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
Claims 3 and 6-8 are objected to because of the following reasons:
With respect to claim 3, line 2, the term “further” should be deleted because the composite coating material of claim 1 already includes piezoelectric ceramic filler.
With respect to claim 6, line 2, the term “further” should be deleted because the composite coating material of claim 1 already includespolymeric matrix.
With respect to claim 7, the phrase “selected from a group consisting of” is improper Markush language and should read as “selected from the group consisting of.”
With respect to claim 8, line 2, the term “further” should be deleted because the composite coating material of claim 1 already includes electrically conductive filler.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 6, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jiang (CN 105462440, machine translation, cited on IDS dated 2/23/2023).
With respect to claims 1, 3, and 6, Jiang discloses a sound-eliminating and wave-absorbing coating comprising a conductive adhesive (polymeric matrix), piezoelectric ceramic powder, ferroferric oxide powder (electrically conductive filler). In one embodiment, the sound-eliminating, wave-absorbing coating composition comprises 24 parts by weight of conductive adhesive, 22 parts by weight barium titanate ferroelectric ceramic having average grain size of 150 microns as piezoelectric ceramic powder, and 12 parts by weight of ferroferric oxide powder (paragraph 0018), i.e., about 41 wt % polymer matrix, about 38 wt piezoelectric ceramic powder, and about 21 wt % electrically conductive filler.
With respect to claim 4, exemplified barium titanate ferroelectric ceramic is free of lead.
With respect to claim 7, Jiang teaches that the conductive adhesive is selected from epoxy resin (paragraph 0012).
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 of this title, 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 1, 2, 4, 7, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cui (US 5,951,908).
With respect to claim 1, Cui discloses a piezoelectric composite comprising and a polymer (i.e., matrix), spherical piezoelectric particles having average particle diameters of 30-200 microns, and a fibrous material (col. 25, lines 3-5) (col. 24, lines 12-29). Cui teaches that the fibers include conductive carbon fibers but in an amount below the percolation threshold (col. 13, lines 63 to col. 14, line 6).
Cui fails to exemplify to disclose with sufficient specificity so as to anticipate a composite comprising polymer, piezoelectric ceramic filler, and an electrically conductive filler.
However, this does not negate a finding of obviousness under 35 USC 103 since a preferred embodiment such as an example is not controlling. Rather, all disclosures “including unpreferred embodiments” must be considered. In re Lamberti 192 USPQ 278, 280 (CCPA 1976) citing In re Mills 176 USPQ 196 (CCPA 1972).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize an electrically conductive filler given that Cui teaches it.
Regarding the preamble, Cui teaches that composites can be applied as a film sandwiched between electrodes (col. 15, lines 29-34) and therefore reads on a composite coating material. Furthermore, attention is drawn to MPEP 2111.02 which states that “if the body of a claim fully and intrinsically sets forth all the limitations of the claimed invention, and the preamble merely states, for example, the purpose or intended use of the invention, rather than any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations, then the preamble is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction”. Further, MPEP 2111.02 states that statements in the preamble reciting the purpose or intended use of the claimed invention must be evaluated to determine whether the purpose or intended use results in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art. Only if such structural difference exists, does the recitation serve to limit the claim. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. It is the examiner’s position that the composite taught by Cui is capable of vibration damping, even to a small degree, because the composite is not taught to vibrate.
With respect to claim 2, Cui teaches that spherical piezoelectric particles have preferred average particle diameters of 30-200 microns but teaches that larger particles can be selected when the molten matrix polymer readily infiltrates into gaps between ceramic particles (col. 9, lines 5-17).
While preferred range of 30-200 microns does not overlap with claimed 400-1000 microns, Cui teaches that larger particles can be used under the condition that the molten matrix polymer readily infiltrates into gaps between ceramic particles.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize larger particle sizes than preferred by Cui, including 400 microns and above, absent a showing of unexpected or surprising results.
With respect to claim 4, Cui teaches that the piezoelectric particles include barium titanate which does not include lead (col. 12, lines 50-54).
With respect to claim 7, epoxy resin can be used to form the composites (col. 7, lines 64-65).
