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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 February 9, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The reply filed on February 9, 2026 has been entered into the prosecution for the application. Currently, claims 1-18 are pending. Claims 13-17 are withdrawn.
All prior art grounds of rejection are maintained.
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) 1-10 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pat. Pub. 2011/0128327 to Kubota et al. (hereinafter “Kubota”) in view of U.S. Pat. No. 5,014,158 to Nishimura et al. (hereinafter “Nishimura”), with evidence, as to claim 1, from U.S. Pat. Pub. 2015/0015643 to Oshima et al. (hereinafter “Oshima”).
Regarding claim 1, Kubota discloses a polycrystalline ceramic solid body (see ¶ 0025, teaching a ceramic comprising aggregated crystal grains or “a polycrystal”; and see ¶ 0086, teaching wherein the ceramic material is “compressed to form a compact,” a “compact” being an equivalent term in the art for a solid body, as evidenced by, for example, Oshima at ¶ 0089). Kubota discloses that the polycrystalline ceramic solid body comprises a main phase obtainable by sintering and having an ABO3 perovskite structure (see Kubota at ¶¶ 0026-0027, teaching a “main component,” i.e., main phase, having an ABO3 perovskite structure, and ¶¶ 0025, 0045, teaching that the main component is sintered).
Kubota teaches that the main phase having an ABO3 perovskite structure comprises BaTiO3 (¶ 0026) and that the main phase is doped with Mn (¶¶ 0024, 0027, 0045). However, Kubota does not explicitly teach that the main phase has a composition of the general formula Bam(TinZrp)O3 and a doping of the composition MnxREz wherein RE represents one or more rare earth elements with the coefficient values and relationship as claimed, and with the B components of the ABO3 lattice present in excess.
Nishimura, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a dielectric ceramic composition having the general formula
{Bam(Ti1-xZrx)O2+m}1-α-β – (MnO2)α – (X)β
where X is at least one of Yb2O3, Dy2O3, and ThO2 (Nishimura at Abstract). Nishimura teaches that the coefficients in the general formula above have ranges of 0.98 ≤ m ≤ 1.02, 0 ≤ x ≤ 0.2, 0.005 ≤ α ≤ 0.05, and 0.001 ≤ β ≤ 0.02 (Abstract; Col. 4, lines 10-18). Expressed in terms of the stoichiometric formulas of claim 1 (such that (Ti1-xZrx) becomes (TinZrp), for instance), Nishimura thus teaches Bam(TinZrp)O2+m and a doping of the composition MnxREz wherein RE is Yb or Dy (both rare earth elements) and wherein the coefficients are within the ranges summarized in the Table below:
Coefficient
Claim 1
Nishimura
(Abstract)
m
0.95 ≤ m ≤ 1.05
0.98 ≤ m ≤ 1.02
n
0.8 ≤ n ≤ 0.9
0.8 ≤ n ≤ 1.0
p
0.1 ≤ p ≤ 0.2
0 ≤ p ≤ 0.2
x
0.0005 ≤ x ≤ 0.01
0.005 ≤ x ≤ 0.05
z
0.001 ≤ z ≤ 0.050
0.001 ≤ β ≤ 0.02 =
≤ z ≤ 0.04
(Because Nishimura expresses the stoichiometric ratio β of the rare earth in terms of an oxide, e.g., Yb2O3 or Dy2O3, it is necessary to double the value of β in Nishimura’s formula to derive the stoichiometric ratio z as expressed in claim 1, since each oxide molecule comprises two rare earth atoms.) As may be seen, Nishimura thus teaches ranges for all of the coefficients that either fall within or substantially overlap the recited ranges of 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). It will be appreciated that for Bam(Ti1-xZrx)O2+m where 0.98 ≤ m ≤ 1.02, the ratio of oxygen within the barium titanate zirconate composition will be around O3, i.e., 3 ± 0.02, which overlaps and is within 1% of the O3 value recited in claim 1.
Further, Nishimura teaches that for m, the coefficient of barium within Bam(TinZrp)O2+m, 0.98 ≤ m ≤ 1.02 (Abstract). Therefore, Nishimura contemplates embodiments in which m < (n+p), whereby the B components of the ABO3 lattice are present in excess. For instance, an embodiment in which m = 0.99, n = 0.8, p = 0.2, such that the barium titanate component has the formula Ba0.99(Ti0.8Zr0.2)O2.99, is within the ranges taught by Nishimura and satisfies the requirement that m < (n+p), as 0.99 < (0.8 + 0.2). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art could readily select a molar ratio of Ba from within the range taught by Nishimura to produce a composition that satisfies the requirement that m < (n+p). Moreover, Nishimura teaches specific embodiments in which the molar ratio of Ba to the combined amounts of Ti and Zr (that is, m/[n+p]) is less than 1, indicating that m < (n+p); see, e.g., Specimens 002 and 003, where m/(n+p) is 0.98 and 0.99, respectively (Col. 12, Table 5).
