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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 12-16, and 21-26 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 2/18/26.
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-11 and 17-20, in the reply filed on 02/18/26 is acknowledged.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 4 are objected to because of the following informalities: The claims appear to be missing several conjunctions tying the ranges set forth with the material associated with that range. For example in line 9 of claim 1, a volume percentage is described followed by ‘, said first ceramic powder’. It is thought that this is meant to describe the amount ‘of’ said first ceramic powder. The same issue is present in at least line 10 of claim 1, lines 14 of claim 1, line 15 of claim 1, line 8 of claim 4, and line 9 of claim 4. 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 1-11 and 17-20 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.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claims 1-2, 4, 9, and 18, recites broad limitations in terms of particle sizes, temperatures, times, pressures, or other processing conditions, and the claims also recites ‘preferable’ or ‘more preferable’ ranges of each of these particle sizes, temperatures, times, pressures or other processing conditions, which are the narrower statement of each of the cited ranges/limitations (e.g: claim 1, line 6 broad: 10-400 micron particle size narrow: preferably 63-180 micron). The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. Claims 3, 5-8, 10-11, 17 and 19-20 do not introduce limitations having broad/narrow limitations, but are dependent on at least one claim having such a limitation and are rejected on the same basis.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. The instant claim is dependent on claim 4. The instant claim sets forth that ‘wherein said ceramic powder, ceramic, powder mixture, NaCl powder, Li2MoO4 powder or powder of other ceramic, and/or first ceramic powder has a multimodal particle size[…]. Instant claim 4 does not set forth ceramic powder mixtures, NaCl powder, Li2MoO4 powders, powders of other ceramics, or first ceramic powders. Claim 17 thus cites the use of materials not included within the process of claim 4 and fails to further limit the claim on this basis. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 20 is dependent on claim 4. Claim 20 requires the use of particular ‘said other ceramic’. Claim 4 does not set forth the use of other ceramics, only an organometallic compound and a sintered electroceramic waste material. As claim 4 does not teach the use of ‘other ceramics’, claim 20, which only limits the ‘other ceramics’ does not further limit the claims. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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) 1-3 and 8-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hann u in WO2019002695 in view of Sun in CN102503421 (citations herein to the provided machine translation), as evidenced by Vaataja (see attached).
Regarding Claim 1: Hannu teaches a method for manufacturing composite material for use in electronic components (electroceramic; See Page 3, Line 3-12).
Hannu teaches providing a (first) ceramic powder having a size less than 180 microns (See Page 4, Line 32) and mixing the ceramic powder with a Li2MoO4 powder to create a mixed powder having a multimodal particle size. The particle size of Li-2MoO4 in the mixed powder is less than 50 microns (See Page 4, Line 13 or 34). These particle sizes overlap those that are instantly claimed. The Li2MoO4 is provided in an amount from 10-30 vol% and the ceramic material (other ceramic) is provided in an amount that is more than 65 vol% (See Page 7, line 8 and 11). These percentages overlap those instantly claimed.
Hannu teaches mixing the obtained ceramic powder mixture with a saturated aqueous solution of Li2MoO4. Hannu teaches that such a solution is provided in an amount of 0.1 to 0.5 ml relative to 0.8 to 1.2g of the powder mixture (See Page 4, Lines 11-23). Hannu is silent in terms of the density of such a solution; however, the evidentiary document to Vaataja calculates the density of a saturated lithium molybdate solution as being 1.4897 g/cm. Those of ordinary skill would expect the solution of Hannu to have the same density as it is also a saturated solution. Hannu thus teaches the addition of 0.15 to 0.75g of saturated aqueous solution ([0.1-0.5]*1.49) to 0.8 to 1.2g of the powder mixture. The content of the solution is thus 0.15/(0.15+1.2) to 0.75/(0.75+0.8) or 11-48 wt%. As the balance is the powder, the content of powder is from 52-89 wt%. These percentages overlap those instantly claimed. The abstract sets forth that this combination of materials is mixed creating a homogenous mass as claimed. Hannu thus teaches an overlapping range of particle sizes, volume percentages and weight percentages. Overlapping ranges have been held to present a prima facie case of obviousness. Those of ordinary skill would only need to select from the overlapping portion of these ranges to arrive at the invention as claimed.
Hannu teaches that the obtained mixture (homogenous mass) is added to a mold at a pressure such as 250 MPa (See Page 6, Line 15). The molding time may be from 2 to 5 minutes (See Page 7, Line 21). Hannu thus teaches molding times and pressures within the ranges instantly claimed.
Hannu teaches that the created material may be used as an electroceramic composite material in a device such as a capacitor, coil, sensor, actuator, or other device. The use of the material in such a device requires that the compressed homogeneous mass is removed from the mold.
Hannu is silent in terms of obtaining a sintered electroceramic waste material from the production of electroceramic components, grinding these components and providing them as a raw material.
However, Sun teaches that waste piezoelectric ceramic such as a sintered PZT ceramics having defects (such as cracks defects or reduced performance; See Paragraph 3) may be used as raw materials for the creation of electroceramic materials (See Abstract). Sun teaches that the sintered piezoelectric ceramic chips (sintered bodies) undergo a manual grinding step, as well as various other granulation steps (See Paragraph 8). The granulated material can then be further processed to create new piezoelectric bodies (See Paragraph 14-16). Sun teaches that these bodies have similar properties compared to pristine PZT and only have a slightly lower d33 constant (See Paragraph 21). Those of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use the sintered electroceramic waste material of Sun in the creation of the composite ceramics of Hannu as the use of recycled PZT is established as being a suitable PZT precursor. Hannu explicitly sets forth that their ceramic composite may include PZT as a majority component (See Page 4, line 3 and Page 6, line 11 of Hannu). Those of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to grind the materials of Sun to the extent desired by Hannu in such a process. Those of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use recycled PZT in the creation of the composite of Hannu in order to save money. Additionally those of ordinary skill would understand that the recycling of components is environmentally friendly as it reduces the amount of waste in landfills.
Regarding Claim 2: Hannu teaches that the molded ceramic is dried in an oven at a temperature between 20 and 120C for 16 hours (See Page 4, lines 24-29). The temperature and time of Hannu fall squarely within the claimed ranges.
Regarding Claim 3: Hannu teaches that the aqueous solution of Li2MoO4 is saturated (See Page 4, Line 17).
Regarding Claim 8: Hannu teaches that the powder mixture has a multimodal particle size distribution (See Page 4, Line 6-7), having a first particle size of below 50 microns and a second particle size below 180 microns (See Line 30-36).
Regarding Claim 9: Hannu teaches that the final product contains 10-35 vol% of the Li2MoO4 (See Page 6, Line 7-8) and greater than 65% of the other ceramic, which may be derived from the sintered electroceramic waste material described above (See Page 7, line 8-12).
Regarding Claim 10: Hannu in view of Sun teach the use of sintered PZT waste material. Sun teaches that PZT is a piezoelectric ceramic material (See Abstract).
Regarding Claim 11: Hannu teaches that other ceramics such as NaCl may be added to the mixture (See Page 3, Lines 34-35).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW E HOBAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3585. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30am-6:00pm.
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.
/Matthew E. Hoban/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1734
Prosecution Insights