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. Drawings The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: 1602. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 300, 500, and 604. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. Specification The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: In paragraph 00103, the phrase “second control loop may (in 1002B)” should be amended to read “second control loop may (in 1102B )” because this paragraph refers to Fig. 11 and not Fig. 10. Appropriate correction is required. 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 appl icant regards as his invention. Claim s 2, 10, 12 , and 14 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. In claim 2, the limitation “wherein the lower threshold value represents a vapor pressure of the first element at a working pressure” is indefinite because it is unclear what is meant by the lower threshold temperature value “representing” a vapor pressure. For example, this limitation could mean that the lower threshold value is a temperature corresponding to a certain vapor pressure or could mean that the lower threshold value is a pressure value. For the purposes of examination, the limitation will be interpreted to at least mean the lower threshold value is a temperature value corresponding to a vapor pressure of the first element, where the vapor pressure can be any vapor pressure of the first element because the claim does not specify what vapor pressure is being referred to. In claims 10 and 12, the limitation “threshold value represents a vapor pressure” is indefinite because it is unclear what is meant by the threshold temperature value “representing” a vapor pressure. For example, this limitation could mean that the threshold value is a temperature corresponding to a certain vapor pressure or could mean that the threshold value is a pressure value. For the purposes of examination, the limitation will be interpreted to at least mean the t hreshold value is a temperature value corresponding to a vapor pressure of the first element, where the vapor pressure can be any vapor pressure of the first elemen t because the claim does not specify what vapor pressure is being referred to. In claim 14, the limitation “the one or more parameters” in line 6 is indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation is intended to refer to the “one or more parameters representing electrical properties” recited in claim 14 or the “one or more operation parameters of the sputtering” recited in claim 11. For the purposes of examination, the limitation will be considered to mean at least either of the aforementioned interpretations. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows: Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title. Claim s 6-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) “determining a temperature value”, “determining a nominal power ratio”, “detecting plasma properties”, “determining an adapted nominal power ratio”, “detecting a temperature value”, “determining one or more operation parameters”, and “detecting plasma properties” . The limitations of “determining” and “detecting” are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation , cover the performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “ determining a temperature value ” and “ detecting plasma properties ” in the context of tis claim encompass the user manually calculating , choosing , or observing temperature or plasma properties based on observations/data. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly claim s 6-20 recite an abstract idea. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application . After the properties are determined/detected, the process is set or controlled according to the determined/detected values. Broadly, this recites performing sputtering under operating conditions determined or detected by an operator. Therefore, the method is recited at such a high level of generality that it amounts to just generally applying the abstract idea and linking the abstract idea to a field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(f) and MPEP 2106.05(h)), which are not practical applications. The claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception . In particular, the additional elements of claims 6, 9, and 11 include setting a first and second power value, sputtering a first and second element to deposit a material layer, and controlling the sputtering based on operating parameters. These elements are well-understood, routine, and conventional methods of sputtering and thus do not qualify as significantly more than the judicial exception itself (See MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)). Additionally, none of the dependent claims contain additional elements that quality as significantly more than the judicial exception. Claims 7, 10, 12, and 15-20 recite additional elements that are well-understood, routine, and conventional, as shown by the cited references in the prior art rejections below. Claims 8 and 13-19 include limitations directed toward the abstract ideas and thus do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, claims 6-20 are not patent eligible. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale , or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claim(s) 1-3 and 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Hirata (JP H07316781 A) . Regarding claim 1 , Hirata (JP H07316781 A) teaches a method of depositing a layer on a substrate by sputtering wherein the layer comprises at least lead (first element) and zirconium (second element) wherein the lead re-evaporates from the substrate at a higher rate than the other components and where the deposition material stream comprises an atomic ratio of lead incident on the substrate of 4 to 6 normalized by the sum of zirconium and titanium where the temperature of the substrate is high to evaporate atoms of lead from the substrate such that the layer has a desired (predefined) atomic ratio of 1:1 when compared to the combination of Zr and Ti (para 0010-0011, 0014, 0022, 0024, 0056-0057). Regarding claim 2 , Hirata teaches setting the temperature of the substrate to a point at which lead (first element) evaporates at the working pressure of the atmosphere deposition is performed in (para 0015-0019, 0056) and therefore the temperature is necessarily greater than a lower threshold representing a vapor pressure at a working pressure. Regarding claim 3 , Hirata teaches the temperature may range from 550 to 800°C and the atomic ratio of lead may be at least 4 to 6 when compared to the second element while the ratio is 1:1 in the final film (para 0014, 0022, 0024, 0056), thus indicating that the re-evaporation rate of lead is at least 4 times greater than the re-evaporation rate of the second element (zirconium) from the substrate. Regarding claim 6 , Hirata (JP H07316781 A) teaches determining the substrate temperature on which a PZT film comprising lead (first element) and zirconium (second element) in a desired atomic ratio is formed and selecting/setting, and thus determining, a power supplied to a first PbO target associated with sputtering lead (first element) and second PZT target associated with sputtering zirconium (second element) and thus a nominal power ratio between a first power and second power where the power ratio is selected/determined depending on the ratio of lead incident atoms in the substrate, which also depends on the substrate temperature (para 0014-0015, 0022, 0030, 0032-0035, 0038, 0040, 0056; Fig. 4). Regarding claim 7 , Hirata teaches depositing the material layer on the substrate wherein the first and second power value are set during a pre-sputtering step prior to depositing the material layer on the substrate (para 0038). 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. Claim(s) 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirata (JP H07316781 A) , as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Guo (NPL – “ PHOTOVOLTAIC PROPERTY OF BISMUTH FERRITE THIN FILMS AND ITS APPLICATION IN NON-VOLATILE MEMORY ” ) and Fujii ( US 20100123368 A1 ) . Regarding claim 4 , Hirata fails to explicitly teach the first element is bismuth and the second element is iron. However, Guo (NPL), in the analogous art of deposition, teaches that BiFeO3 films can be deposited by using targets with different Bi content and Bi may re-evaporate based on the substrate temperature to adjust the Bi/Fe ratio (pg. 19-29). Guo and Hirata both teach depositing a perovskite material where one element is re-evaporated compared to the other elements (Guo pg. 4, 28; Hirata para 0019-0020, 0022, 0024, 0057). Furthermore, Fujii (US 20100123368 A1), in the analogous art of deposition, teaches that perovskite oxides like bismuth ferrite (BiFeO3) can be deposited by sputtering as an alternative to PLD and bismuth ferrite is an alternative to PZT (para 0078-0079, 0087-0090). Therefore, i t would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the PZT material deposition of Hirata with the BiFeO3 material deposition of Guo, while controlling the substrate temperature to control the ratio of each element in the film because this is a substitution of known elements yielding predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B). Regarding claim 5 , the combination of Hirata , Guo , and Fujii teaches the temperature of the substrate may be set to a temperature value of 550 to 700°C (Hirata para 0056). The aforementioned combination fails to explicitly teach a temperature in the range of 600 to 650°C. However, one would have expected the use of any value within the Hirata range to have yielded similar results. Absent any showing of criticality, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used any values within 550 to 700°C , including values within the claimed range, with a reasonable expectation of success and with predictable results. Please see MPEP 2144.05 (I) for further details. Claim(s) 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirata (JP H07316781 A), as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Curchod (US 20230189946 A1) . Regarding claim 8 , Hirata fails to explicitly teach, during depositing the material layer on the substrate, detecting plasma properties associated with sputtering the first element and/or the second element, determining an adapted nominal power ratio between the first power and the second power based on the plasma properties, and controlling the first power and the second power in accordance with the adapted nominal power ratio. However, Curchod (US 20230189946 A1), in the analogous art of film deposition, teaches that the power applied to multiple targets in co-sputtering may be corrected automatically using optical emission measurement of the plasma (detecting plasma properties associated with sputtering) (para 0021). Hirata teaches multi-target co-sputtering where target is applied to each target at the same time , where the power of each target may be controlled (para 0028, 0030, 0038). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include an in situ plasma emission measurement system, as described by Curchod, to control the power applied to each target, and thus controlling the powers to be in accordance with a new/adapted power ratio, determined based on the plasma emission measurement (plasma properties) so that the deposition process can account for degradation/wear of the targets over time . Claim(s) 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirata (JP H07316781 A) in view of Iwakoke (US 20210095377 A1) . Regarding claim 9 , Hirata (JP H07316781 A) teaches sputtering lead (first element) and zirconium (second element) on a substrate to form a PZT material layer comprising the first and second element, wherein a substrate temperature is selected, and wherein the deposition process is controlled using a computer program (para 0010, 0014-0015, 0030, 0035, 0056). Hirata fails to explicitly teach , during sputtering, detecting a temperature of the substrate, determining one or more operation parameters of the sputtering based on the temperature value, and controlling the sputtering based on the one or more operation parameters. However, Iwakoke (US 20210095377 A1), in the analogous art of substrate heating, teaches a temperature detection part that detects the temperature of the substrate and a heater control part that controls the output of the heater (one or more operation parameters) such that the detected temperature is a prescribed set temperature (controlling the deposition/sputtering based on the one or more operation parameters) (Abstract, para 0007, 0031-0032, 0035, 0044). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a temperature detection part and heater control part , as described by Iwakoke, to control the temperature of the substrate of Hirata such that the desired temperature is maintained during the deposition process (controlling the sputtering based on the one or more operation parameters) . Regarding claim 10 , the combination of Hirata and Iwakoke teaches heating the substrate to a set temperature prior to sputtering of 550 to 800 °C such that the particles are incident on the substrate at the high temperature , where the lead (first element) is re-evaporated (Hirata para 0022, 0024, 0026, 0032, 0056 ) and therefore the set temperature value is necessarily less than an upper threshold value representing a n equilibrium vapor pressure of the first element at a working pressure in which the material layer is deposited. Claim(s) 11-12 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirata (JP H07316781 A) in view of Curchod (US 20230189946 A1) . Regarding claim 11 , Hirata (JP H07316781 A) teaches sputtering lead (first element) and zirconium (second element) on a substrate to form a PZT material layer comprising the first and second element, wherein a substrate temperature is selected, and wherein the deposition process is controlled using a computer program (para 0010, 0014-0015, 0030, 0035, 0056). Hirata fails to explicitly teach, during depositing the material layer on the substrate, detecting plasma properties associated with sputtering the first element and/or the second element, determining , based on plasma properties, one or more operation parameters of the sputtering , and controlling the sputtering based on the one or more operation parameters . However, Curchod (US 20230189946 A1), in the analogous art of film deposition, teaches that the power applied to multiple targets in co-sputtering may be corrected automatically using optical emission measurement of the plasma (detecting plasma properties associated with sputtering) (para 0021). Hirata teaches multi-target co-sputtering where target is applied to each target at the same time, where the power of each target may be controlled (para 0028, 0030, 0038). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include an in situ plasma emission measurement system, as described by Curchod, to control the power applied to each target determined based on the plasma emission measurement (determining one or more operation parameters of the sputtering based on the plasma properties and controlling the sputtering based on the one or more parameters ) so that the deposition process can account for degradation/wear of the targets over time. Regarding claim 12 , the combination of Hirata and Curchod teaches heating the substrate to a set temperature prior to sputtering of 550 to 800 °C such that the particles are incident on the substrate at the high temperature , where the lead (first element) is re-evaporated (Hirata para 0022, 0024, 0026, 0032, 0056) and therefore the set temperature value is necessarily less than an upper threshold value representing an equilibrium vapor pressure of the first element at a working pressure in which the material layer is deposited. Regarding claim 15 , the combination of Hirata and Curchod teaches the sputtering of the first element and second element comprises sputtering the lead (first element) in accordance with a first power applied to a first target and sputtering the zirconium (second element) in accordance with a second power applied to a second target (Hirata para 0033-0038). Additionally, the aforementioned combination teaches that