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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: it appears that the decimal point is missing between the 0 and 9 in the number “091”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim lists “a trigonal structure” twice. Appropriate correction is required.
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 7 and 13 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.
With respect to claim 7, it is unclear what is meant by the variable “α”, as this variable is not referred to previously in the claim. In claim 1, these is a variable identified with “a”. It appears that the “α” may be intended to refer to the same quantity as “a”, and will be treated as such for purposes of comparisons to the prior art.
It is unclear what is meant by “A robot or a strain/fatigue/damage diagnosis device” as it appears that applicant is attempting to claim multiple devices simultaneously.
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.
Claims 1-8 and 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hatano et al. (US 2013/0162109).
With respect to claim 1, Hatano et al. discloses a multifunctional multi-piezo material represented by the chemical formula Li(1-X)(1+a)NaXNbO3:MY (where M is at least one type of metal ion selected from transition metal ions), wherein a value of X is in a range from 0.10 or more to 0.98 or less, a value of Y is in a range from 0.0001 or more to 0.2 or less, and a is in a range from 0 or more (Abstract, wherein the values of x and y are such their sum is equal to 1 and the amount of K is 0, M corresponds to the Ta in the composition, and a being 0).
With respect to claim 2, Hatano et al. discloses the multifunctional multi-piezo material according to claim 1, wherein the value of X is in a range from 0.78 or more to 0.95 or less (Abstract).
With respect to claim 3, Hatano et al. discloses the multifunctional multi-piezo material according to claim 1, wherein the value of X is in a range from 0.83 or more to 091 or less (Abstract).
With respect to claim 4, Hatano et al. discloses the multifunctional multi-piezo material according to claim 1, wherein a lattice constant ratio c/a is in a range of 2.53 or less (Abstract, wherein the lattice constant is an inherent material property (see applicant’s figure 6), and because Hatano et al. discloses the claimed composition, the material properties are presumed to be inherent).
With respect to claim 5, Hatano et al. discloses the multifunctional multi-piezo material according to claim 2 wherein a lattice constant ratio c/a is in a range of 2.52 or less (Abstract, wherein the lattice constant is an inherent material property (see applicant’s figure 6), and because Hatano et al. discloses the claimed composition, the material properties are presumed to be inherent).
With respect to claim 6, Hatano et al. discloses the multifunctional multi-piezo material according to claim 3, wherein a lattice constant ratio c/a is in a range of 2.51 or less (Abstract, wherein the lattice constant is an inherent material property (see applicant’s figure 6), and because Hatano et al. discloses the claimed composition, the material properties are presumed to be inherent).
With respect to claim 7, Hatano et al. discloses the multifunctional multi-piezo material according to claim 1, wherein a value of a is in a range from more than 0 to 0.05 or less (Abstract).
With respect to claim 8, Hatano et al. discloses the multifunctional multi-piezo material according to claim 1, wherein a crystal structure is a trigonal structure, a trigonal structure, an orthorhombic structure, or a mixture thereof (Fig 1).
With respect to claim 11, Hatano et al. discloses a multifunctional piezoelectric body comprising the multifunctional multi-piezo material according to claim 1 (Fig 2).
With respect to claims 12-14, the language in the preambles of the claims describing “A MEMS device”, “A robot or a strain/fatigue/damage diagnosis device for material or structure”, and “A non-destructive inspection method for measuring damage diagnosis of a structure” all merely describe intended uses of the piezoelectric material of claim 1, and do not include any further details related to the “MEMS device”, “robot or a strain/fatigue/damage diagnosis device for material or structure”, or “non-destructive inspection method for measuring damage diagnosis of a structure” and do not further limit the features of the material of claim 1.
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.
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hatano et al. (US 2013/0162109) in view of Hatano et al. (US 2017/0263845).
With respect to claim 9, Hatano et al. (‘109) discloses the multifunctional multi-piezo material according to claim 1.
Hatano et al. (‘109) does not disclose that M is one type of metal ion selected from rare earth metal ions.
Hatano et al. (‘845) teaches a piezoelectric material in which M is one type of metal ion selected from rare earth metal ions (Paragraph 161).
Before the effective filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the dopant material of Hatano et al. (‘845) with the piezoelectric material of Hatano et al. (‘109) for the benefit of providing improved longevity of the device (Paragraph 161 of Hatano et al. (‘845)).
With respect to claim 10, Hatano et al. (‘109) discloses the multifunctional multi-piezo material according to claim 1.
Hatano et al. (‘109) does not disclose that wherein M is Pr3+.
Hatano et al. (‘845) teaches a piezoelectric material in which M is Pr3+. (Paragraph 161).
Before the effective filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the dopant material of Hatano et al. (‘845) with the piezoelectric material of Hatano et al. (‘109) for the benefit of providing improved longevity of the device (Paragraph 161 of Hatano et al. (‘845)).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Derek John Rosenau whose telephone number is (571)272-8932. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7 am to 5:30 pm Central Time.
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, Dedei Hammond can be reached at (571) 270-7938. 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.
/DEREK J ROSENAU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2837