Response to Amendment
This action is in response to applicants’ amendment of 16 July 2026. The amendments to the specification have overcome the objection to the drawings. Accordingly, the originally filed drawings are now acceptable. The amendments to the specification have overcome the objections to paragraphs [00116], [00130], [00110], [00112], [0015], [00193]-[00195], and [00259]. The amendments to the claims have overcome the objection to claim 25 and the 35 USC 112(b) rejections over the reference to claim 1 in claims 26-28 and what is meant by “rare earth material”. The amendment to the claims have also overcome the art rejections. The objections to paragraphs [00259], [00270] and [00283] in the disclosure, the 35 USC 112(a) rejection and the remaining 35 USC 112(b) rejections have all been modified in view of the amendments to the specification and claims. The objection as to how the disclosed piezoelectric device emits light in vibrating is maintained.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The specification teaches the disclosed piezoelectric device may emit light in vibrating, but it is unclear how this is accomplished since the disclosed first materials are not indicated nor expected to be transparent to visible light wavelength ranges and the majority of the listed luminescent materials in paragraph [00116] are not triboluminescent, which are materials that emit light when mechanically stressed.
Paragraph [00259] has been amended to now teach the rare earth material may contain 3 mol% or less in a composition of the second material. It is unclear what the rare earth material contains in an amount of 3 mol% or less. If applicants mean the second material contains 3 mol% or less of a rare-earth material, as taught in paragraph [00188], then this paragraph needs to be corrected.
Paragraphs [00270] and [00283] have been amended to now teach the electrode layer may be used as a transparent electrode. The amendment is unclear as to its meaning since the majority of electrodes are not transparent and this cant’ be used as a transparent electrode. It is noted that the rest of the specification teaches the electrode layer is a transparent electrode, such as in paragraph [00145] and [00241].
Finally, the amendment to paragraph [00115] has amended “praseodymium” to “p’rasodymium”. The newly added apostrophe need to be deleted. Appropriate correction is required.
Response to Arguments
Applicants did not address the objection as to how the disclosed piezoelectric device emits light in vibrating and thus the objection is maintained.
Claim Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: in this claim ,the whole word “second” should either appear on the same line. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 5, 15 and 25 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.
These claims teach the second material comprises BaMgAl10O17 and Sr3(PO4)Cl, wherein each BaMgAl10O17 and Sr3(PO4)Cl of has a size of 10 microns or more and that the rare earth-material is doped in BaMgAl10O17 and Sr3(PO4)Cl. This means BaMgAl10O17 and Sr3(PO4)Cl are doped with either at least one rare-earth ion or at least one rare-earth element containing compound, based on the definition of “rare earth materials” in claim 1, 6 and16, from which these claims depend. Paragraphs [00193]-[00195] teach the second material is rare earth ion doped BaMgAl10O17 and rare earth ion doped Sr3(PO4)Cl, wherein each BaMgAl10O17 and Sr3(PO4)Cl of has a size of 10 microns or more. Based on the teachings in these paragraphs, it is clear that the originally filed disclosure does not support the newly claimed embodiment of BaMgAl10O17 and Sr3(PO4)Cl are doped with at least one rare-earth element containing compound. Thus these claims contain new matter.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 8-14, 16, 17, and 19-28 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, 6 and 16 teach the second material can comprise at least one rare earth ion. Since ions cannot exists by themselves and must be in a host material, these claims are indefinite as to what is the composition of the host material which contains the rare earth ions. Dependent claims 4, 8, , 10-14, 16, 17, 19-21 and 26-28 also do not teach what is the composition of the host material and therefore are also indefinite.
Claims 2, 9 and 24 are indefinite since they teach the second material can be Zr2SiO4:Mn, but this material does not comprise a rare earth material, as required by claims 1, 6 and 16, from which claims 2, 9 and 24, respectfully depend.
Claims 4, 8 and 19 teach the rare earth materials contains 3 mol% or less in a composition of the second material. It is unclear what the rare earth material contains in an amount of 3 mol% or less. Therefore, these claims are indefinite.
Claims 10-12 are indefinite as to what is the composition of the seeds in the second material that emits light, luminescent compounds containing a rare-earth element or a non-rare earth element containing luminescent compounds.
Clams 13 and 20 teach the first and second electrode layers are used as a transparent electrode. This limitation is indefinite since the majority of electrodes are not transparent and this cant’ be used as a transparent electrode. In view of the amendment to claim 13, claim 14 is now indefinite as to what is actually being claimed. It is unclear if this claim is defining the composition of the first and second electrode layers or if this is the composition of the first and second electrode layers when they are used as transparent electrodes.
Claims 22 and 23, as amended, are indefinite since they do not teach the that the raw material, the secondary seed and the seed contains the required rare-earth material. Claims 22 and 23 are also indefinite as to how the produced seed relates to the second material and/or how the seed forms the second material.
Finally, claim 28 is indefinite as to how the piezoelectric devices of claim 6 is configured to emit light of different colors by energy excitation of the rare-earth material since not all rare-earth ions and compounds containing rare-earth elements emit colored light by energy excitation. In addition, it is unclear what is the source or type of the energy excitation in these apparatus, photo-excitation, electro-excitation, or excitation by mechanical stress. Finally, it is unclear how the apparatus of claim 28 or 26 emits light since the disclosed first materials are not indicated nor expected to be transparent to color light wavelength ranges. In addition, there is no requirement in claims 26 or 6 that electrodes of the piezoelectric device and/or any part of the vibration member is transparent to color light wavelength ranges.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 35 USC112 rejections have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejections are based on the amended claims.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 9 and 24 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
There is no teaching or suggestion in the cited art of record of a piezoelectric material composition comprising a first material and a second material included in the first material, wherein the piezoelectric material composition is represented by formula (1) or (2):
(1): 0.96(NaaK1-a)(NbbSb1-b)O3-(0.04-x)MZrO3-x(BicAg1-c)ZrO3 +d mol% second material
(2): 0.96(NaaK1-a)(NbbT1-b)O3-(0.04-x)MM’O3-x(BicAg1-c)M’O3 +d mol% second material;
wherein M is Sr, Ba or Ca, T is Sb, Ta or V, M’ is Zr, Hf, Ti or Sn, a is 0.4-0.6, b is 0.9-1, c is 0.2-0.7, x is 0-0.04, 0<d<5, and the second material comprises at least one of NaNbO3:Eu, BaMgAl10O17:Eu, Y2O3:Eu, Y2SiO5:Eu and Zr2SiO4:Mn. Since this piezoelectric material composition is not taught or suggested by the cited art of record, there is no teaching or suggestion of a piezoelectric device having the structure of claim 6 comprising this material, as taught in claim 9; or a method for producing a piezoelectric device having the structure of claim 6 by the process set forth in claim 16, as taught in claim 24.
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
8/3/26
Prosecution Insights