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. Election/Restrictions Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-10, in the reply filed on 11-07-2025 is acknowledged. Claims 11-15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 11-07-2025. Drawings The drawings are objected to because: In Fig. 1, it appears “ Prepatation ” should be --Preparation-- In Fig. 4, the y-axis says “ Demsity ”, which should be --Density-- Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. 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. Claim(s) 1 and 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Fu ’86 (S. Fu et al. Effects of doping pairs on the preparation and dielectricity of PLZT ceramics, Ferroelectrics 1986, V. 67, Issue 1; pp 93-102.) . Regarding claim 1, Fu ’86 teaches: mixing precursors of a dielectric to prepare a precursor mixture (“Dielectricity of PLZT Ceramics”, Title; “raw materials…of PbO , La 2 O 3 , ZrO 2 and TiO 2 …The raw materials are weight in appropriate proportionalities separately, followed by wet-mixing in a ball miller”, p. 94) calcining the precursor mixture to produce a calcined product (“The dried mixtures are calcined”, p. 94) pressing the calcined product to produce a molded product (“The blenders are pressed into disk-type samples”, p. 94) sintering the molded product to obtain a sintered product (“Sintering of these disk-type samples is conducted”, p. 94) adding an additive to the calcined product after the calcining, wherein the additive comprises at least one of sodium, potassium, or any combination thereof (“The dopants used in this study…Na + …added in carbonates form…Na 2 CO 3 ”, “The dried mixtures are calcined…and then pulverized and mixed with suitable amount of dopants”, p. 94). Regarding claim 6, Fu ’86 further teaches the additive is added in an amount of 0.5 to 1.5 parts by weight per 100 parts by weight of the calcined product (“The amount of dopants…is selected as 0.5 wt % of monovalent dopants”, p. 94). Regarding claim 7, Fu ’86 further teaches the additive is a compound comprising at least one of sodium carbonate (Na 2 CO 3 ), potassium carbonate (K 2 CO 3 ), or any combination thereof (“The dopants used in this study…Na + …added in carbonates form…Na 2 CO 3 ”, p. 94) . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 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. Claim (s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fu ’86 (S. Fu et al. Effects of doping pairs on the preparation and dielectricity of PLZT ceramics, Ferroelectrics 1986, V. 67, Issue 1; pp 93-102.) in view of Lin ‘885 (US 2008/0124885 A1) . Regarding claim 2, Fu ’86 further teaches the precursors comprise lead oxide ( PbO ), lanthanum oxide, zirconium oxide (ZrO 2 ) , and titanium oxide (TiO 2 ) (“raw materials…of PbO , La 2 O 3 , ZrO 2 and TiO 2 ”) . Fu ’86 is silent regarding the lanthanum oxide being La 2 O 5 . In analogous art of dielectric capacitor materials, Lin ‘885 suggests that La 2 O 5 is a lanthanum oxide dielectric capacitor material (¶ [0022], [0044]). It is noted that this compound is also listed with PZT. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Fu ’86 by utilizing La 2 O 5 as a known lanthanum oxide compound for dielectric capacitor materials, as suggested by Lin ‘885. Claim (s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fu ’86 (S. Fu et al. Effects of doping pairs on the preparation and dielectricity of PLZT ceramics, Ferroelectrics 1986, V. 67, Issue 1; pp 93-102.) in view of Kitoh ’689 (US 5,139,689) . Regarding claim 3, Fu ’86 is silent regarding the wt % of precursors as claimed. In analogous art of PLZT ceramics, Kitoh ‘689 suggests that PLZT ceramics can have a composition formula (Pb 1- x La x )( Zr 1-y Ti y ) 1-0.25x O 3 , wherein x equals 0.01-0.3 and y equals 0.05 to 0.95. These ranges encompass the composition suggested by Fu ’86 (PLZT 8/65 / 35, p. 94) . It is further noted that the examples of Applicant’s specification (Table 1, p. 17) are encompassed by the ranges suggested by Kitoh ‘689, and it is clear from the specification that the exemplary compositions in Applicant’s Table 1 are formed from the ranges of amounts of precursors also described in Applicant’s specification (p. 4, 11). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Fu ’86 by varying the PLZT composition within the broader range suggested by Kitoh ‘689 as alternative PLZT composition stoichiometries. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention in the method of Fu ’86 and Kitoh ‘689 to modify the wt % of the precursors in order to obtain the desired final stoichiometry of the PLZT . Since the PLZT composition ranges suggested by Kitoh ‘689 encompass the PLZT 12/86/14 composition shown in Applicant’s Table 1, following such a suggestion would also necessarily lead to the claimed ranges of wt % of precursors. It has been held that 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 either anticipation or obviousness has been established. See MPEP 2112.01. Claim (s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fu ’86 (S. Fu et al. Effects of doping pairs on the preparation and dielectricity of PLZT ceramics, Ferroelectrics 1986, V. 67, Issue 1; pp 93-102.) in view of Tanemoto ‘617 (US 5,066,617). Regarding claim 4, Fu ’86 is silent regarding the calcining being carried out for 2 to 5 hours at 700°C to 900°C. In analogous art of forming PLZT materials, Tanemoto ‘617 suggests calcinating PLZT precursors at 500-1000°C (column 6, lines 21-29), which includes the temperature suggested by Fu ’86 (“925°C”, p. 94) and the claimed range. Tanemoto ‘617 suggests specific examples