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 .
Response to Amendment
Claims 1-15 are pending in the present application. The Examiner has withdrawn each and every claim objection made in the non-final office action after discussion during the interviews held with Applicant’s representative party. Claims 1 and 2 have been found to each consist of one complete sentence. The Examiner has withdrawn each and every 112(b) rejection made, upon claims 5-10, in the non-final office action after discussion during the interviews held with Applicant’s representative party. Claims 5-8 recite a variable alpha that has been determined to be sufficiently defined in the specification. Claims 9-10 recite the term “segregation phase” that was discussed in the interview and found to not be indefinite, over US 2021/0061718 A1, Iguchi 2021.
Regarding new claims 12-15, new rejections have been set forth.
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.
Claims 1-4 and 9-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Konaka et al. (US 20030039090 A1), herein referred to as Konaka, in view of Iguchi et al. (US-20200303122-A1), herein referred to as Iguchi.
Regarding Claims 1 and 2, Konaka discloses a dielectric ceramic with grain boundaries (Figure 2) with rare earth elements inside the particles, in which 20% to 70% of the crystal grains contain a rare earth element concentration in the main phases that is at least about 0.02 of the concentration of rare earth elements near the edges of the crystal grain (abstract, paragraphs 26 and 47).
Therefore, Konaka discloses a dielectric material with main phases and grain boundaries existing between the main phases and RE in the main phases, and discloses a concentration ratio of RE in central portions of the main phase to RE in the peripheral portions of the main phase that is 0.02 or higher.
As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). It therefore would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to create the dielectric material as taught by Konaka with a concentration ratio of RE in central portions to peripheral portions in a range overlapping with the disclosed range and the instant claimed range, between 0.02 and 0.2, to arrive at the claimed invention with reasonable predictability.
Konaka does not disclose the dielectric material having a tungsten bronze structure. However, the structure of the ceramic disclosed follows a general perovskite structure of ABX3, which overlaps with perovskite-derived tungsten bronze structures such as tetragonal tungsten bronze or cubic tungsten bronze. Furthermore, Iguchi discloses a dielectric composition which includes a complex oxide represented by the general formula AaBbC4O15+α and having a tungsten bronze structure, wherein “A” includes at least Ba, “B” includes at least Zr, “C” includes at least Nb, “a” is 3.05 or higher, and “b” is 1.01 or higher (abstract). The reference further discloses that the dielectric composition improves the relative permittivity while maintaining resistivity (0027 and 0103). Given that the scope of the structures of the reference and the claimed invention significantly overlap, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, motivated to improve relative permittivity while maintaining resistivity, to modify a perovskite structure as taught in Konaka and arrive at a tungsten bronze structure as taught in Iguchi to obtain the claimed invention with reasonable expectation of predictable behavior. It is well-known in the art that perovskites and tungsten bronze may function as capacitors. See MPEP § 2143(I)(A).
Regarding Claims 3 and 4, Konaka further discloses an average particle size of 0.05 to 0.7 microns (paragraph 55).
Regarding claims 9 and 10, Konaka and Iguchi do not expressly disclose a segregation phase containing barium and niobium. However, a composition containing a concentration ratio of rare earth element, as taught by Konaka, will therefore contain a concentration ratio of non-rare earth elements as well. The term “segregation phase”, as recited in claims 9 and 10 requiring a “segregation phase comprising Ba and Nb,” has been given the broadest reasonable interpretation of an enrichment of Ba and Nb presence, which must exist, given the concentration ratio of rare earth element. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to create the composition taught by Konaka and modified by Iguchi to comprise Ba and Nb and RE, where RE is present in a higher concentration near the edges of the crystal grain, and such a composition must have a higher concentration of Ba and Nb in the center of the main phases of the crystal grain than at the edges of the crystal grain, constituting a segregation phase.
Regarding Claim 11, Konaka does not disclose an electronic device comprising the dielectric composition. However, Iguchi discloses an electronic device comprising the dielectric, the multilayer ceramic capacitor shown in Figure 1. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to implement the dielectric composition as taught in Konaka in a multilayer ceramic composition as taught in Iguchi to arrive at the claimed invention with reasonable expectation of success; see MPEP 2144.07 regarding art recognized suitability.
Regarding claims 12 and 13, Konaka discloses an average particle size of 0.05 to 0.7 microns (paragraph 55) as applied to claims 3 and 4 above. This overlaps with the instant claimed range of 0.3-1.0 microns. As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art," a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. 1990). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to obtain the material as taught by Konaka and Iguchi where the average particle size is in any workable or optimum range overlapping with 0.05 to 0.7 microns as taught by Konaka including the claimed range in order to obtain a particle size suitable for application.
Claims 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Konaka in view of Iguchi, as applied to claim 1 or 2 and in further view of non-patent literature N.K. Singh, Electrical Conductivity in Ba5RTi3-xZrxNb7O30 [R = La or Dy] Ceramics, Asian Journal of Chemistry, Vol 15, No. 1 (2003), Pages 388-394, herein referred to as Singh.
