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 .
Response to Amendment
This amendment is in response to applicants’ amendment of 5 January 2026. The substitute specification has been entered. The replacement drawings and amendments to the specification have overcome the objections to the drawings. The amendments to the specification have overcome the objection to “lotgering” and the objections to paragraphs [0096], [00245] and [00271]. The amendments to the claims have overcome the objection to claims 10 and 32 and the art rejections. The 35 USC 112(b) rejections have been modified in view of the amendments to the claims.
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 lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Paragraph [0097] teaches the second material is disposed in the first material and is present adjacent or close to the grain boundary and is in the center of the first material. Paragraphs [00246] and [00273] teach the second material is disposed in the grain boundary of the first material, such as in a center portion of each grain boundary. Thus there is a discrepancy in the teachings as to the location of the second material.
Paragraph [00248] 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.
Paragraph [00262] teaches the molded element composed of the seed material and the matrix material is sintered at 1070-1110oC for 3-6 hours. Paragraph [0091] teaches the molded element composed of the seed material and the matrix material is sintered at 1000-1150oC for 1-10 hours. This discrepancy between the sintering conditions of the molded element composed of the seed material and the matrix material need to be clarified. Appropriate correction is required.
Response to Arguments
The amendments in the substitute specification did not correct nor address the above objections. In addition, applicants’ did not address the above objections. Therefore, the above objections are maintained.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 9, 14, 24, 25, 27 and 28 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claims 1, 9, 14, 24, 25, 27 and 28; the phrase “the plurality of grain boundary” should be “the plurality of grain boundaries” since the presence of “plurality” means there is more than one grain boundary.
The marking indicating the deleted word “weighed” from the phrase “the weight matrix material” in claim 14 is missing. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 14-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 14 has been amended to now teach the plurality of grain boundaries present between the first and second material grow though a reaction from the seed material. Dependent claims 15-23 include this newly added limitation. This newly added limitation is nowhere taught in the originally filed disclosure. The originally filed disclosure teaches the first material, or the matrix of claim 14, grows though a reaction from the seed material, wherein the seed is the second material. Therefore, this amendment claims 14-23 is new matter.
Claims 1, 3-7, 9, 10, 12-30, 32 and 33 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 1, 4, 6, 7, 9, 10, 12, 13, 24-28, 30, 32 and 33 are indefinite as to what aspect of the composition of claim 1 is the composition of the first material and what is the second material. Claim 3 is indefinite as to what aspect of the composition of claim 1 is the composition of the second material. Claims 5 and 29 are indefinite as what aspect of the composition of claim 1 is the composition of the first material.
Claim 1 teaches the second material is surrounded by the first material in line 10, then teaches the second material is disposed in the grain boundaries that make up the first material in line 12 which means the second material surrounds the first material, and then in lines 13-14 teach the piezoelectric material has a plurality of grain boundaries between the first and second materials, which in combination with the teachings in line 10 means the second material is surrounded by the first material. Claims 9, which depends from claim 1, also teaches the second material is disposed in the grain boundaries of the first material, which means the second material surrounds the first material. Claim 1 is indefinite since lines 10, 13 and 14 of the claim teaches an arrangement of the first and second materials which is different from that taught in line 12 of the claim. Claim 9 is also indefinite since it teaches an arrangement different from that required by lines 10, 13 and 14 of claim 1. Since claim 1 is indefinite, its dependent claims 3-7, 10, 12 and 13 are indefinite for this reason.
Claim 28 teaches the second material is surrounded by the first material in line 3 and then teaches in line 15 the second material is disposed in the grain boundaries of the first material, which means the second material surrounds the first material; and then in lines 16-17 teach the piezoelectric material has a plurality of grain boundaries between the first and second materials, which in combination with the teachings in line 3 means the second material is surrounded by the first material. Claim 28 is indefinite since lines 3, 16 and 17 of the claim teaches an arrangement of the first and second materials which is different from that taught in line 15 of the claim. Since claim 28 is indefinite, its dependent claims 29, 30 and 32 are indefinite for this reason. Since claim 33 includes all the limitations of claim 28, it is also indefinite for this reason.
Claim 1 teaches the grain boundaries of the first material is crystal aligned in the (001) direction. It is unclear what is meant by this since grain boundaries are not crystals and thus cannot be crystal aligned. Therefore, claim 1 is indefinite for this reason. It is noted that the specification teaches the first material is crystal aligned in the (001) direction. Claims 14, 24 and 28 also teach this and therefore also indefinite for this reasons. Since claims 14, 24 and 28 are indefinite, their dependent claims 15-23, 25-27, 29, 30 and 32 are indefinite for this reason. Since claim 33 includes all the limitations of claim 28, it is also indefinite for this reason.
Lines 11 and 12 of claim 1 teaches the first material comprises crystal aligned grain boundaries. Lines 13 and 14 teach a plurality of grain boundaries between the first and second materials, which mean the grain boundaries are not part of the first material. Thus claim 1 is indefinite since it teaches the plurality of grain boundaries are part of the first material and then teaches they are not. Claim 28 also teach this and therefore also indefinite for this reasons. Since claim 28 is indefinite, its dependent claims 29, 30 and 32 are indefinite for this reason. Since claim 33 includes all the limitations of claim 28, it is also indefinite for this reason.
