Response to Amendment
This action is in response to applicants’ amendment of 20 July 2026 and the submission of 29 April 2026. The substitute specification filed 29 April 2025 has been entered. This substitute specification has overcome the objections to paragraphs [0097], [00246], [00273], [0091] and [00262] set forth in the office action mailed 29 January 2026. The amendments to the claims have overcome objections to the claims, the 35 USC 112(a) rejection and the 35 USC 112(b) rejections over canceled claims 1, 3-7, 9, 10, 12-27 and 33. The substitute specification did not overcome the objections to paragraph [00248], now [00246] set forth in the office action mailed 29 January 2026. While the amendment to claim 28 has overcome the previous 35 USC112(b) rejections, the amendment has created new 35 USC 112(b) issues, which will be set forth below. In view of the amendments to the claims, the art rejection over the Kim et al article is being reapplied.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Paragraph [00246] teaches the composition can have at least two phases of a tetragonal phase, an orthorhombic phase and a rhombohedral phase. Paragraphs [00155]-[00158] and figures 13A-13E teach the composition can have all three phases; a tetragonal phase and a rhombohedral phase; and an orthorhombic phase and a rhombohedral phase. There is no teaching or suggestion anywhere else in the specification that the composition can have a tetragonal phase and an orthorhombic phase. Thus there is a discrepancy in the teachings as to what combination of phases can be present in the composition. Appropriate correction is required.
Response to Arguments
The amendments in the substitute specification did not correct nor address the above objection. In addition, applicants’ did not address the above objection. Therefore, the above objection is maintained.
Claim Objections
Claim 28 is objected to because of the following informalities: In formula 1, “0.96(NaaK1-a)(Nbb(T1-b))O3” should be rewritten as “0.96(NaaK1-a)(NbbT1-b)O3”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 28-30 and 32 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.
Claims 28 are indefinite as to what part of Formula 1 corresponds with the first material of the piezoelectric material and what part of Formula 1 corresponds with the second material of the piezoelectric material. Dependent claims 30 and 32 do not clarify this issue. Claim 29 is indefinite as to whether d mol% NaNbO3 is the second material or if the claimed second material in this claim is present in addition d mol% NaNbO3.
If “d mol% NaNbO3” in Formula 1 corresponds with the second material, then claim 28 is indefinite since d is defined as 0-5, which means that NaNbO3 is not present, but the rest of the claim teaches the piezoelectric material requires the presence of the second material.
Claim 30 is indefinite since it teaches the amount of second material is 0-5 mol%, which means that second material may not present, but the claim 28 teaches the piezoelectric material requires the presence of the second material.
Claim 28 teaches the grain boundaries are grown through a reaction from the second material and are grown based on a crystal direction of the second material. These teachings are indefinite since grain boundaries are not grown based on a crystal direction of the second material nor through a reaction from the second material. The specification teaches the first material crystal grains that are grown based on a crystal direction of the second material and through a reaction from the second material. Dependent claims 29, 30 and 32 implicitly include these indefinite teachings and thus are also indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Claims 28-30 and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by the Kim et al article.
This article teaches producing textured piezoelectric ceramic of the formula 0.96(Na0.48K0.52)(Nb1-Sby)O3∙0.04SrZrO3, where y is 0.045-0.08 and which further contains 3.0 mol% of NaNbO3, as a seed. This ceramic falls within the claimed Chemical formula 1, where the first material is 0.96(Na0.48K0.52)(Nb1-Sby)O3∙0.04SrZrO3, where y is 0.045-0.08 and x=0, and the second material is 3.0 mol% of NaNbO3. The taught ceramic has a Lotgering factor of 97%, which falls within the claimed range. The taught ceramic has grains crystal-aligned in a (001) single direction. The first column on page 4 teaches the taught ceramics has both an orthorhombic phase and a rhombohedral phase, which means that it has two of the three phases taught in claim 28. Figure 3 shows that the grains of 0.96(Na0.48K0.52)(Nb1-Sby)O3∙0.04SrZrO3, where y is 0.045-0.08 surround NaNbO3, and thus the taught ceramic has the structure of claims 28.
The taught ceramic is produced by mixing 0.96(Na0.48K0.52)(Nb1-Sby)O3∙0.04SrZrO3, where y is 0.045-0.08, as a matrix material with 3.0 mol% of NaNbO3, as a seed with a solvent so as to form a slurry; tape casting or molding the slurry into green sheets and sintering the green sheets. This is the process disclosed in the specification. Since the taught process is the same as that disclosed, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the taught ceramic to have the microstructure described in claim 28, absent any showing to the contrary. The article teaches forming electrodes on the ceramic, which reads upon the piezoelectric devices of claim 28. The article teaches the claimed device.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to C. MELISSA KOSLOW whose telephone number is (571)272-1371. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Tues:7:45-3:45 EST;Thurs-Fri:6:30-2:00EST; and Wed:7:45-2:00EST.
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, Jonathan Johnson can be reached at 571-272-1177. 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.
/C Melissa Koslow/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1734
cmk
8/14/26
Prosecution Insights