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 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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1 and 3-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura et al. (US20040145856, hereinafter referred to as Nakamura).
Regarding claim 1, Nakamura discloses a dielectric ceramic composition (see Nakamura at the Abstract, disclosing a dielectric ceramic) comprising main component grains having a perovskite structure represented by a formula AMO3, wherein "A" includes Ba, "M" includes Ti, the dielectric ceramic composition includes a 4A subcomponent: the 4A subcomponent includes Fe and Mn; (see Nakamura at Table 8, Example 28, disclosing an example comprising Ba0.96Ca0.03Sr0.01TiO3 with an additive of 1.0Ba-0.1Ca-1.2Ti-1.8Si-0.5Y-0.4Gd-0.2Eu-1.0Mn-0.5Ni-0.5Fe-0.2Al-O2.2), and a molar ratio of Mn to a total of Fe and Mn in terms of a metal element is 0.18 to 0.65 (see Nakamura at Table 8, Example 28, disclosing an example comprising a molar content of Mn of 1.0 and Fe of 0.5 for a ratio of Mn to a total of Fe and Mn of 1/1.5= 0.66, which is close to touching the claimed range). A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. (see MPEP 2144.05(I), second paragraph).
Nakamura further discloses the dielectric ceramic composition further comprises 1 to 10 parts by mol of a second subcomponent with respect to 100 parts by mol of "M" in terms of a metal element: and the second subcomponent includes at least one selected from the group consisting of Nb, Mo, Ta, W, Sn, and Bi (see Nakamura at [0030], disclosing on an element basis ... M in the additive component are in the ranges of about... 0.1 to 2 moles ... based on 100 moles of the major component. Nakamura at [0030] teaches thereby, the dielectric constant, the capacitance -- temperature characteristic, and reliability can be further enhanced. See also Nakamura at [0025] disclosing M represents ... Mn... Fe ... Mo and W.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention when practicing the invention of Example 28 of Nakamura to substitute some of the Mn and Fe of the Example with Mo or W within the range of M as disclosed by Nakamura with a reasonable expectation of successfully enhancing the dielectric constant, capacitance, temperature characteristic, and reliability. For example, substituting 0.8 parts per mol Mn for Mo, and 0.4 parts per mol Fe for Mo, would provide a ratio of Mn to a total of Fe and Mn of 0.2/0.3=0.66 which is close to touching the claimed range, as well as an Mo content of 0.4+0.8=1.2 parts by mol, which is within the claimed range.
Regarding claim 3, Nakamura discloses wherein the dielectric ceramic composition further comprises 0.01 to 2 parts by mol of a third subcomponent with respect to 100 parts by mol of "M" in terms of a metal element, and the third subcomponent includes at least one selected from the group consisting of Sm, Nd, and La (see Nakamura at [0030], disclosing the concentrations on an element basis of the R ... [is] in the range of about 0.05 to 1.5 moles. See also Nakamura at [0025] disclosing R represents at least one of La ... Nd, Sm. Nakamura at [0030] teaches thereby, the dielectric constant, the capacitance -- temperature characteristic, and reliability can be further enhanced.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention when practicing the invention of Example 28 of Nakamura as in claim 1 above where some of the Mn and Fe is substituted for Mo, to reduce the Mo content in order to include some of Sm, Nd, and/or La as disclosed by Nakamura. For example, substituting 0.7 parts per mol Mn for Mo, and 0.4 parts per mol Fe for Mo, and then 0.1 parts per mol Sm would provide a ratio of Mn to a total of Fe and Mn of 0.2/0.3=0.66 which is close to touching the claimed range, as well as an Mo content of 0.4+0.7=1.1 parts by mol, which is within the claimed range, and an Sm content of 0.1 parts per mol Sm which is within the claimed range.
Regarding claim 4, Nakamura discloses the dielectric ceramic composition further comprises a 4B subcomponent; and the 4B subcomponent includes at least one selected from the group consisting of Co, Zn, Ni, and Cr (see Nakamura at Table 8, Example 28, disclosing an example comprising Ba0.96Ca0.03Sr0.01TiO3 with an additive of 1.0Ba-0.1Ca-1.2Ti-1.8Si-0.5Y-0.4Gd-0.2Eu-1.0Mn-0.5Ni-0.5Fe-0.2Al-O2.2 which includes 0.5 parts by mol Ni).