Claim 1 is indefinite as to reacts with the second material so as to form the plurality of grain boundaries. Claims 24 and 28 also teach this and therefore also indefinite for this reasons. Since claims 24 and 28 are indefinite, their dependent claims 25-27, 29, 30 and 32 are indefinite for this reason. Since claim 33 includes all the limitations of claim 28, it is also indefinite for this reason.
Claim 3 teach the first material has a formula 0.96(NaaK1-a)(NbbT1-b)O3∙0.4-xMZrO3∙x(BicAg1-c)ZrO3, wherein T is Sb or Ta, M is Sr, Ba or Ca, a=0.4-0.6, b=0.90-0.98,c=0.4-0.6 and x=0-0.04. This material does not comprise grain boundaries and thus would not meet the compositional requirement of lines 11-12 of claim 1. For this reason, claim 3 is indefinite.
Claim 4 teaches an aspect ratio of the first material. It is unclear what aspect of the first material has this aspect ratio. Therefore, claim 4 is indefinite.
Claim 5, which depends for claim 1, teaches the NaNbO3 of formula I is the second material, and the teaching in lines 10-14 that the piezoelectric material of claim 1 must include a second material. Given these teachings, NaNbO3 of formula I must be present and thus d cannot be 0 mol%. Claim 6, which depends from claim 1, teaches that the second material need not be present by teaching the molar amount of the second material in the piezoelectric material can be 0 mol%. Lines 10-14 that the piezoelectric material of claim 1 must include a second material. Since claim 5 and 6 include embodiments where the required second material is not present, they are indefinite.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the first material" and “the second material”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Dependent claims 15-23 are also indefinite for this reason since they implicitly include this teaching.
Claims 14 is also indefinite as to what part of Chemical formula 1 is the seed material, what part is the matrix material, what part is the first material and what part is the second material.
Claim 14 is indefinite as to reacts with the seed material so as to form the plurality of grain boundaries between the first and second materials. Claim 14 is also indefinite as to how the claimed process forms the first and second materials. Dependent claims 15-23 include these issues and thus are also indefinite.
Claim 17 teaches the amount of seed material can be 0 mol%, but claim 14, from which claim 17 depends requires the presence of the seed material. Claim 15 teaches the seed material is NaNbO3. This teaching in addition to that of claim 14 includes embodiments where the molar amount of the seed material is 0 mol%. Claim 14 requires the presence of the seed material in first step of the claimed process. Since claims 14, 15 and 17 include embodiments where the required seed material is not present, they are indefinite.
Claim 20, as worded, is indefinite. The first claimed step is to mix and synthesize the raw materials for the matrix material and then to mill the synthesized matrix material. Claim 20 recites the limitation "the synthesized matrix material". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The claimed process does not include a step synthesizing the matrix material from the mixed raw materials. The wording of the claim teaches to form, or synthesize, the raw materials for the matrix material after mixing the raw materials. It is unclear how one can mix a material before it is produced. For these reasons, claim 20 is indefinite.
Claims 21 and 22 teach the seed material includes the secondary seed, wherein the secondary seed comprises NaNbO3. Based on the teachings of claims 14 and 15, the seed material is NaNbO3. Thus the seed produced by the method of claims 21 and 22 is different from that of claim 14 since the seed of claims 21 and 22 include other components in addition to NaNbO3 and therefore are indefinite.
Claim 21 is also indefinite as to the composition of the seed used to produce the primary seed which comprises Bi2.5Na3.5Nb5O16, and as to the method for preparing the primary seed from the weighted undefine seed. Since claim 22 includes all the limited of claim 21, from which it depends, it is also indefinite for these reasons.
Claim 23 teaches the matrix material comprises Fe2O3. The teaching in claims 14 and 15 is that is the matrix material is 0.96(NaaK1-a)(NbbT1-b)O3∙0.4-xMZrO3∙x(BicAg1-c)ZrO3, wherein T is Sb or Ta, M is Sr, Ba or Ca, a=0.4-0.6, b=0.90-0.98,c=0.4-0.6 and x=0-0.04. This formula excludes the presence of any other material. Thus claim 23 is indefinite since it teaches the matrix includes a material excludes from the definition of claim 14.
Claim 24 teaches the grains of the piezoelectric material contains a first and second material in lines 3-4. Claims 25 and 27, which depend from claim 24, and line 13 of claim 24 teach the second material is disposed in the grain boundary, which means it is not in the grains. Thus the location of the second material in claims 25 and 27 and in line 13 is different from that taught in claim 24, which these claims depend. Therefore, claims 24, 25 and 27 are indefinite.
Finally, claim 24 also teaches in lines 14-15 there are grain boundaries between the first and second materials. As stated above, lines 3-4 of this claim teaches the grains of the piezoelectric material contains a first and second material in lines 3-4, which these materials would not be separated by grain boundaries since a single grain includes both the first and second materials. Claim 24 is indefinite doe this reason.
Response to Arguments
The amendments to the claims did not overcome the above 35 USC 112(b) rejections nor did applicants discuss how the amendment have overcome the rejection. Accordingly, the rejections are maintained.
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 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
1/27/26