Thus, Nishimura teaches a main phase that has a composition of the general formula Bam(TinZrp)O3 and a doping of the composition MnxREz wherein RE represents one or more rare earth elements, with the ranges of all coefficients either falling within or substantially overlapping the recited ranges of claim 1, and where m < (n+p), whereby the B components of the ABO3 lattice (i.e., Ti and Zr) are present in excess.
One of ordinary skill in the art could modify Kubota by substituting the composition taught by Nishimura for the BaTiO3 doped with Mn in Kubota. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make this modification to Kubota in order to take advantage of the favorable insulation resistance values of the composition taught by Nishimura (see Nishimura at Col. 11, lines 19-20; Col. 12, lines 40-48 and Table 5, teaching that favorable insulation resistance can be achieved when the molar ratio of Ba to the combined amounts of Ti and Zr is between 0.98 and 1.02), improved insulating properties (i.e., insulation resistance) being an advantage sought by Kubota from doping with Mn (Kubota at ¶ 0031).
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 Kubota by replacing the BaTiO3 doped with Mn with a composition of the general formula Bam(TinZrp)O3 and a doping of the composition MnxREz wherein RE represents one or more rare earth elements, as taught by Nishimura, with the ranges of all coefficients and molar ratios as set forth above, thereby producing a polycrystalline ceramic solid body reading on all limitations of claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, Kubota modified by Nishimura teaches the solid body wherein RE is Dy (Nishimura at Abstract).
Regarding claim 3, Kubota modified by Nishimura teaches the solid body wherein the proportion of the Mn component of the doping, expressed as a molar ratio, is from 0.005 to 0.05, and wherein the proportion of the RE component of the doping, expressed as a molar ratio, is from 0.002 to 0.04 (see Nishimura at Col. 4, lines 7, 16-18, and at Abstract; see also above, p. 7, explaining that it is necessary to double the value of β in Nishimura’s formula to derive the stoichiometric ratio of the RE component, since each oxide molecule comprises two RE atoms when the RE is Dy or Yb). Within the ranges taught by Nishimura, one of ordinary skill in the art could readily select proportions of Mn component and RE component such that the ratio of the proportions of components Mn and RE of the doping is set in the range of 1:2 to 1:10; for instance, an embodiment in which the molar proportion of Mn was 0.005 and the molar proportion of Dy was 0.010 (i.e., 0.005 * 2) (similar to the proportions in Specimen No. 64 of Nishimura, see Table 4) would have ratio of 1:2, within the range recited in claim 3.
Regarding claim 4, Kubota modified by Nishimura teaches the solid body according to claim 1, as set forth above (pp. 5-9). Further, Kubota modified by Nishimura teaches that the solid body has been obtained by sintering under air at a temperature of 1400 to 1500°C (see Kubota at ¶ 0086, teaching sintering in air, and at p. 6, Table 1, teaching sintering temperatures of 1420°C and 1450°C for Examples 5 and 7, respectively). Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of obviousness has been established (see MPEP 2112.01(I), first paragraph). Here, Kubota modified by Nishimura teaches the solid body with a composition according to claim 1, and Kubota modified by Nishimura moreover teaches that the solid body is prepared under a substantially identical process as the claimed invention, namely, sintering under air at a temperature of 1400 to 1500°C (see the present Specification at p. 7, lines 24-29, and p. 15, lines 9-15, teaching that sintering under air and at a higher sintering temperature, i.e., 1400 to 1500°C, is important for achieving desired properties in the final product). Because Kubota modified by Nishimura teaches a substantially identical composition to the claimed invention, prepared by substantially the same process, one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect that such a solid body would inherently possess the properties recited in claim 4, including particles having a mean particle size d50 of 10 to 30 μm, measured as a number-related median value by static image analysis, since products of identical composition are presumed not to have mutually exclusive properties. Further, although Kubota modified by Nishimura does not expressly recite that the main phase is in the form of particles having uniform orientation within one particle (i.e., that each particle has a uniform orientation within that particle), this is taken to be an inherent property of a polycrystalline ceramic solid body.
