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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 11/17/25 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 10, 12, 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Amended claim 1 recites molar fraction percentages. However, the instant disclosure recites fraction percentage but is silent regarding molar% or atom%. Claims 10, 12, 15 and 16 require the ferroelectric of claim 1.
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 instant claims contain the transitional phrase “comprising”. Per MPEP 2111.03 ‘The transitional term “comprising”, which is synonymous with “including,” “containing,” or “characterized by,” is inclusive or open-ended and does not exclude additional, unrecited elements or method steps'. This open-ended definition has been taken into consideration in the following rejections.
Claims 1-7, 10, 12, and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2009/0155931 A1 to Ma et al (hereinafter Ma).
Regarding claim 1, Ma discloses a ferroelectric which comprises a piezoelectric material comprising PZT (para [0058]) having both a tetrahedral structure fraction and rhombohedral structure fraction (coexist at a morphotropic phase boundary, para [0059]), wherein the PZT comprises zirconium and titanium at a Zr/Ti molar ratio of about (approaching) 52/48 (para [0059]), which overlaps the instantly claimed range of about Zr53% /Ti47% or more zirconium, the zirconium having a hafnium molar fraction percentage of 0 (no Hf fraction), which falls within the instantly claimed range of 2% or less such that the Hf/Zr molar ratio is Hf0/Zr100, which falls within the instantly claimed range of less than Hf2%/Zr98%. See MPEP 2144.05(I), which states that ‘In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists’.
Regarding claim 2, Ma discloses the ferroelectric as claimed in claim 1, but is silent regarding dielectric loss factor. However, Ma renders the ferroelectric of claim 1 obvious. See MPEP 2112.01(I), cited in the OA mailed 5/15/25. Therefore, the Ma ferroelectric material is expected to have overlapping properties including but not limited to a dielectric loss factor overlapping the instantly claimed range of 0.2% or less; a dielectric constant ε overlapping the instantly claimed range of more than 1000, and a piezoelectric effect d33 overlapping the instantly claimed range of more than 300.
Regarding claim 3, Ma discloses the ferroelectric as claimed in claim 1, comprising a two-phase (para [0059]) or multiphase material (para [0075]).
Regarding claims 4-6, Ma discloses the ferroelectric as claimed in claim 1. Ma renders the ferroelectric obvious. Therefore, the Ma ferroelectric is expected have overlapping properties wherein for a given electrical loss, the ferroelectric attains increases that overlap the instantly claimed range of at least 50% increase in a relative dielectric constant and/or in a piezoelectric effect d33. See MPEP 2112.01(I), cited above.
Regarding claim 7, Ma discloses the ferroelectric as claimed in claim 1, wherein the ferroelectric has a thickness of 4 to 20 nm (para [0070]), that overlaps the instantly claimed range of at least 5 nanometers up to 4 cm. See MPEP 2144.05(I), cited above.
Regarding claim 10, Ma discloses a device comprising the ferroelectric as claimed in claim 1, wherein the device is a memory device (NVM, para [0004]-[0005]), a processor (para [0077]), or a sensor (para [0078]).
Regarding claim 12, Ma discloses a method for producing the ferroelectric as claimed in claim 1, wherein a sintering method is used (heating to a temperature of 400 to 1000C, para [0072] and [0074]).
Regarding claim 15, Ma discloses a superconductor comprising the ferroelectric of claim 1 (para [0052]).
Regarding claim 16, Ma discloses an actuator comprising the ferroelectric of claim 1 (para [0078]).
Regarding claim 17, Ma discloses the ferroelectric as claimed in claim 1, wherein the zirconium has a hafnium molar fraction percent of 0 (no Hf), which falls within the instantly claimed range of 1% or less such that the Hf/Zr molar ratio is Hf0/Zr100, which falls within the instantly claimed range of less than about Hf1%/Zr99%.
Claims 1, 2, 4-7, 10, 12, 13, 16, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2004/0125176 A1 to Kobayashi et al (hereinafter Kobayashi).
Regarding claim 1, Kobayashi discloses a ferroelectric which comprises a PZT piezoelectric material (para [0028]) wherein the PZT comprises zirconium and titanium (para [0064]) having a hafnium fraction of more preferably 0.15% or less (1500 ppm or less, para [0023]-[0024]), which falls within the instantly claimed hafnium range of 2% or less, such that the Hf/Zr molar ratio is Hf0.15/Zr99.85, which falls within the instantly claimed range of less than about Hf2%/Zr98%. The reference further discloses that the PZT formula is Pb(Zr1-xTix)O3, where 0.4 ≤ x ≤ 0.9 (para [0060]). This provides a Zr/Ti ratio of 60/40 to 10/90, which overlaps the instantly claimed range of about Zr53% /Ti47% or more zirconium. See MPEP 2144.05(I), cited above. As discussed above in Ma, as the Zr/Ti ratio approaches the morphotropic grain boundary, tetragonal and rhombohedral phases coexist.
