DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. 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
2. Applicant’s election without traverse of Group 1, claims 1-6 and 10 in the reply filed on 6/24/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 7-9 are withdrawn.
Information Disclosure Statement
3. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 8/30/2023 and 11/14/2025 were filed timely. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
5. 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.
6. Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (US 2013/0052445 A1) to Nakada et al. (hereinafter Nakada) in view of the teachings of (JP 2017024931 A) to Shigeo et al. (hereinafter Shigeo).
Nakada is directed toward composite oxides structures that comprises apatite compounds. Nakada discloses at paragraph [0021] that a layer of oxide is formed onto a substrate. Nakada discloses at paragraph [0029] that the substrate is preferably a silicon. Nakada discloses at paragraph [0021] that elements A and B in the form of oxidants form the first layer. Nakada discloses at paragraph [0049] that element A is preferably a rare earth lanthanide. Nakada discloses at paragraph [0045] that the composite oxide layer has silicon and oxygen. Nakada discloses at paragraph [0054] that oxide portion may contain two different rare earth elements in combination. Nakada discloses at paragraph [0055] that the apatite compound formed has excellent conductivity in the thickness direction.
Shigeo is directed toward composite oxides structures that comprises apatite compounds. Nakada and Shigeo are both directed toward composite oxides structures that comprises apatite compounds and therefore are analogous art. Shigeo teaches that “the apatite-type lanthanum silicate precursor thin film of the present invention is a thin film made of an aggregate of composite oxide particles containing lanthanum and silicon as main metal elements”. Shigeo teaches that “a part of Si in the composite oxide particle may be substituted with 3B group”, which includes scandium. Shigeo teaches that the “composite oxide” referred to here is composed of a plurality of metal oxides including at least a lanthanum oxide and a silicon oxide.
It would be obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of the filing of the disclosure of Nakada in view of the teachings of Shigeo to select the layered body that forms a primer facie case of obviousness for claim 1-6.
Allowable Subject Matter
7. Claim 10 is 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.
8. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art does not teach a layered body having a through hole.
Conclusion
9. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEFFREY D WASHVILLE whose telephone number is (571)270-3262. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
10. 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.
11. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Randy Gulakowski can be reached at 571-272-1302. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
12. 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.
/JEFFREY D WASHVILLE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1766
Prosecution Insights