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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, claims 1-10 in the reply filed on 07/08/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the Examiner has failed to show that examining all claimed inventions would constitute a serious burden. This is not found persuasive because examining all claimed inventions would constitute a serious burden.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 11-15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 07/08/2026.
Claim Objections
Claims 6-7 are objected to because of the following informalities: claims 6 recite “ceramic is” which appears as if it should instead recite either “ceramic is” or “ceramics are”. Claim 7 recites “piezoelectric ceramics is” which appears as if it should instead recite “the piezoelectric ceramics are” or “the piezoelectric ceramic is”.
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 applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-10 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.
Concerning claim 1, the limitation “which presents a technology-processed product of one or several components of the batch mix of a ceramic sample” is unclear. This limitation does not appear to have a clear meaning, and appears to be a potential machine translation error. This phrase does not appear elsewhere within the specification to provide potential clarity. For the purposes of examination, this phrase will be interpreted as meaning “which is used in a ceramic product” unless otherwise clarified by Applicant during the course of prosecution.
Additionally concerning claim 1, line 1 is directed towards “a modifier”, while lines 3-4 recite “the modifier comprising:”. Lines 5-7 recite the components that the modifier comprises, which are
The ceramic sample
An intermediate product obtained after baking of the ceramic sample
An alloying agent
Or a combination thereof
This limitation is unclear for three reasons. First, [0031] of the PGPub of the instant specification defines the term “modifier” as “an additive that acts as an alloying agent”. Therefore, per [0037], the modifier must be the alloying agent to be consistent with the specification. Lines 5-7 list additional components such as a ceramic and an intermediate product, neither of which are actually a modifier as defined by [0031], and therefore claim 1 is unclear. Second, the phrase “or combinations thereof” means that one of, or any combination of, the ceramic sample, the intermediate product, or the alloying agent, could be the sole constituent of the modifier as claimed in lines 3-4. Examiner notes that per [0031] as defined by the instant specification, the modifier cannot be “the ceramic”, nor can it be “the intermediate product”, because [0031] defines the modifier as the alloying agent. Likewise, the modifier must include at least the “alloying agent” in order to be a modifier. Therefore, the term “or a combination thereof” creates additional uncertainty as to the claimed boundaries. Third, it is unclear how a modifier can comprise both of the finished ceramic sample, which is a final product, as well as the intermediate product at the same time. The ceramic sample is formed from the intermediate product, and when the intermediate product exists, the ceramic sample does not; when the ceramic sample exists, the intermediate sample ceases to exist. The two have a mutually exclusive relationship, and therefore, it is not possible for the modifier to comprise a combination of both the ceramic sample and the intermediate product, thus creating uncertainty as to the claim scope.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the batch mix" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Finally concerning claim 1, while the full limitation “which presents a technology-processed product of one or several components of the batch mix of a ceramic sample” is unclear, the limitation within of “a technology-processed product” is additionally unclear. The instant specification at [0029] of the PGPub recites “obtaining a modifier, which is a technology-processed product (the final product of the processing treatment) of one or several batch constituents of the specified ceramic sample (ceramics), ceramic sample, intermediate product, alloying agent or their combination in liquid form, for which the term “release-active (RA) form” (“release-active (RA) dilution”) is used.”, however, this does not provide clarity as to the meaning of the phrase “a technology-processed product”. For the purposes of examination, the phrase “ a technology-processed product” will be treated as if it is a machine translation artifact with no literal meaning in English unless otherwise clarified by Applicant during the course of prosecution.
Claim 2 recites the phrase “the technology-processed product” which is unclear for the same reasons as in claim 1 above, mutatis mutandis.
Claim 2 is additionally unclear because the limitation “wherein the technology-processed product is an aqueous or aqueous-alcoholic solution” is not clear. It is not clear if this limitation is positively requiring the presence of a technology-processed product, or merely limiting the identity of the technology-processed product if one happens to be present.