With respect to claim 8, Cui also teaches that fibers are added in an amount of 0.1-20 vol % of the composite (col. 14, lines 5-7). Cui’s Example 1 includes 1.62 g of polyethylene powder and 20 g Ca-PT ceramic powder (calcium-modified lead titanate) (col. 17, lines 32-34) which includes 96 wt % of Ca-PT that converts to 63 vol % Ca-PT and 7 wt % polyolefin that converts to 36 vol % based on density of Ca-PT of about 7 g/cc and density of polyolefin of about 1 g/cc. Given the amount of Ca-PT and polyolefin in vol % and further given that Cui discloses an amount of fibers of 0.1-20 vol % and density of carbon fiber of about 1 g/cc, the amount of added fibers is approximately 0.02-4 wt %.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cui (US 5,951,908) in view of Takahashi (US 2020/0245947).
The discussion with respect to Cui in paragraph 4 above is incorporated here by reference.
Cui discloses that the piezoelectric particles include barium titanate (col. 12, lines 50-54) but fails to disclose that the piezoelectric particles comprise potassium-sodium niobate-based ceramic powder.
Takahashi discloses a piezoelectric sensor comprising a piezoelectric composite layer comprising piezoelectric particles (abstract) which includes barium titanate and niobates such as sodium potassium niobate (paragraph 0040).
Given that both Cui and Takahashi are drawn to piezoelectric compositions comprising piezoelectric particles and further given that Takahashi teaches that potassium sodium niobate is a functionally equivalent piezoelectric particle to barium titanate, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize a piezoelectric particle comprising potassium-sodium niobate in Cui’s piezoelectric composite.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 6, and 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsugawa (US 10,656,568).
With respect to claim 1, Tsugawa discloses transfer member comprising in a base layer a resin material, ferroelectric (i.e., piezoelectric) fillers, and carbon nanotubes (electrically conductive filler) (abstract).
Tsugawa does not disclose the size of the ferroelectric fillers but teaches that the prior art JP 08-152759 discloses an intermediate transfer member with a ferroelectric material having an average particle diameter of 0.1-100 microns (col. 1, lines 44-52).
Because Tsugawa teaches a suitable average diameter for the piezoelectric filler of 0.1-100 microns, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize a piezoelectric filler having an average particle size that overlap with claimed range of “about 100 microns.”
Regarding the preamble, Tsugawa teaches that base coating material is formed from a coating solution that is formed into a coating film (col. 6, lines 25-37). Also, attention is drawn to MPEP 2111.02 which states that “if the body of a claim fully and intrinsically sets forth all the limitations of the claimed invention, and the preamble merely states, for example, the purpose or intended use of the invention, rather than any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations, then the preamble is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction”. Further, MPEP 2111.02 states that statements in the preamble reciting the purpose or intended use of the claimed invention must be evaluated to determine whether the purpose or intended use results in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art. Only if such structural difference exists, does the recitation serve to limit the claim. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. It is the examiner’s position that the composite taught by Cui is capable of vibration damping, even to a small degree, because the composite is not taught to vibrate.
With respect to claims 3, 6, 8, 9, and 11, In Figure 6A, exemplified formulations are set forth in a table. Example 1 includes 20 vol % barium titanate ferroelectric filler, 4 vol % carbon nanotubtes having length of 10 microns. Given density of about 6 g/cc for barium titanate and density of carbon nanotubes and resin material is about 1 g/cc, the amounts convert to 38 wt % polymer resin, 60 wt % barium titanate, and 2 wt % nanotubes.
With respect to claim 4, barium titanate is lead free.
With respect to claim 10, Tsugawa teaches that the carbon nanotubes have preferred diameter of not smaller than 30 nm (col. 4, lines 61-64) and fails to explicitly disclose an outer diameter of between about 8 nm and about 15 nm.
Even so, a reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill the art, including nonpreferred embodiments. Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Laboratories, 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989). MPEP 2123(I).
Given that Tsugawa discloses nanotubes which are known to have diameters in the nano-range, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize a smaller diameter than preferred—absent a showing of unexpected or surprising results. There does not appear to be an inventive step to use a 30 nm diameter over a 15 nm diameter.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12-15 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: none of the references cited above fairly discloses or suggests a combination of specific polymer matrix, KNN-based ceramic piezoelectric filler, and carbon nanotubes electrically conductive filler in the specified amounts. Also, Tables 1-6 in the specification as originally filed show includes evidence of unexpected results regarding improved mechanical and damping properties for the claimed ingredients and relative amounts.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VICKEY NERANGIS whose telephone number is (571)272-2701. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 am - 5:00 pm EST, Monday - Friday.
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, Joseph Del Sole can be reached at (571)272-1130. 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.
/Vickey Nerangis/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1763
vn