Regarding claim 5, Nakamura discloses the dielectric ceramic composition further comprises 0.02 to 2.2 parts by mol of the 4A subcomponent and a 4B subcomponent in total with respect to 100 parts by mol of "M" in terms of a metal element; and the 4B subcomponent includes at least one selected from the group consisting of Co, Zn, Ni, and Cr (see Nakamura at Table 8, Example 28, disclosing an example comprising Ba0.96Ca0.03Sr0.01TiO3 with an additive of 1.0Ba-0.1Ca-1.2Ti-1.8Si-0.5Y-0.4Gd-0.2Eu-1.0Mn-0.5Ni-0.5Fe-0.2Al-O2.2 which includes 0.5 parts by mol Ni).
Regarding claim 6, Nakamura discloses the dielectric ceramic composition further comprises 0.08 part by mol or more of a sixth subcomponent with respect to 100 parts by mol of "M" in terms of a metal element; and the sixth subcomponent includes at least one selected from the group consisting of Si, Al, and B (see Nakamura at Table 8, Example 28, disclosing an example comprising Ba0.96Ca0.03Sr0.01TiO3 with an additive of 1.0Ba-0.1Ca-1.2Ti-1.8Si-0.5Y-0.4Gd-0.2Eu-1.0Mn-0.5Ni-0.5Fe-0.2Al-O2.2 which includes 0.2 parts by mol Al).
Regarding claim 7, Nakamura discloses a molar ratio of a total of Ba, Ca, and Sr to a total of Ti and Zr in terms of a metal element in the dielectric ceramic composition is 0.98 to 1.02 (see Nakamura at Table 8, Example 28, disclosing an example comprising Ba0.96Ca0.03Sr0.01TiO3 with an additive of 1.0Ba-0.1Ca-1.2Ti-1.8Si-0.5Y-0.4Gd-0.2Eu-1.0Mn-0.5Ni-0.5Fe-0.2Al-O2.2 which provides a molar ratio of Ba, Ca, and Sr to a total of Ti and Zr of 1).
Regarding claim 8, Nakamura discloses the dielectric ceramic composition further comprises 0 to 3 parts by mol of a 5A subcomponent with respect to 100 parts by mol of "M" in terms of a metal element; the 5A subcomponent includes at least one selected from the group consisting of Ba, Ca, and Sr; the dielectric ceramic composition further comprises 0 to 2.5 parts by mol of a 5B subcomponent with respect to 100 parts by mol of "M" in terms of a metal element; and the 5B subcomponent includes at least one selected from the group consisting of Ti and Zr (see Nakamura at Table 8, Example 28, disclosing an example comprising Ba0.96Ca0.03Sr0.01TiO3 with an additive of 1.0Ba-0.1Ca-1.2Ti-1.8Si-0.5Y-0.4Gd-0.2Eu-1.0Mn-0.5Ni-0.5Fe-0.2Al-O2.2 which provides a molar ratio of Ba, Ca, and Sr to a total of 1 parts by mol Ba and 1.2 parts by mol Ti).
Regarding claim 9, Nakamura discloses the dielectric ceramic composition further comprises less than 0.3 part by mol of a first subcomponent with respect to 100 parts by mol of "M" in terms of a metal element; and the first subcomponent is Mg see Nakamura at Table 8, Example 28, disclosing an example comprising Ba0.96Ca0.03Sr0.01TiO3 with an additive of 1.0Ba-0.1Ca-1.2Ti-1.8Si-0.5Y-0.4Gd-0.2Eu-1.0Mn-0.5Ni-0.5Fe-0.2Al-O2.2 which provides 0 parts by mol Mg, which is within the claimed range).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments at page 6 of the Remarks, filed 01/06/2026, with respect to concerning the objection to claim 1 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection to claim 1 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 5 of the Remarks, filed 01/06/2026, with respect to the 103 rejections over Second Nakamura (US20020072464) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 103 rejections over second Nakamura have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 01/06/2026 concerning Nakamura (US20040145856) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for the reasons stated in the 103 rejection section above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CAMERON K MILLER whose telephone number is (571)272-4616. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00am - 5:00pm EST.
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.
CAMERON K MILLER
Examiner
Art Unit 1731
/CAMERON K MILLER/Examiner, Art Unit 1731