Regarding claim 5, Kubota modified by Nishimura teaches the solid body according to claim 1 (as set forth above, pp. 5-9), and Kubota modified by Nishimura moreover teaches that the solid body is prepared under a substantially identical process as the claimed invention (as set forth above with respect to claim 4, see pp. 9-10). Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of obviousness has been established (see MPEP 2112.01(I), first paragraph). Because Kubota modified by Nishimura teaches a substantially identical composition to the claimed invention, prepared by substantially the same process, one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect that such a solid body would inherently possess the properties recited in claim 5, including at least a first secondary phase rich in the component RE and a second secondary phase rich in Ti, which are predominantly or completely arranged in multi junction grain boundaries between the particles of the main phase.
Regarding claim 6, Kubota modified by Nishimura teaches the solid body according to claim 1 (as set forth above, pp. 5-9), and Kubota modified by Nishimura moreover teaches that the solid body is prepared under a substantially identical process as the claimed invention (as set forth above with respect to claim 4, see pp. 9-10). Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of obviousness has been established (see MPEP 2112.01(I), first paragraph). Because Kubota modified by Nishimura teaches a substantially identical composition to the claimed invention, prepared by substantially the same process, one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect that such a solid body would inherently possess the physical properties recited in claim 6, including a closed porosity between 0.1 and 1.1 volume %.
Regarding claim 7, Kubota modified by Nishimura teaches the solid body according to claim 1 (as set forth above, pp. 5-9), and Kubota modified by Nishimura moreover teaches that the solid body is prepared under a substantially identical process as the claimed invention, as set forth above with respect to claim 4 (see pp. 9-10). Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of obviousness has been established (see MPEP 2112.01(I), first paragraph). Because Kubota modified by Nishimura teaches a substantially identical composition to the claimed invention, prepared by substantially the same process, one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect that such a solid body would inherently possess the physical properties of the claimed invention, including wherein at any cut through the solid, the area fraction of all secondary phases relative to any cut area through the solid is less than or equal to 1%, as recited in claim 7 as amended.
Regarding claim 8, Kubota modified by Nishimura teaches the solid body according to claim 1 (as set forth above, pp. 5-9), and Kubota modified by Nishimura moreover teaches that the solid body is prepared under a substantially identical process as the claimed invention, as set forth above with respect to claim 4 (see pp. 9-10). Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of obviousness has been established (see MPEP 2112.01(I), first paragraph). Because Kubota modified by Nishimura teaches a substantially identical composition to the claimed invention, prepared by substantially the same process, one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect that such a solid body would inherently possess a dielectric constant ɛ determined at 35°C of ɛ > 40000, since products of identical composition are presumed not to have mutually exclusive properties.
Regarding claim 9, Kubota modified by Nishimura teaches that the solid body has been obtained by sintering at a temperature of 1400 to 1500°C (see Kubota at p. 6, Table 1, teaching sintering temperatures of 1420°C and 1450°C for Examples 5 and 7, respectively).
Regarding claim 10, Kubota modified by Nishimura teaches that the solid body has been obtained by sintering under air (Kubota at ¶ 0086).
Regarding claim 18, Kubota modified by Nishimura teaches the solid body according to claim 1 (as set forth above, pp. 5-9), and Kubota modified by Nishimura moreover teaches that the solid body is prepared under a substantially identical process as the claimed invention, as set forth above with respect to claim 4 (see pp. 9-10). Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of obviousness has been established (see MPEP 2112.01(I), first paragraph). Because Kubota modified by Nishimura teaches a substantially identical composition to the claimed invention, prepared by substantially the same process, one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect that such a solid body would inherently possess the physical properties of the claimed invention, including wherein at any cut through the solid, the area fraction of all secondary phases relative to any cut area through the solid is less than 0.3%, as recited in claim 18.
Claim(s) 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pat. Pub. 2019/0117963 to Travers et al. (hereinafter “Travers”) in view of Kubota modified by Nishimura.
Regarding claim 11, Travers teaches a dielectric electrode formed as a ceramic disk with a metallic coating for contacting (see ¶ 0004, teaching an electrode that comprises “an insulated material with a high dielectric constant on one side and a thin metal coating on the other, usually silver”; and ¶ 0054, teaching that the electrode comprises a ceramic disc). Travers teaches that the dielectric electrode contacts a patient’s skin (¶ 0004). Regarding claim 12, Travers teaches a device for applying alternating electric fields to a human or animal body (¶¶ 0003-0004), the device comprising at least one electrode (¶ 0004, Abstract).