the operation parameters determined and used to control the process include the power applied to each target and thus also the power ratio between the first power and second power (Curchod para 0021). Claim(s) 13-14 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirata (JP H07316781 A) in view of Curchod (US 20230189946 A1) , as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Okami (US 20240166555 A1) . Regarding claim 13 , the combination of Hirata and Curchod teaches the first element and second element are sputtered in an atmosphere comprising oxyge n introduced through a gas pipe (oxygen supply) (Hirata para 0032 ). The aforementioned combination fails to explicitly teach the one or more operation parameters comprise an oxygen partial pressure and controlling the sputtering comprises controlling an oxygen supply based on the oxygen partial pressure. However, Okami (US 20240166555 A1), in the analogous art of sputtering, teaches sputtering targets, which may be oxide targets, may have the oxygen partial pressure controlled using a plasma emission monitor for feedback in order to deposit films with desired properties and composition (para 0040, 0042, 0065-0067, 0080, 0095). Hirata also teaches the oxygen ratio is defined as 3:1:1 compared to lead and the combination of zirconium and titanium (para 0014). Therefore, i t would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to control the oxygen concentration/partial pressure (one or more operation parameters) based on the plasma emission monitoring (determining based on plasma properties) in order to produce a film with the desired composition and properties. Regarding claim 14 , the combination of Hirata, Curchod, and Okami teaches the oxygen partial pressure feedback control may be determined using a plasma emission monitor to determine an emission intensity at a specific wavelength (oxygen characteristic) in the plasma or by determining impedance change, voltage, or current (one or more parameters representing electrical properties of a plasma) of the sputtering power supply and controlling/determining the oxygen partial pressure based on the impedance change, voltage, or current (Okami para 0039, 0080 , 0123-0124 ). Regarding claim 19 , the combination of Hirata and Curchod teaches the first and second element are sputtered in an a vacuum atmosphere (Hirata para 0028, 0030, 0032). The aforementioned combination fails to explicitly teach the one or more operation parameters comprise a pressure value representing a pressure of the atmosphere and wherein controlling the sputtering comprises controlling the pressure of the atmosphere in accordance with the pressure value. However, Okami (US 20240166555 A1), in the analogous art of sputtering, teaches sputtering targets, which may be oxide targets, may have the oxygen partial pressure (a pressure value representing a pressure of the atmosphere) controlled using a plasma emission monitor for feedback in order to deposit films with desired properties and composition (para 0040, 0042, 0065-0067, 0080, 0095). Hirata also teaches the oxygen ratio is defined as 3:1:1 compared to lead and the combination of zirconium and titanium (para 0014). Therefore, i t would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to control the oxygen partial pressure (one or more operation parameters comprise a pressure value ) based on the plasma emission monitoring (determining based on plasma properties) in order to produce a film with the desired composition and properties. Claim(s) 1 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirata (JP H07316781 A) in view of Curchod (US 20230189946 A1), as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Eastep (US 6455326 B1) . Regarding claim 16 , the combination of Hirata and Curchod teaches the first target used to sputter the first element is applied with a high frequency power of 13.56 MHz (radio frequency sputtering) at a first power and first frequency while the second target made of PZT used to sputter the second element is at a second power (Hirata para 0029-0030, 0035-0038) . Additionally, the aforementioned combination teaches that the operation parameters determined and used to control the process include the power applied to each target and thus also the power ratio between the first power and second power (Curchod para 0021). The aforementioned combination fails to explicitly teach the second element is sputtered by direct-current sputtering. However, Eastep (US 6455326 B1), in the analogous art of deposition, teaches PZT targets may be deposited by a pulsed DC power supply instead of an RF supply (col 4 line 10-29, col 6 line 3-21). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed inventio n to substitute the RF power supply of Hirata supplied to the second (PZT) target with a pulsed DC (direct current) power supply because this is a substitution of known elements yielding predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B). Claim(s) 1 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirata (JP H07316781 A) in view of Curchod (US 20230189946 A1), as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Tanabe (US 20210005429 A1) . Regarding claim 17 , the combination of Hirata and Curchod teaches the first target used to sputter the first element is applied with a high frequency power of 13.56 MHz (radio frequency sputtering) at a first power and first frequency while the second target used to sputter the second element is at a second power and second frequency of about 13.56 MHz (radio frequency sputtering) (Hirata para 0029-0030, 0035-0038). The aforementioned combination fails to explicitly teach the one or more operation parameters comprise a frequency ratio between the first and second power frequency and wherein controlling the sputtering comprises controlling the sputtering of the first element and second element in accordance with the frequency ratio. However, Tanabe (US 20210005429 A1), in the analogous art of sputtering, teaches that a controller 700 may be used to control the high frequency/RF power supply applied to the targets based on the plasma intensity near the electrodes detected by a photoelectric conversion device by adjusting the frequency of the power supply such that the plasma emission intensities are equal to desired values and the amount of sputtering by each target is controlled (para 0219-0220, 0223, 0242, 0261; Fig. 49). Hirata teaches controlling the amount of lead atoms supplied to the substrate compared to the other elements (para 0015, 0022 , 0024 ). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further control the relationship between, or amounts of sputtering performed by, the first and second targets of Hirata by adjusting the frequencies, and thus frequency ratio, according to plasma intensity measurements, as described by Tanabe. Claim(s) 1 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirata (JP H07316781 A) in view of Curchod (US 20230189946 A1), as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Miller (US 20090159428 A1) . Regarding claim 18 , the combination of Hirata and Curchod teaches the first and second targets using for sputtering the first and second elements are magnetron cathodes (magnetron sputtering) (Hirata para 0030, 0035-0038). The aforementioned combination fails to explicitly teach the one or more operation parameters comprise a distance ratio between a first distance and a second distance, wherein the first distance is a distance between the first target and one or more first magnets and the second distance is a distance between the second target and one or more second magnets. However, Miller (US 20090159428 A1), in the analogous art of magnetron sputtering, teaches the spacing (distance) between the magnetron and sputtering surface (target) may be adjusted using a feedback loop based on monitoring electrical voltage signals of the target (detecting plasma properties associated with sputtering) and determining and controlling the spacing of the target to return the voltage to a desired value to account for target erosion (Abstract, para 0012, 0048). Curchod teaches that the power applied to multiple targets in co-sputtering may be corrected automatically using optical emission measurement of the plasma to account for wear/erosion of targets (para 0021) . Therefore, i t would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to control the spacing/distance of magnets from each target (first and second distance) of Hirata to further account for erosion of the targets over time. As a result of controlling the distance between each target based on its erosion, the combination of Hirata, Curchod, and Miller necessarily adjusts/determines the distance ratio between the first and second distance based on the target voltage (plasma properties) and controls the sputtering based on the adjusted/set distances. Claim(s) 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirata (JP H07316781 A) in view of Curchod (US 20230189946 A1), as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Guo (NPL – “ PHOTOVOLTAIC PROPERTY OF BISMUTH FERRITE THIN FILMS AND ITS APPLICATION IN NON-VOLATILE MEMORY ”) and Fujii ( US 20100123368 A1 ) . Regarding claim 20 , the combination of Hirata and Curchod fails to explicitly teach the first element is bismuth and the second element is iron. However, Hirata fails to explicitly teach the first element is bismuth and the second element is iron. However, Guo (NPL), in the analogous art of deposition, teaches that BiFeO3 films can be deposited by using targets with different Bi content and Bi may re-evaporate based on the substrate temperature to adjust the Bi/Fe ratio (pg. 19-29). Guo and Hirata both teach depositing a perovskite material where one element is re-evaporated compared to the other elements (Guo pg. 4, 28; Hirata para 0019-0020, 0022, 0024, 0057). Furthermore, Fujii (US 20100123368 A1), in the analogous art of deposition, teaches that perovskite oxides like bismuth ferrite (BiFeO3) can be deposited by sputtering as an alternative to PLD and bismuth ferrite is an alternative to PZT (para 0078-0079, 0087-0090). Therefore, i t would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the PZT material deposition of Hirata with the BiFeO3 material deposition of Guo, while controlling the substrate temperature to control the ratio of each element in the film because this is a substitution of known elements yielding predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT PATRICK S OTT whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-2415 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-F 9am-5pm . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT James Lin can be reached on FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571) 272-8902 . 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. /PATRICK S OTT/ Examiner, Art Unit 1794