Claim 2 is also unclear because the limitation “in combination with external mechanical action – repeated shaking of each dilution” could either mean that repeated shaking of each dilution is a required step, or merely an illustrative example of what external mechanical action is. See MPEP 2173.05(d).
Claim 3 is unclear because of the limitation “wherein the batch mix components are the components used for the making of the ceramic sample, including the alloying agents.” It is unclear if this limitation is positively reciting a batch mix with alloying agents, or merely limiting the identity of the batch mix to include alloying agents if the batch mix happens to be present.
Additionally, claim 3 depends upon claim 1, which is directed towards a modifier. It does not appear as if the modifier comprises a batch mix, and therefore, the scope of claim 3 is unclear.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the batch mix components used to obtain superconducting ceramics" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Additionally, claim 5 depends upon claim 4, which depends on claim 1. Claim 4 does not recite “a batch”. Claim 1 is directed towards a modifier. It does not appear as if the modifier comprises a batch mix, and therefore, the scope of claim 5 is unclear.
Further regarding claim 5, the limitation “under conventional technology” is unclear. The phrase “conventional technology” does not appear to be defined within the instant specification, and the boundaries of what is, and is not “under conventional technology” is unclear.
Claim 7 recites “chosen from oxides of titanium, zirconium and lead, bismuth titanate, or barium titanate”. It is unclear if this limitation means:
oxides of titanium
metallic zirconium and metallic lead
bismuth titanate
or barium titanate
Or if instead this limitation means
oxides of titanium
oxides of zirconium and oxides of lead
bismuth titanate
or barium titanate
or if instead this limitation means either of the above variations of
oxides of titanium
(oxides or metallic) zirconium
(oxides or metallic) lead
bismuth titanate
or barium titanate
For the purposes of examination, this limitation will be interpreted as meaning: oxides of titanium, oxides of zirconium, oxides of lead, bismuth titanate, or barium titanate unless otherwise clarified by Applicant during the course of prosecution.
Additionally, claim 7 recites the limitation "the batch mix components used to obtain piezoelectric ceramics" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Further regarding claim 7, the limitation “a batch mix” in claim 7 is unclear because claim 7 depends on claim 4 which depends on claim 1. Claim 4 does not recite “a batch”. Claim 1 is directed towards a modifier. It does not appear as if the modifier comprises a batch mix, and therefore, the scope of claim 7 is unclear.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the piezoelectric matter" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 is unclear because it is not clear if this limitation “the alloying agents used for the production of superconducting ceramics are Ag and AgNO3” actually requires Ag and AgNO3, either of Ag or AgNO3, or is merely limiting the identity of the alloying agent if it happens to be present.
Claim 10 is unclear because it is not clear if the limitation “wherein the alloying agents used for the production of piezoelectric ceramics are Fe2O3 and Cr2O3.” actually requires Fe2O3 and Cr2O3, or both of Fe2O3 and Cr2O3, or is merely limiting the identity of the alloying agent if it happens to be present.
All claims not specifically addressed are rejected due to their dependence on a rejected claim.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4 and 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Spitsin et al. (Spitsin, A. I., et al. "Microstructure and electrical transport properties of Bi3TiNbO9 high-temperature piezoceramics." Inorganic Materials 54.7 (2018): 736-743, hereinafter referred to as Spitsin).
Regarding claim 1, Spitsin discloses a modifier that alters electrical and magnetic properties of ceramics, which presents a technology-processed product of one or several components of the batch mix of a ceramic sample (see Spitsin at the first paragraph of the Experimental section of page 737, disclosing Bi3TiNbO9 piezoceramic samples with small amount of Ta and Sc additions to increase the piezoelectric constant of the ceramics. Examiner notes Ta and Sc additions to increase the piezoelectric constant of the ceramics corresponds to a modifier that alters electrical and magnetic properties of ceramics.), the modifier comprising: the ceramic sample (see Spitsin at the first paragraph of the Experimental section of page 737, disclosing Bi3TiNbO9 piezoceramic), an intermediate product obtained after baking of the ceramic sample (see Spitsin at the first paragraph of the Experimental section of page 737, disclosing the homogenized mixtures were sintered.) Additionally, while Spitsin discloses sintering the Bi2O3, TiO2, Nb2O5, Ta2O5, and Ta and Sc additions as detailed in the cited paragraph above, this limitation directed towards an intermediate is not given patentable weight because it is impossible for a claim to be directed towards both of the finished product as well as the intermediate. Where the finished product is claimed, as in the present case, the structure of the intermediate is immaterial as the intermediate no longer exists, and the patentability of the finished product rests solely on the positively recited limitations of the finished product.
