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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant’s submission filed on July 1, 2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The reply filed on July 1, 2025 has been entered into the prosecution for the application. Currently, claims 1, 5-6, 8-12, 14, and 16-17 are pending. Claims 10-12, 14, and 16-17 are withdrawn. Claims 1, 5, 10, 12, and 14 have been amended.
All prior art grounds of rejection are withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office Action.
Claim(s) 1, 5-6, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pat. Pub. 2004/0038800 to Horie et al. (hereinafter “Horie”) in view of U.S. Pat. Pub. 2021/0090800 to Park et al. (hereinafter “Park”).
Regarding claim 1, Horie teaches a dielectric ceramic (Abstract) comprising a plurality of crystal grain bodies including a BaTiO3 ceramic (¶¶ 0150, 1053). Horie teaches that the dielectric ceramic comprises a grain boundary (25) between the plurality of crystal grain bodies (¶ 0144, Fig. 7A) and that a dopant is segregated at the grain boundary (see ¶ 0144, teaching that the ferroelectric part [222] of the dielectric particle [22] “does not substantially include the R1 and R2” subcomponents, i.e., dopants; ¶ 0145, teaching that “at least the R1 and R2 are dispersed” in the grain boundary segregation part).
Horie teaches that “a ratio of a total of the fourth subcomponent and the fifth subcomponent to 100 mol of the main component is preferably 10 mol or less” (¶ 0165). In context, the fourth subcomponent and the fifth subcomponent correspond to the dopant, and a ratio of 10 moles or less of dopant to 100 moles of “the main component” (i.e., the barium titanate-based ceramic) equals an amount of dopant that is 0.10 parts by mol or less based on 1 part by mole of the ceramic (main component); 10/100 = 0.10/1. Thus, Horie teaches wherein the dopant is included in an amount in a range of greater than zero to 0.10 parts by mole based on 1 part by mole of the ceramic; this range substantially overlaps the recited range of 0.05 parts by mole to 0.20 parts by mole based on 1 part by mole of the ceramic in claim 1. In a case where claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art,” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05).
Horie does not teach wherein the dopant is an acceptor dopant that comprises Fe, Ni, Co, Al, Ga, or a combination thereof, or wherein the acceptor dopant is present in an amount of greater than or equal to 90 mol% of the total moles of the dopant in the dielectric ceramic in a region extending 5 nm on either side of the center of the grain boundary.
Park, in the same field of endeavor, teaches dielectric composition that includes BaTiO3 (Abstract). Park teaches wherein the dielectric composition includes an acceptor dopant (¶¶ 0070-0071) that comprises, in some embodiments, at least one of Fe, Ni, and Co (¶ 0073). Park teaches wherein the dielectric composition includes both a donor dopant (first subcomponent comprising a rare earth element, ¶ 0064; rare earth elements are known donor dopants) and an acceptor dopant (second subcomponent, ¶ 0070). Park teaches wherein the acceptor dopant (second subcomponent) is included in an amount of 0.01 parts by mole to 4.0 parts by mole based on 100 moles of the main component (¶ 0074); expressed in terms of 1 part by mole of the ceramic (as in claim 1), this is equivalent to 0.0001 to 0.04 parts by mole based on 1 part by mole of the ceramic; the upper end of this taught range is close to the recited range in claim 1. A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap but are merely close (see MPEP 2144.05(I), second paragraph).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Horie by adding an acceptor dopant that comprises Fe, Ni, Co, or a combination thereof, as taught by Park. Motivation to do so would come from a desire to lower the firing temperature and improve the high temperature withstand voltage characteristics of a multilayer ceramic capacitor or similar device fabricated from the dielectric ceramic (see Park at ¶ 0071).
Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify Horie by including Fe, Ni, Co, or a combination thereof as an acceptor dopant, as taught by Park. Moreover, Park teaches that the dielectric ceramic material is prepared by sintering the doped composition at 1200°C or lower (¶ 0148); this is substantially similar to the relatively low sintering temperature range of 1300°C or less according to the claimed invention (see Applicant’s Specification, p. 15). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art, guided by the teachings of Horie as modified by Park, would have found it obvious to produce a dielectric ceramic with substantially identical composition as the claimed invention and prepared by a substantially identical relatively low temperature sintering process; one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect thereby to produce a dielectric ceramic with a grain boundary and a dopant segregated at the grain boundary (i.e., in a region on either side of the center of the grain boundary), such that the dopant is present in an amount of greater than or equal to 90 mol% of the total moles of the dopant in the dielectric ceramic in a region extending 5 nm on either side of the center of the grain boundary. Where the claimed and prior art products are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of obviousness has been established. MPEP 2112.01(I). Here, one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect that such a dielectric ceramic would inherently exhibit the same physical characteristics as the claimed invention, including having dopant present in an amount of greater than or equal to 90 mol% of the total moles of the dopant in the dielectric ceramic in a region extending 5 nm on either side of the center of the grain boundary.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Horie with the teachings of Park, as set forth above, to produce a dielectric ceramic meeting the limitations of claim 1.