As applied to claims 1 and 2, Konaka discloses a dielectric ceramic with grain boundaries (Figure 2) with rare earth elements inside the particles, in which 20% to 70% of the crystal grains contain a rare earth element concentration in the main phases that is at least about 0.02 of the concentration of rare earth elements near the edges of the crystal grain (abstract, paragraphs 26 and 47). Iguchi further discloses a dielectric composition which includes a complex oxide represented by the general formula AaBbC4O15+α and having a tungsten bronze structure, wherein “A” includes at least Ba, “B” includes at least Zr, “C” includes at least Nb, “a” is 3.05 or higher, and “b” is 1.01 or higher (abstract).
With regard to claims 5-8, Konaka and Iguchi do not disclose the ratio of AaBbD4O15+α as required in claims 5 and 6, where “A” includes at least Ba and RE, “B” includes at least Zr, “D” includes at least Nb, “a” is at least 3.05, and “b” is at least 1.01. However, Singh discloses a tungsten bronze type oxide with the formula Ba5RTi3-xZrxNb7O30, in which “R” is selected from La or Dy and “x” is 0, 1, 2, or 3 (abstract, paragraph 1). When x is equal to 3, this crystal structure has the ratio of Ba5R1Zr3Nb7O30. Singh further teaches that slight changes in the stoichiometric ratio may influence the activation energy of the material (page 391 paragraph 1), which is related to key dielectric properties such as the relative permittivity and dielectric loss (page 389 paragraph 2), as defined in Equation 1 below.
ωϵ
ϵ
0
tan
δ
=
σ
0
e
x
p
(
-
E
a
K
B
T
)
(
1
)
It therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to tune the ratio of the rare earth content near the values taught in Singh to optimize the dielectric loss of the composition within a workable optimum range and arrive at the claimed invention, where the value of “a” is at least 3.05 and the value of “b” is at least 1.01. See MPEP 2144.05 for discussion on the obviousness of close ranges.
Regarding claims 7 and 8, the RE composition taught in Singh is 0.5 parts by mole, and the D content is 3.5 parts by mole. Motivation to vary these ranges is taught in Singh, as applied to claims 5 and 6 above. It therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to modify the structure taught by Singh and arrive at the claimed invention with reasonable expectation of success.
Claims 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Konaka in view of Iguchi, as applied to claim 1 or 2 and in further view of Iguchi et al. (US 20220165502 A1), herein referred to as Iguchi 2.
As applied to claims 1 and 2, Konaka discloses a dielectric ceramic with grain boundaries (Figure 2) with rare earth elements inside the particles, in which 20% to 70% of the crystal grains contain a rare earth element concentration in the main phases that is at least about 0.02 of the concentration of rare earth elements near the edges of the crystal grain (abstract, paragraphs 26 and 47). Iguchi further discloses a dielectric composition which includes a complex oxide represented by the general formula AaBbC4O15+α and having a tungsten bronze structure, wherein “A” includes at least Ba, “B” includes at least Zr, “C” includes at least Nb, “a” is 3.05 or higher, and “b” is 1.01 or higher (abstract).
With regard to claims 14 and 14, Konaka and Iguchi do not disclose the particle sizes of the main phases having a D90 of 3 microns or less.
However, Liu teaches a ceramic powder of KSr2Nb5O15 (KSN, abstract) having a tungsten-bronze structure (abstract) wherein the powder size has a D90 value not greater than 3 microns (Figure 3, logarithmic plot of particle size distribution). It would be obvious to combine the teachings of Konaka and Iguchi with the teachings of Liu to obtain the dielectric composition of claims 1 and 2 having a D90 value less than 3 microns, as Liu teaches; one would be motivated to do so because Liu teaches that the particle size influences grain growth (p. 4 pp. 2) and that abnormal grain growth decreases as particles are ball-milled longer to become smaller particles (“With increase of the ball-milling time, large particles were interrupted to become intermediate sized and small particles. So, the abnormal grain size decreased gradually as seen from Fig. 5(b)-(d),” p. 4 pp. 2). Liu teaches that this directly affects the dielectric properties of the tungsten bronze material, such as phase structure (p. 6) and the ferroelectric dielectric constant and loss (Figure 9, p. 7 column 1), which Iguchi teaches is critical for dielectric materials (0006). Therefore one skilled in the art would arrive at the claimed invention prior to the effective filing date.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 3/26/2026 regarding the 103 rejections made upon claims 1-11 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant has asserted that Iguchi would not be reasonably combined with Konaka by one skilled in the art. However, the structure taught by Konaka having a structure of ABO3 is a genus class that encompasses the species of the structure taught by Iguchi, a composition having the structure AaBbCdO(15+a). The Examiner respectfully maintains that this structure of Iguchi generalizes to a formula of ABO3, given that A(3.05)B(1.01)C(4)O(15) reduces to A3B5O15 or a cubic structure having partial vacancies, as evidenced by Sena 2017, “Structure characterization of triple perovskites and related systems by transmission electron microscopy,” Thesis presented to Antwerpen, Universiteit Antwerpen, Faculteit Wetenschappen, Departement Fysica, 2017 (page 9). It would have therefore been clear to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date that the teachings of Iguchi and Konaka were related and would reasonably be combinable with reasonable prediction of success. The rejections over Konaka in view of Iguchi are therefore 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 Eileen Moudou whose telephone number is (571)272-1768. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8 AM - 4 PM 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, Sally Merkling can be reached at (571)272-6297. 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.
/Eileen Moudou/ Examiner, Art Unit 1738
/MICHAEL FORREST/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1738
Prosecution Insights