Further regarding claim 1, Spitsin discloses an alloying agent (see Spitsin at the first paragraph of the Experimental section of page 737, disclosing Ta and Sc additions to increase the piezoelectric constant of the ceramics, which are an alloying agent per [0037] of the instant application's PGPub, which states “alloying agent” refers to additives used to endow the end product with certain chemical, physical or mechanical properties, as well as [0031] which states the term "modifier" means an additive that acts as an alloying agent.).
Regarding claim 2, Examiner notes the patentability of a product does not depend upon its method of production (see MPEP 2113). While Spitsin at the first paragraph of the Experimental section of page 737 discloses Bi3TiNbO9, and thus Spitsin meets this limitation, this limitation is directed towards the process of making the product and therefore does not further limit the claim from which it depends. Spitsin discloses where the parent substance is selected from one or several components of the batch mix used to make ceramics, the relevant ceramic sample, the intermediate product obtained after the baking during the production of the ceramic sample, or the alloying agent (see Spitsin at the first paragraph of the Experimental section of page 737, disclosing Bi2O3, TiO2, Nb2O5, Ta2O5, and Ta and Sc additions.).
Regarding claim 3, Spitsin discloses the batch mix components are the components used for the making of the ceramic sample, including the alloying agents (see Spitsin at the first paragraph of the Experimental section of page 737, disclosing Bi2O3, TiO2, Nb2O5, Ta2O5, and Ta and Sc additions.).
Regarding claim 4, Spitsin discloses the ceramic sample is a high-temperature superconductor (HTSC), or a piezoelectric material (see Spitsin at the first paragraph of the Experimental section of page 737 discloses Bi3TiNbO9.).
Regarding claim 7, Spitsin discloses the batch mix components used to obtain piezoelectric ceramics is chosen from oxides of titanium, zirconium and lead, bismuth titanate, or barium titanate (see Spitsin at the first paragraph of the Experimental section of page 737, disclosing Bi2O3, TiO2, Nb2O5, Ta2O5, and Ta and Sc additions).
Regarding claim 8, Spitsin discloses the piezoelectric matter is Bi3TiNbO9 (see Spitsin at the first paragraph of the Experimental section of page 737 discloses Bi3TiNbO9.).
Claim(s) 1-6 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Joo et al. (Joo, Jinho, et al. "Effects of silver additions on the mechanical properties and resistance to thermal shock of YBa2Cu3O7–δ superconductors." Cryogenics 39.2 (1999): 107-113.).
Regarding claim 1, Joo discloses a modifier that alters electrical and magnetic properties of ceramics, which presents a technology-processed product of one or several components of the batch mix of a ceramic sample (see Joo at the Abstract, disclosing silver additions. Examiner notes silver additions are a modifier per the instant specification at [0037] disclosing alloying agents as Ag.), the modifier comprising: the ceramic sample (see Joo at the Title, disclosing YBa2Cu3O7 superconductors. Examiner notes YBa2Cu3O7 superconductors are ceramics per instant claim 6.), an intermediate product obtained after baking of the ceramic sample (see Joo at the last paragraph of page 108, disclosing the bars were sintered at various temperatures.) Additionally, while Joo discloses a sintered YBCO and YBCO-Ag ceramic at the paragraph cited above, this limitation directed towards an intermediate is not given patentable weight because it is impossible for a claim to be directed towards both of the finished product as well as the intermediate. Where the finished product is claimed, as in the present case, the structure of the intermediate is immaterial as the intermediate no longer exists, and the patentability of the finished product rests solely on the positively recited limitations of the finished product.