Regarding claim 5, Horie as modified by Park a dielectric ceramic produced by a substantially identical process to the process laid out in the present application, as set forth above (see p. 5). Where the claimed and prior art products are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of obviousness has been established. MPEP 2112.01(I). Since Horie as modified by Park teaches a substantially identical dielectric ceramic produced by a substantially identical process to the process laid out in the present application, one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect that such a dielectric ceramic would inherently exhibit the same physical characteristics as the claimed invention, including having dopant present in an amount of 85 mol% to 95 mol% of the total moles of the dopant in the dielectric ceramic in a region extending 2 nm on either side of the center of the grain boundary.
Regarding claim 6, Horie as modified by Park teaches that it is “particularly effective” for the average crystal grain diameter to be in a range of 0.1 to 0.5 μm, i.e., 100 to 500 nm (Horie at ¶ 0150); this range overlaps the average grain diameter range of “less than or equal to 150 nm” of claim 6. In a case where claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art,” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claim 9, Horie as modified by Park teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as described above. Further, Horie as modified by Park teaches that a dielectric loss of “less than 1.1% was considered preferable, more preferably less than 1.0%” (Horie at ¶ 0217) (where dielectric loss is measured at a frequency of 1 kHz, Horie at ¶ 0215). Moreover, Horie provides an example of a specific embodiment, Sample 21, that has a dielectric loss of 0.96% (Horie, p. 12, Table 2). (Sample 21 in Horie comprised a dielectric ceramic including the components outlined above with regard to claim 1; i.e., the sample comprised a dielectric ceramic “prepared in the same way as in the example 1” [¶ 0229]. Horie explains that example 1 includes a “main component material” [¶ 0204]; Horie explains that “main component material” comprises crystal grain bulks of BaTiO3 with up to some small amounts of Sr, Zr, and/or Sn [¶ 0142]. Horie also explains that example 1 includes one or more dopants [“subcomponent materials,” ¶ 0204], and Horie explains with regard to Sample 21 that the sample includes “R1 (fourth subcomponent) and R2 (fifth subcomponent)” [¶ 229]; further, in regard to Sample 21, Horie discloses that the dopants R1 and R2 “were substantially not dispersed in the ferroelectric part 222” [¶ 0238; Fig. 7B] and that both R1 and R2 “were dispersed in the diffusion part 224 and the grain boundary segregation part 24” [¶ 0239]; in other words, the dopants [R1 and R2 subcomponents] are segregated at the grain boundary. Thus, Sample 21 has a composition substantially identical to the composition discussed above with regard to claim 1.)
A dielectric ceramic meeting all of the limitations of claim 1 is obvious in view of Horie as modified by Park, as set forth above. Moreover, Horie as modified by Park teaches that it is “more preferable” that the dielectric ceramic have a dielectric loss of less than 1.0% (Horie at ¶ 0217). Further, Horie as modified by Park provides an example (Sample 21) of a dielectric ceramic meeting the limitations of claim 1 that has a dielectric loss of 0.96% (Horie, p. 12, Table 2), thereby providing evidence that it is possible to achieve such a dielectric loss value when operating within the teachings of the cited prior art references. Thus, for one of ordinary skill in the art, given the teachings of Horie as modified by Park, it would have been a matter of routine experimentation to prepare a dielectric ceramic according to claim 1 that also had a dielectric loss of less than or equal to 1 % in a frequency region of less than or equal to 100 MHz, particularly since Horie as modified by Park teaches the preferability of the dielectric ceramic having a dielectric loss of less than 1.0%. A dielectric ceramic composition reading on every limitation of claim 9 therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Horie in view of Park as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yoon et al., “Correlation between tetragonality (c/a) and direct current (dc) bias characteristics of BaTiO3-based multi-layer ceramic capacitors (MLCC),” J. Mater. Chem. C [2020] (8), pp. 9373-9381 (hereinafter “Yoon”).
