to apply the teachings of Kaku to the teachings of Obata such that one would also apply an arbitrary DC voltage to a piezoelectric element so that one “applies a DC electric field to the piezoelectric substrate … of each semi-finished product” so that “when an electric field is applied, the inverse piezoelectric effect of the piezoelectric substrate … causes a strain in the piezoelectric substrate that is proportional to the electric field.”
Regarding claim 4, Obata & Kaku teach all elements of claim 2, upon which this claim depends.
Obata teaches when determining whether a crack has occurred in the piezoelectric element based on the preset threshold value, the method further comprises using a plurality of the peak values of the resistive component of the impedance having been measured, and all of these determination results are taken into consideration to determine whether a crack has occurred in the piezoelectric element (Paragraph 0063.).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The prior art listed but not cited represents the previous state of the art and analogous art that teaches some of the limitations claimed by applicant.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER P MCANDREW whose telephone number is (469)295-9025. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 6-4:30.
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, Lee Rodak can be reached on 571-270-5628. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER P MCANDREW/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Prosecution Insights