of calcining being carried out for 3 hours at 700°C (column 8, lines 1-3, 51-53), wherein both values fall in the claimed ranges. Tanemoto ‘617 further suggests that calcination temperature is a result effective variable because it may be selected in order to optimize formation reactions, degassing, and coarseness of the calcined particles (column 6, lines 21-29). It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Fu ’86 by selecting the calcination temperature for the benefit of optimizing formation reactions, degassing, and coarseness of the calcined particles, and to carry out calcination for 2-5 hours, as suggested by Tanemoto ‘617. Claim (s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fu ’86 (S. Fu et al. Effects of doping pairs on the preparation and dielectricity of PLZT ceramics, Ferroelectrics 1986, V. 67, Issue 1; pp 93-102.). Regarding claim 5, Fu ’86 further teaches the sintering is carried out for 1-2 hours at 950°C to 1200°C (p. 94 - wherein both ranges overlap the claimed ranges; it has been held that where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, see MPEP 2144.05). Claim (s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fu ’86 (S. Fu et al. Effects of doping pairs on the preparation and dielectricity of PLZT ceramics, Ferroelectrics 1986, V. 67, Issue 1; pp 93-102.) in view of Kamakshi ’15 (Kamakshi et al. Effect of (Na and K) ion substitutions on the micro structural, dielectric and electrical properties of PZT Ceramics. Materials Today: Proceedings 2 (2015) 2896-2901.). Regarding claim 8, Fu ’86 teaches the additive comprises sodium (“The dopants used in this study…Na + …added in carbonates form…Na 2 CO 3 ”, “The dried mixtures are calcined…and then pulverized and mixed with suitable amount of dopants”, p. 94), but is silent regarding the additive comprising sodium and potassium in a weight ratio of 4:1 to 4.5: 0.5. However, Fu ’86 suggests that the dopants may be various mono-valent cations with small ionic radius, and giving a few examples (p. 94). In analogous art of dielectric ceramics, Kamakshi ’15 suggests that sodium and potassium dopants for PZT -based materials cause virtually the same changes in the PZT -based material because of their comparable ionic size, including reducing grain size and lowering dielectric constants (Abstract; p. 2899; Conclusions, p. 2901), thereby recognizing the interchangeability of sodium and potassium additions to PZT-based materials. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Fu ’86 by making the additive comprise sodium and potassium, as both are small ionic-radius mono-valent cations, as desired by Fu ’86, and both provide common modifications as dopants for PZT-based materials, including reducing grain size and lowering dielectric constants. Regarding the weight ratio of sodium to potassium, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found any ratio to be obvious since Kamakshi ’15 suggests that both sodium and potassium cause virtually the same changes in the material, as described above. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05. Claim (s) 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fu ’86 (S. Fu et al. Effects of doping pairs on the preparation and dielectricity of PLZT ceramics, Ferroelectrics 1986, V. 67, Issue 1; pp 93-102.) in view of Anil ‘179 (US 2016/0380179 A1). Regarding claim 9, Fu ’86 is silent regarding drying at a temperature in a range of 80°C to 120°C after the calcining or the adding the additive . In analogous art of PZT ceramics, Anil ‘179 suggests drying at a temperature in a range of 80°C to 120°C after calcining , at the end of a pulverizing process of the calcined powders in order to obtain uniform particles sizes (¶ [0103]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Fu ’86 by drying at a temperature in a range of 80°C to 120°C after calcining, as part of a pulverizing process of the calcined powders, for the benefit of obtaining uniform particle sizes, as suggested by Anil ‘179. Regarding claim 10, Fu ’86 is silent regarding mixing of the calcined product, a binder, and a solvent and granulating the resulting mixture after the adding of the additive. Anil ‘179 suggests mixing a calcined powder, a binder, and a solvent and granulating the resulting mixture in order to make uniformly sized granules for pressing a green compact (¶ [0104]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Fu ’86 by mixing the calcined product, a binder, and a solvent and granulating the resulting mixture after the adding of the additive for the benefit of making uniformly sized granules for pressing the molded product, as suggested by Anil ‘179. In the combination of Fu ’86 and Anil ‘179, it would further have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to perform the mixing and granulating after the adding of the additive so that the additive would be included in the granules with the calcined powder for pressing the molded product. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 6,277,254 (Tan) describes making PZT/PLZT with additions including sodium and potassium and ranges of composition stoichiometry for PZT and PLZT. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT Erin Snelting whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-7169 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday to Friday, 8:00 to 5:00 . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Alison Hindenlang can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571) 270-7001 . 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. /ERIN SNELTING/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1741