Further regarding claim 1, Joo discloses an alloying agent (see Joo at the last paragraph of page 108, disclosing YBCO-Ag. Examiner notes the Ag in YBCO-Ag is an alloying agent).
Regarding claim 2, Examiner notes the patentability of a product does not depend upon its method of production (see MPEP 2113). While Joo at the last paragraph of page 108 discloses YBCO-Ag, and thus Joo meets this limitation, this limitation is directed towards the process of making the product and therefore does not further limit the claim from which it depends. Joo discloses where the parent substance is selected from one or several components of the batch mix used to make ceramics, the relevant ceramic sample, the intermediate product obtained after the baking during the production of the ceramic sample, or the alloying agent (see Joo at the last two paragraphs of page 108, disclosing Y2O3, CuO, and BaCo3 powders as well as Ag powders.).
Regarding claim 3, Joo discloses the batch mix components are the components used for the making of the ceramic sample, including the alloying agents (see Joo at the last two paragraphs of page 108, disclosing Y2O3, CuO, and BaCo3 powders as well as Ag powders.).
Regarding claim 4, Joo discloses the ceramic sample is a high-temperature superconductor (HTSC), or a piezoelectric material (see Joo at the last paragraph of page 108, disclosing YBCO-Ag. Examiner notes YBCO-Ag is a high temperature superconductor per instant claims 4-6).
Regarding claim 5, Joo discloses the batch mix components used to obtain superconducting ceramics (HTSC) are chosen from powdered oxides, carbonate, peroxides, hydroxides, or salts of the components used to produce ceramic under conventional technology (see Joo at the last paragraph of page 108, disclosing YBCO-Ag. Examiner notes YBCO-Ag is a high temperature superconductor per instant claims 4-6.) Examiner notes the batch mix components used to obtain the HTSC are not material to the instant question of patentability and are not given patentable weight because the intermediate or starting ingredients are no longer present in the final claimed product, and patentability depends upon the final claimed product. However, Joo at the last two paragraphs of 108 discloses Y2O3, CuO, and BaCo3 powders as well as Ag powders.
Regarding claim 6, Joo discloses the superconducting ceramics is YBa2Cu3O7 (see Joo at the Title, disclosing YBa2Cu3O7 superconductors. Examiner notes YBa2Cu3O7 corresponds with YBCO and YBCO-Ag.).
Regarding claim 9, Joo discloses the alloying agents used for the production of superconducting ceramics are Ag and AgNO3 (see Joo at the first paragraph of 108, disclosing Ag and AgNO3).
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.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spitsin.
Regarding claim 10, Spitsin makes obvious the modifier according to claim 3, wherein the alloying agents used for the production of piezoelectric ceramics are Fe2O3 and Cr2O3 (See Spitsin at page 736, teaching piezoelectrics such as bismuth-containing ferroelectric compound layered perovskite-like structure ... are also known as Aurivillius phases (AP) ... the composition and structure of the APs can be represented by the general formula [Bi2O2][An-1BnO3n+1] where A = Na, K, Ca, Sr, Ba, Pb, Bi or Ln) ... and B = Al, Ti, Cr, Mn, Fe, Nb, Mo, Ta, or W.) Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the arts while practicing the invention of Spitsin to substitute Fe and/or Cr into the B component of the Bi3TiNbO9 ceramic with a reasonable expectation of successfully providing a piezoelectric material as taught by Spitsin.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Gai, Zhi-Gang, et al. "Influences of ScTa co-substitution on the properties of Ultra-high temperature Bi3TiNbO9-based piezoelectric ceramics." Journal of Electroceramics 31.1 (2013): 143-147..
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CAMERON K MILLER whose telephone number is (571)272-4616. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00am - 5:00pm 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, Amber Orlando can be reached at (571) 270-3149. 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.
CAMERON K MILLER
Examiner
Art Unit 1731
/CAMERON K MILLER/Examiner, Art Unit 1731
Prosecution Insights