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 . 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 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.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 15-16 & 19-25 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim1,6-7, & 12 of U.S. Patent No. 11,915,872. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because
In regards to claim 15, U.S. Patent No. 11,915,872 claims
A ceramic material comprising a base compound with the general empirical formula CTiO3 and manganese pyrophosphate as a sintering aid, wherein C represents one or more third metals, Ti represents titanium, and O represents oxygen, and wherein manganese pyrophosphate as the sintering aid is configured to melt congruently under application of a sintering temperature, the sintering temperature being a reduced temperature compared to a sintering temperature of a ceramic without the sintering aid (claim 1 - wherein manganese pyrophosphate as the sintering aid is configured to melt congruently under application of a sintering temperature, the sintering temperature being a reduced temperature compared to a sintering temperature of a ceramic without the sintering aid is inherently met by the material).
In regards to claim 16, U.S. Patent No. 11,915,872 claims
The ceramic material according to claim 15, wherein C comprises one or more selected from calcium, strontium, and barium.
In regards to claim 19, U.S. Patent No. 11,915,872 claims
The ceramic material according to claim 15, which contains an additive selected from aluminum, nickel and iron (claim 1).
In regards to claim 20, U.S. Patent No. 11,915,872 claims
A ceramic component comprising a ceramic base body having as a main component the ceramic material according to claim 15 in a sintered state (claim 1 & claim 6).
In regards to claim 21, U.S. Patent No. 11,915,872 claims
A ceramic material having the empirical formula AxByC1-x-vTi1-y+wO3 * (Mn2P2O7)z * Du, wherein
- A is a first doping which is selected from a group of first metals comprising neodymium, praseodymium, cerium, and lanthanum,
- B is a second doping which is selected from a group of second metals comprising niobium, tantalum, and vanadium,
- C is a main constituent of a base ceramic material selected from a group of third metals comprising calcium, strontium, and barium - and
D is an additive which comprises at least one first compound containing a fourth metal selected from a group of fourth metals comprising aluminum, nickel, and iron,
wherein x is the molar proportion of A, y is the molar proportion of B, v is the molar proportion of A vacancies, w is the molar proportion of a titanium excess, z is the molar proportion of manganese pyrophosphate, u is the molar proportion of D and the following holds true for the molar proportions:
0.0<x< 0.1,
0.0 <y<0.1,
0< 1.5*x,
0<w<0.05,
0.01 <z<0.1,
0<u<0.05 (claim 1).
In regards to claim 22, U.S. Patent No. 11,915,872 claims
A ceramic component comprising a ceramic base body having as a main component the ceramic material according to claim 21 in a sintered state (claim 1 & 6).
In regards to claim 23, U.S. Patent No. 11,915,872 claims
A method for producing a ceramic component, wherein the method has at least the following sub-steps:
providing a base ceramic material having the general empirical formula CTiO3, wherein C is a main component of the base ceramic material comprising a third metal selected from a group of third metals comprising calcium, strontium, barium,
preparing a mixture by adding manganese pyrophosphate to the base ceramic material,
production of unsintered components comprising the mixture,
sintering the unsintered components, wherein manganese pyrophosphate acts as a sintering aid, melts congruently and lowers the sintering temperature compared to a composition without the sintering aid, whereby sintered components are obtained (claim 7).
In regards to claim 24, U.S. Patent No. 11,915,872 claims
The method according to claim 23 wherein sintering the unsintered components is performed at 1200 and 1250°C (claim 12).
In regards to claim 25, U.S. Patent No. 11,915,872 claims
A method for producing a ceramic component,
wherein the method has the following sub-steps:
- providing a base ceramic material having the empirical formula CTiO3, wherein C is a main constituent of the base ceramic material comprising a third metal selected from a group of third metals comprising calcium, strontium, barium,
- adding manganese pyrophosphate, a first dopant which contains a first metal and/or a second dopant which contains a second metal and/or a Ti-containing compound and/or an additive which comprises at least one first compound containing a fourth metal to the base ceramic material, with subsequent mixing to obtain a mixture,
wherein the first metal is selected from a group of first metals comprising neodymium, praseodymium, cerium, and lanthanum, the second metal is selected from a group of second metals comprising niobium, tantalum, and vanadium, the third metal is selected from a group of third metals comprising calcium, strontium, and barium, and the fourth metal is selected from a group of fourth metals comprising aluminum, nickel, and iron,
- grinding the mixture to obtain a ground mixture,
- producing ceramic green sheets from the ground mixture,
- applying inner electrodes to the ceramic green sheets,
- stacking the ceramic green sheets to obtain a stack of green sheets,
- pressing the stack of green sheets to obtain a pressed stack of green sheets,
- singulating the pressed stack to obtain singulated green structural parts,
- decarburizing the singulated green structural parts to obtain decarburized structural parts,
- sintering the decarburized structural parts to obtain sintered structural parts,
- tempering the sintered structural parts to obtain ceramic base bodies,
- applying metallizations to and firing the metallizations on outer surfaces of the ceramic base bodies to obtain ceramic components (claim 7).
Claim(s) 17-18 is/are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,915,872 in view of Boyle (US 5,858,451).
In regards to claim 17,
U.S. Patent No. 11,915,872 claims which contains a first doping selected from neodymium, praseodymium, cerium, and lanthanum (claim 1).
Boyle '451 teaches the first doping which occupies lattice sites of the third metal in a crystal lattice (Column 3, Lines 48-49).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings of Boyle '451 with U.S. Patent No. 11915872 to incorporate the first doping which occupies some of C positions in a crystal lattice of the base compound as taught by Boyle '451 in the structure taught by U.S. Patent No. 11915872, as one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this with a reasonable expectation of success because such a combination and/or modification allows for reducing the switching voltage, improving the dielectric constant and reducing fatigue (Boyle '451: Column 1, Lines 31-33).
In regards to claim 18,
U.S. Patent No. 11,915,872 claims which contains a second doping selected from niobium, tantalum, and vanadium, which occupies some of lattice sites occupied by titanium in a crystal lattice (claim 1).
Boyle '451 teaches the second doping which occupies lattice sites occupied by titanium in a crystal lattice (Column 3, Lines 49-50).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings of Boyle '451 with U.S. Patent No. 11915872 to incorporate a second doping selected from niobium, tantalum, and vanadium which occupies some of positions of titanium in a crystal lattice of the base compound as taught by Boyle '451 in the structure taught by U.S. Patent No. 11915872, as one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this with a reasonable expectation of success because such a combination and/or modification allows for reducing the switching voltage and improving the insulation resistance (Boyle '451: Column 1, Lines 33-37).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
Communication
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID M SINCLAIR whose telephone number is (571)270-5068. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH from 8AM-4PM.
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, TIMOTHY J DOLE can be reached at (571)272-2229. 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.
/David M Sinclair/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2847
Prosecution Insights