Regarding claim 8, Horie as modified by Park teaches the dielectric ceramic of claim 1, as set forth above. However, Horie as modified by Park does not teach wherein a tetragonality of the plurality of crystal grain bodies ranges from 1 to 1.005.
Yoon, in the same field of endeavor (i.e., BaTiO3-based multi-layer ceramic materials), teaches the tetragonality (c/a) of a BaTiO3-based multi-layer ceramic material can be controlled and reduced through decreasing the grain size and through increasing the A/B ratio in the ABO3 structure by the addition of excess Ba (Conclusions, p. 9380). Yoon also discloses an embodiment (F-G-Ba, a fine-grained specimen in which 2.4 mol% excess Ba has been added to adjust the Ba/Ti ratio in the barium titanate, p. 9374) in which tetragonality is 1.004 (Fig. 2, reproduced nearby).
PNG
media_image1.png
401
805
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 2 from Yoon, showing sample F-G-Ba with tetragonality (c/a) of 1.004.
One of ordinary skill in the art, possessing the teaching of Yoon, could readily modify Horie as modified by Park to adjust the ratio of Ba to Ti in order to produce a dielectric ceramic comprising crystal grain bulks with tetragonality from 1 to 1.005. One would have been motivated to do so in order to enhance the dielectric constant of the dielectric ceramic material (Yoon, Abstract). Moreover, such a modification is consistent with the disclosure of Horie, which contemplates the inclusion of additional Ba above and beyond the Ba already included in the BaTiO3 of the main component (see Horie at ¶¶ 0135, 0137).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teachings of Yoon to modify further Horie as modified by Park in order to produce a dielectric ceramic meeting all of the limitations of claim 8.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed July 1, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 8 of the Remarks submitted with the reply filed July 1, 2025 (hereinafter “Remarks”), Applicant asserts that Horie discloses dopants “composed of rare-earth metals,” which “are known donor dopants.” This is essentially accurate. Applicant then argues that to modify Horie by including an acceptor dopant in the dielectric ceramic “would fundamentally alter or defeat the characteristics of the dielectric composition disclosed in Horie” (Remarks at p. 8). The Examiner disagrees. In the new grounds of rejection set forth above, the secondary reference, Park, teaches that a dielectric composition may include both donor dopants (the first subcomponent, comprising one or more rare earth elements) and acceptor dopants (such as Fe, Ni, and/or Co) (see Park at ¶¶ 0064-0065, 0070, 0073). The donor dopants and acceptor dopants substitute different sites within the ABO3 structure of the barium titanate material, with the donor dopants replacing Ba atoms at the A-site and acceptor dopants replacing Ti atoms at the B-site (Park at ¶¶ 0065, 0071). The donor dopants and the acceptor dopants provide different material effects and are added for different purposes; for example, the donor dopants help to suppress leakage current (¶ 0065), while the acceptor dopants serve to lower the firing temperature and improve the high temperature withstand voltage characteristics of the final dielectric product (¶ 0071; see also discussion above with respect to claim 1, pp. 4-5). Therefore, in the hands of one of ordinary skill in the art, these two classes of dopants are not cancelling each other out or working at cross-purposes; the disclosure of Park makes clear that including both donor and acceptor dopants within the same dielectric ceramic material does not render the dielectric ceramic material inoperable for its intended purpose.
Applicant’s remaining arguments 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure:
U.S. Pat. No. 11,227,717 to Kim et al. (“Kim”) teaches a dielectric ceramic composition that includes a BaTiO3-based base material main component (Abstract). Kim teaches that, in some embodiments, he dielectric ceramic composition includes 0.1 mol % to 2.0 mol %, inclusive, of a subcomponent including one or more oxides including at least one element selected from the group consisting of manganese (Mn), vanadium (V), chromium (Cr), iron (Fe), nickel (Ni), cobalt (Co), and copper (Cu) (see claim 3).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL A. FORSYTH whose telephone number is (703)756-5425. The examiner can normally be reached M - Th 8:00 - 5:30 EDT and F 8:00 - 12:00 EDT.
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, AMBER R. ORLANDO can be reached at (571) 270-3149. 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.
/P.A.F./Examiner, Art Unit 1731
/JENNIFER A SMITH/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1731