However, Travers does not explicitly teach that the electrode comprises a solid body according to claim 1.
Kubota as modified by Nishimura above teaches a solid body according to claim 1. The rejection of claim 1 over Kubota as modified by Nishimura, as set forth above (see pp. 5-9), is incorporated by reference herein in its entirety.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify Travers by including the polycrystalline ceramic solid body taught by Kubota modified by Nishimura as the solid body formed as a ceramic disk. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so because Travers teaches that the electrode comprises an insulated material with a high dielectric constant (Travers at ¶ 0004) and Kubota as modified by Nishimura teaches a composition of the solid body with a high dielectric constant (see Nishimura at Col. 11, lines 18-19 and 63, and Tables 4 and 5). One of ordinary skill in the art could have inserted the composition taught by Kubota as modified by Nishimura into the device of Travers, with predictable results and a high probability of success in producing a suitable dielectric electrode meeting all of the limitations of claim 11 and a suitable device (incorporating the dielectric electrode) for applying alternating electric fields to a human or animal body meeting all of the limitations of claim 12.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed February 9, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In the Remarks submitted with the Amendment filed February 9, 2026 (hereinafter “Remarks”), Applicant argues that Nishimura does not teach the “m < (n+p)” limitation of claim 1 (Remarks at p. 7). Applicant asserts that “the ‘overlap’ of the coefficients calculated on page of the Office Action does not disclose the specific ranges in claim 1” (Remarks at p. 7). However, it is well established that, where a claimed range lies inside a range disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05). Applicant seeks to rebut this by arguing the criticality of the claimed range (Remarks at p. 7). To establish criticality of a claimed range, applicants must compare a sufficient number of tests both inside and outside the claimed range to show the criticality of the claimed range. In re Hill, 284 F.2d 955, 128 USPQ 197 (CCPA 1960); MPEP 716.02(d). Applicant has not provided such sufficient data here. In the Remarks, Applicant points to several paragraphs from the Specification (apparently using paragraph reference numbers from the pre-grant publication of the application, since those paragraph reference numbers are absent from the translated Specification filed with the Office), but nothing in the indicated paragraphs provides test data or other evidence to show unexpected results or favorable properties following from keeping the variable “m” within the claimed range. Along similar lines, Applicant argues that Nishimura does not recognize “m < (n+p)” as a result-effective variable (Remarks at p. 8). However, this line of argument confuses the result-effective variable with the claimed range of the variable: “m < (n+p)” represents a claimed range for a variable “m” (i.e., the stoichiometric ratio of Ba within the Ba(Ti,Zr)O3 perovskite composition), and Nishimura most certainly recognizes the ratio of Ba to (Ti+Zr)—i.e., m to (n+p)—as a result-effective variable (see Nishimura at Col. 12, lines 46-48). Nishimura teaches a range for that variable of 0.98 to 1.02 (Col. 12, line 47), and this range overlaps the claimed range for “m” of less than 1.00. Moreover, “the discovery of a previously unappreciated property of a prior art composition, or of a scientific explanation for the prior art’s functioning, does not render the old composition patentably new to the discoverer.” Atlas Powder Co. v. Ireco Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1347, 51 USPQ2d 1943, 1947 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Thus, the claiming of a new use, new function or unknown property which is inherently present in the prior art does not necessarily make the claim patentable. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1254, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977); see MPEP 2112(I). Applicant argues, in broad terms, that keeping “m” at less than 1.00 is beneficial for ensuring the presence of a previously unappreciated property (maximum capacitance) (see Remarks at p. 7). However, Nishimura teaches embodiments (Specimens 002 and 003) that have a value of “m” that is less than 1.00 (see Table 5). The fact that Applicant has discovered a new property of a composition already taught by Nishimura does not make Applicant’s claimed invention patentable over the cited art.