Regarding claim 2, Kobayashi discloses the ferroelectric as claimed in claim 1. Kobayashi renders the ferroelectric of claim 1 obvious. See MPEP 2112.01(I), cited above. Therefore, the Kobayashi ferroelectric material is expected to have overlapping properties including but not limited to a dielectric loss factor overlapping the instantly claimed range of 0.2% or less; a dielectric constant ε overlapping the instantly claimed range of more than 1000, and a piezoelectric effect d33 overlapping the instantly claimed range of more than 300.
Regarding claims 4-6, Kobayashi discloses the ferroelectric as claimed in claim 1. Kobayashi renders the ferroelectric obvious. Therefore, the Kobayashi ferroelectric is expected have overlapping properties wherein for a given electrical loss, the ferroelectric attains increases that overlap the instantly claimed range of at least 50% increase in a relative dielectric constant and/or in a piezoelectric effect d33. See MPEP 2112.01(I), cited above.
Regarding claim 7, Kobayashi discloses the ferroelectric as claimed in claim 1, wherein the ferroelectric has a thickness of 0.2 to 25 µm (para [0064]), that falls completely within the instantly claimed range of at least 5 nanometers up to 4 cm.
Regarding claim 10, Kobayashi discloses a device comprising the ferroelectric as claimed in claim 1, wherein the device is a memory device (para [0090]), a processor, or a sensor (para [0028]).
Regarding claim 12, Kobayashi discloses a method for producing the ferroelectric as claimed in claim 1, wherein a sintering method is used (para [0014]).
Regarding claim 13, Kobayashi discloses the method as claimed in claim 12, where producing takes place using a ZrO2 (zirconia) powder (para [0036]).
Regarding claim 16, Kobayashi discloses an actuator comprising the ferroelectric of claim 1 (para [0062]).
Regarding claim 17, Kobayashi discloses the ferroelectric as claimed in claim 1, wherein the zirconium has a hafnium molar fraction percent of more preferably 0.15% or less (1500 ppm or less, para [0023]-[0024]), which overlaps the instantly claimed hafnium range of 1% or less, such that the Hf/Zr molar ratio is Hf0.15/Zr99.85, which falls within the instantly claimed range of less than about Hf1%/Zr99%.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, regarding the 112 rejection, filed 11/17/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Hf wt% limitation in the prior claims has been amended to Hf molar%. However, the instant disclosure does not teach molar percent. Applicant argues that the disclosure of PZT with both tetragonal and rhombohedral phases coexisting is evidence of molar%. Molar percentages of Zr and Ti in PZT are known but there is not sufficient support for molar percentages in the original disclosure of the instant application.
Therefore, the 112(a) rejection of claims 1, 10, 12, 15, and 16 as failing to comply with the written description requirement stands.
Applicant's arguments, regarding Natori, filed 11/17/25 have been fully considered. The amended claims as written do not require the presence of Hf. However, the reference does not anticipate the instantly claimed Zr/Ti ratio as set forth in the newly amended claims.
Therefore, the 102(a)(1) rejection of claims 1-6, 10, 12, 15, and 16 as anticipated by Natori has been withdrawn.
The 103 rejection of claims 7 and 13 as obvious over Natori has also been withdrawn.
The 102(a)(1) rejection of claim 8 as anticipated by Natori is moot because the claim has been canceled.
Applicant's arguments, regarding Kobayashi, filed 11/17/25 have been fully considered. Kobayashi does not expressly disclose that the PZT has both a rhombohedral and tetragonal fraction. However, the reference does teach overlapping amounts of Zr and Ti (para [0060]), which encompass a Zr/Ti ratio of about 53/47 as set forth in the newly amended claims. As discussed above, when the PZT is near the morphotropic phase boundary, both rhombohedral and tetragonal fractions are present.
Therefore, the 103 rejection of claims 1, 2, 4-7, 10, 12, 13, and 16 as obvious over Kobayashi stands.
The 103 rejection of claim 8 as obvious over Kobayashi is moot because the claim has been canceled.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 8, filed 11/17/25, with respect to the double patenting rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. Nether 468 nor 332 teach or suggest the instantly claimed Zr/Ti ratios or the coexistence of rhombohedral and tetragonal phases in the PZT.
Therefore, the obviousness double patenting rejection of claims 1-6, 10 and 16 as unpatentable over the claims of 468 has been withdrawn.
The obviousness double patenting rejection of claim 8 as unpatentable over the claims of 468 is moot because the claim has been canceled.
The obviousness double patenting rejection of claims 1, 2, 4-6, 10 and 16 as unpatentable over the claims of 332 has been withdrawn.
The obviousness double patenting rejection of claim 8 as unpatentable over the claims of 332 is moot because the claim has been canceled.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LYNNE EDMONDSON whose telephone number is (571)272-2678. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-6:30.
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, Jonathan Johnson can be reached on 571-272-1177. 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.
/L.E./ Examiner, Art Unit 1734
/Matthew E. Hoban/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1734