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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements filed January 30, 2024, February 29, 2024, October 7, 2024, December 27, 2024 have been placed in the application file and the information referred to therein has been considered as to the merits.
When filing a continuing application that claims benefit under 35 U.S.C. 120 to a parent application (other than an international application that designated the U.S.), it will not be necessary for the applicant to submit an information disclosure statement in the continuing application that lists the prior art cited by the examiner in the parent application unless the applicant desires the information to be printed on the patent issuing from the continuing application (for continued prosecution applications filed under 37 CFR 1.53(d), see subsection A.1. below). The examiner of the continuing application will consider information which has been considered by the Office in the parent application. See MPEP §609.02.
Drawings
The drawings received on May 29, 2020 are acceptable.
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 7-9 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 7-9 are dependent upon claim 6. Claim 6 defines the perovskite as having a general formula of ABO3. However, claim 7 recites the perovskite metal is CaCuTi4O12 or Sr2Ta2O7; claim 8 and claim 9 recite each of the aforementioned formulas individually. The materials CaCuTi4O12 or Sr2Ta2O7 do not have an ABO3 formula. Thus, the metes and bounds of the claims are unclear and indefinite.
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 1-6 and 10-12 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-8 of U.S. Patent No. 11,450,840 in view of US 2018/0254477 (Horikawa et al.). The pertinent patented claims are set forth below:
PNG
media_image1.png
456
570
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
270
570
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
257
570
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
239
576
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
235
576
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Patented claim 1 reads on claims 1 and 6 of the instant application. The only difference being that the patented claim is drawn towards a ferroelectric ceramic material, while the instant application claims a perovskite metal oxide (claim 1), specifically one of a ABO3 formula (A being at least one of Pb, Ba, Sr, Bi, Li, Na, Ca, Cd, Mg, K, lanthanoids; B being at least one of Ti, Zr, V, Nb, Ta, Sb, Cr, Mo, W, Mn, Mg, Sc, Co, Cu, In, Sn, Ga, Zn, Cd, Fe, Ni, Hf, Al) (claim 6). However, Horikawa et al. shows a positive electrode coating material is a ferroelectric substance, being a perovskite oxide having an ABO3 formula (A being at least one of Pb, Ba, Sr, Bi, Li, Na Ca, Cd, Mg, K; B being at least one of Ti, Zr, V, Nb, Ta, Sb, Cr, Mo, W, Mn, Mg, Sc, Co, Cu, In, Sn, Ga, Zn, Cd, Fe Ni, Hf, Al), specifically setting forth BaTiO3 (para 0060-0061, 0095-0101).
Patented claim 2 reads on claim 2 of the instant application.
Patented claim 3 reads on claim 3 of the instant application.
Patented claim 4 reads on claim 4 of the instant application.
Patented claim 5 reads on claim 5 of the instant application.
Patented claim 6 reads on claim 10 of the instant application.
Patented claim 7 reads on claim 11 of the instant application.
Patented claim 8 reads on claim 12 of the instant application.
Claims 7-8 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,450,840 in view of CN 103147226 (Hou et al.).
Patented claim 1 reads on claims 7 and 8 of the instant application. The only difference is the perovskite metal oxide being CaCuTi4O12. As set forth above, Horikawa shows the ferroelectric substance is a perovskite oxide having an ABO3 formula (A being at least one of Pb, Ba, Sr, Bi, Li, Na Ca, Cd, Mg, K; B being at least one of Ti, Zr, V, Nb, Ta, Sb, Cr, Mo, W, Mn, Mg, Sc, Co, Cu, In, Sn, Ga, Zn, Cd, Fe Ni, Hf, Al) specifically setting forth BaTiO3 (para 0060-0061, 0095-0101). Hou et al. further shows ferroelectric materials include both BaTiO3 (in Horikawa et al.) and CaCuTi4O12 (para 0018).
Claims 7 and 9 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,450,840 in view of US 2017/0299742 (Aykol et al.).
Patented claim 1 reads on claims 7 and 9 of the instant application. The only difference is the perovskite metal oxide being Sr2Ta2O7. As set forth above, Horikawa shows the ferroelectric substance is a perovskite oxide having an ABO3 formula (A being at least one of Pb, Ba, Sr, Bi, Li, Na Ca, Cd, Mg, K; B being at least one of Ti, Zr, V, Nb, Ta, Sb, Cr, Mo, W, Mn, Mg, Sc, Co, Cu, In, Sn, Ga, Zn, Cd, Fe Ni, Hf, Al) (para 0060-0061, 0095-0101). Aykol et al. further shows that both CaTiO3 (within Horikawa et al.) and Sr2Ta2O7 are art recognized materials for cathode coatings (para 0038).
Conclusion
Note: No other prior art is considered pertinent.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EUGENIA WANG whose telephone number is (571)272-4942. The examiner can normally be reached a flex schedule, generally Monday-Thursday 5:00 -7:30 (AM) and 9:45-3:15 ET.
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, Curtis Mayes can be reached at 571-272-1234. 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.
/EUGENIA WANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759
Prosecution Insights