PNG
media_image1.png
267
522
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Table 5 from Nishimura
Applicant also argues that Nishimura “teaches away from the range provided in claim 1” (Remarks at p. 7). Applicant points to one comparative specimen in Nishimura that satisfies the limitation “m < (n+p)” but is not suited for the purposes of Nishimura: Specimen 001 (which has an “m” value of 0.97) “is low in insulation resistance” (Remarks at p. 7). (Applicant also points to Specimen 007, which is likewise “degraded in sintering quality” [Remarks at p. 7]; however, Specimen 007 has a Ba to [Ti+Zr] ratio of 1.03, i.e., a value of m greater than n+p, and therefore the relevance of Specimen 007 to the question of what Nishimura teaches with respect to compositions that do meet the “m < (n+p)” limitation of claim 1 is not clear.) Applicant’s argument that Nishimura teaches away from the claimed range is unpersuasive. Nishimura teaches multiple specimens that meet the “m < (n+p)” limitation of claim 1 (see Table 5); some of these specimens (e.g., Specimens 002 and 003) are suitable for Nishimura’s purposes, while one specimen (Specimen 001) is not. The fact that Nishimura “teaches away” from Specimen 001 does not constitute a teaching away from the whole claimed range of “m” (i.e., the ratio of barium to the combined amount of titanium and zirconium); that Nishimura teaches away from Specimen 001 in no way negates Nishimura’s teaching of Specimens 002 and 003. Therefore, Applicant’s evidence that Nishimura allegedly teaches away from the claimed range of “m” is unconvincing and cannot rebut the prima facie case of obviousness.
Applicant also argues against the combination of Kubota and Nishimura, stating that “a person of ordinary skill in the art would not use or substitute the general dielectric ceramic of Nishimura when working with the specific piezoelectric ceramic of Kubota” (Remarks at p. 8). Applicant points to differences between the crystal grain sizes in Kubota and Nishimura (see Remarks at pp. 8-9) and argues that there is no way to “reconcile” the differences in suggested grain sizes (Remarks at p. 9). In response, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). Here, the obviousness rejection of claim 1 and its dependent claims relies on one of ordinary skill in the art using the compositional teachings of Nishimura to modify slightly the composition of Kubota. That is, the rejection of the pending claims relies upon one of ordinary skill in the art looking to Nishimura’s teachings about the component element ratios of the ceramic composition—not to Nishimura’s teachings about grain sizes.
Applicant seeks to support the argument against the combination of Kubota and Nishimura with a Declaration by the inventors under 37 CFR 1.132 filed February 9, 2026 (hereinafter “Declaration”). The Declaration is insufficient to overcome the obviousness rejection of the pending claims as set forth above because, as with Applicant’s arguments, the Declaration focuses on why the crystal grains of the secondary reference (Nishimura) cannot be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference (Kubota) (see Declaration at ¶¶ 6-11). Since the obviousness rejection of the pending claims relies, not upon replacing the crystal grain sizes of Kubota with crystal grain sizes of Nishimura, but on using the composition of Nishimura to substitute the very similar composition of replacing Kubota’s crystal grains (while retaining other aspects of Kubota’s structure, including the two types of crystal grains with different diameter ranges), the facts presented in the Declaration are not germane to the rejection at issue. In view of the foregoing, when all of the evidence is considered, the totality of the rebuttal evidence of nonobviousness fails to outweigh the evidence of obviousness.
Applicant also urges that ceramic compositions “according to claim 1 provide extraordinary thermal performance,” and that, “at relevant temperatures for application on humans or other mammals, the ceramic according to claim 1 provides extraordinary performance” (Remarks at p. 9; see also Declaration at ¶¶ 13-14). Applicant argues that “[s]uch extraordinary performance would not be suitable for Kubota” (Remarks at p. 9; see also Declaration at ¶ 15). In response, it is noted again that the features upon which Applicant relies (i.e., performance characteristics at human or mammal skin temperatures) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
With regard specifically to claims 11 and 12, which stand rejected under Travers in view of Kubota modified by Nishimura (see above, p. 11), Applicant argues that “Travers does not disclose a system that is able to keep temperature at a specific point near human or mammal skin temperature. Declaration ¶16. Very small temperature variations would result in drastic results in performance” (Remarks at p. 9). In response, it is noted again that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., ability to keep temperature at a specific point near human or mammal skin temperature) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant’s remaining arguments fail for reasons set forth in the rejections above under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
U.S. Pat. Pub. 2008/0305944 to Ueda et al. (“Ueda”) teaches dielectric ceramics that comprise SiO2 and a solid solution represented by: Ba—Ti—Zr—Re-Me-O3, where Re is at least one metal element selected from La, Ce, Pr, Nd, Sm, Eu, Gd, Tb, Dy, Ho, Er, Tm, Yb, Lu and Y; where Me is a metal element selected from Mg, Cr, and Mn; where Ti:Zr is from 100:0 to 75:25 (Zr being an optional ingredient); and where Ba is from 97 mol to 103 mol, Re is from 2 mol to 18 mol, Me is from 2 mol to 18 mol, and SiO2 is from 0.5 mol to 10 mol (assuming Ti+Zr as 100 mol) (Abstract).
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
Prosecution Insights