Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/911,651

PIEZOELECTRIC CERAMIC COMPOSITION AND PIEZOELECTRIC ACTUATOR

Non-Final OA §102§103§112
Filed
Sep 15, 2022
Examiner
ABU ALI, SHUANGYI
Art Unit
1731
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Kyocera Corporation
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
45%
Grant Probability
Moderate
1-2
OA Rounds
4y 3m
To Grant
83%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 45% of resolved cases
45%
Career Allow Rate
475 granted / 1057 resolved
-20.1% vs TC avg
Strong +38% interview lift
Without
With
+38.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
4y 3m
Avg Prosecution
51 currently pending
Career history
1108
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.2%
-39.8% vs TC avg
§103
53.9%
+13.9% vs TC avg
§102
15.9%
-24.1% vs TC avg
§112
19.1%
-20.9% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1057 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103 §112
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 of Group I, claims 1-8 in the reply filed on 12/16/2025 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention. Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. The term “a main component “in claims 1-8 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “a main component” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The specification does not define that what ratio of the mass of the potassium sodium niobate-based perovskite type complex oxide represented by compositional formula ABO3 to the mass of the piezoelectric ceramic composition is considered as a main component. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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 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 3-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by “Thermally-induced phase transformations in KNNS-BNKZ lead-free piezoceramics" Tangsritrakul et al. Regarding claim 1, Tangsritrakul et al. discloses a piezoelectric ceramic composition, a perovskite phase composite oxide comprising the main constituent composition formula (K, Na, Sb) NbO3-(Bi, Na, K) ZrO3( (Bi. Na, K) ZrO3 as the main constituent, and the A-site comprising Bi and the B-site comprising Zr). Tangsritrakul et al. discloses that the piezoelectric composition comprises region 2, which is read on segregation part within crystal grains, and at least one of Zr and Bi is distributed in the region 2. See Figures 2 and 3.1 Microstructure section. PNG media_image1.png 434 1333 media_image1.png Greyscale Regarding claims 3 and 4, segregation parts containing higher concentrations of Bi and Zr, thus lower mass% of Bi and Zr at the grain boundary. Regarding claim 5, Figure 2 shows the plurality of segregation portions located within one or more grains comprises a first segregation portion having an equivalent circle diameter of 0.05 µm or more. Regarding claim 6, Figure 2 shows a plurality of first segregating portions at more than one ratio per 5 µm2. 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. Claim(s) 3-4 and 7 -8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “Thermally-induced phase transformations in KNNS-BNKZ lead-free piezoceramics" Tangsritrakul et al. Regarding claims 3-4 and 7-8, Tangsritrakul et al. disclose a piezoelectric ceramic composition, a perovskite phase composite oxide comprising the main constituent composition formula (K, Na, Sb) NbO3-(Bi, Na, K) ZrO3 ((Bi. Na, K) ZrO3 as the main constituent, and the A-site comprising Bi and the B-site comprising Zr). Tangsritrakul et al. discloses that the piezoelectric composition comprises region 2, which is read on segregation part within grains, and at least one of Zr and Bi is distributed in the region 2. See Figures 2 and 3.1 Microstructure section. Although Tangsritrakul et al. do not measure the mass of the Zr or Bi in the grain boundary, they do teach a piezoelectric ceramic composition made by calcinating under 1140°C for 3h. See 2. Experimental methods, first paragraph. 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. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHUANGYI ABU ALI whose telephone number is (571)272-6453. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00 am- 5:00 pm. 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 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. /SHUANGYI ABU ALI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1731
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Sep 15, 2022
Application Filed
Mar 19, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12600871
DYE-EXCHANGED ZEOLITE MARKER
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12595402
SHAPED ABRASIVE PARTICLES WITH LOW ROUNDNESS FACTOR
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12595180
ULTRA-WHITE SILICA-BASED FILLER
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12590210
WATER DISPERSIBLE COMPOSITE PARTICLES, METHODS OF MAKING, AND COATINGS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12540246
METHOD FOR THE PRODUCTION OF METAL OXIDE PIGMENT COMPOSITE OF CONTROLLED AGGLOMERATING PROPERTIES AND RESPECTIVE PRODUCT
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 03, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
45%
Grant Probability
83%
With Interview (+38.0%)
4y 3m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1057 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month