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 of group I invention (claims 1-5) in the reply filed on 08/10/2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 6-12 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 08/10/2026.
Non-Compliant Claim Identifier
The identifier of claim 6-12 need be remarked as withdrawn since these claims are directed to non-elected inventions in the instant application. A correct status identifier (Withdrawn) has not been set forth for the amended claims. See MPEP § 714 and 37 CFR 1.121(c). Appropriate correction is required. A non-compliant form has not been sent out for advancing the prosecution and correction is required in next response.
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 1-5 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 this case, claim 1 recites “at a thickness of 1 unit or more and 10 units or less of a perovskite structure”, one of ordinary skill in the art is uncertain what perovskite structure unit being referring to such as a specific perovskite material particle size (e.g. lead titanate) or specific perovskite compound crystal or molecule size range, nor the specification defines what size or dimension range can be considered as a unit for claimed “a perovskite structure” either. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art cannot ascertain the metes and bounds of such claimed limitations. All claim 1’s depending on claims are rejected for similar reasons. For examination based on merit, such claimed “a perovskite structure” unit would be interpreted as any size or dimension.
Claim 2 is 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 this case, claim 2 recites “substantially equal thickness” which is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially equal thickness” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree (like how equal of different thickness, how much thickness variation) can be considered as “substantially equal thickness” and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim 4 is 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 this case, claim 4 recites “rectangular parallelepiped shape in which corner portions are round”, since such shape is a polyhedron with six rectangular faces, 12 straight edges, and 8 vertices(corners) where three edges meet at right angles, one of ordinary skill in the art is uncertain how can such polyhedron with right angled corners having round corners? Therefore, such limitation renders claim indefiniteness.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as obvious over Ono et al. (JP2015/051913) (for applicant’s convenience, machine translation has been provided hereof for citations) in view of Park (US2020/0176191).
Ono et al. teaches a perovskite-type composite oxide coated on the surface of a core material which has particle size of more preferably 50 to 100 nm (claim 1, 11, para. [0011], [0035], [0044], [0058], [0059]). Ono et al teaches core material being BaTiO3 while perovskite-type composite oxide (i.e. shell material) being SrTiO3 ([0056]-[0061], example 5, Fig. 7 (a) and (b)). Ono also teaches the crystal grains perovskite-type composite oxide having a particle diameter of 20 nm or less, or 10nm or less (para [0053]). Ono et al. teaches such core-shell structure can be used as dielectric material (para. [0061], claim 14).
Ono et al. does not expressly teach the thickness of the shell layer being 1 unit or more and 10 unit or less of a perovskite structure.
Park teaches a dielectric powder (item 10, Fig 1) includes a core-shell structure including a core region (item 1, Fig. 1) formed in an inner portion thereof and a shell region (item 2, Fig. 1) covering the core region (Fig 1, para. [0022]-[0028]). Park further teaches a thickness of the shell region being from 10-40 nm for desired dielectric material performance, such as high dielectric constant, resistance and reliability etc. as suggested by Park (para. [0029]-[0035]). It is noted that Park disclosed shell thickness 10-40nm divided by Ono et al. disclosed perovskite crystal grain size less than 10 nm or less than 20 nm, 10-40 nm/(10-20) nm leading to greater than about 0.5 unit, to greater than about 4 unit of the perovskite crystal size.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to adopt such shell thickness ( greater than about 0.5 to about 4 unit of crystal grain of Ono et al disclosed perovskite-type composite oxide) as shown by Park to modify the core-shell structure of Ono et al. because by doing so can help provide a dielectric powder with desired dielectric material performance as suggested by Park (para. [0029]- [0035]). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to adopt a same shell thickness as that of instantly claimed via routine optimization (see also MPEP §2144. 05 II) for help obtaining core-shell structure for a dielectric material with desired performance as suggested by Park (para. [0029]-[0035]).
Regarding claim 2, Ono et al. already teaches forming a coated film via strong ultrasonic irradiation dispersing shell material precursors onto core particles (example 5, Fig 7 (a) and ( b) ) wherein a homogeneous dispersion of such precursors materials for obtaining a film surrounding the entire surface of the core particles with a substantially equal thickness appears expected. Park already teaches shell material surrounding an entire surface of the core particles with substantially equal thickness (Fig. 1). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to adopt a shell layer with substantially equal thickness for help obtaining a desired core-shells structure with core material being homogenously coated with the shell material (i.e. substantially thickness of shell) for desired dielectric material performance.
Regarding claim 3-4, Ono et al. further teaches that core particles include, in addition to a substantially spherical shape, a substantially elliptical body, a disk-shaped material, a substantially cylindrical body, a substantially rectangular parallelepiped (para [0035]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art “obvious to try” a substantially rectangular parallelepiped shape core particles because choosing such shape of core particles from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions of core particles shapes would have a reasonable expectation of success (see MPEP §2143 KSR Rationale E). Furthermore, choosing such substantially rectangular parallelepiped shape with obvious choice of round corners for such core particles appears to be matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular shape/configuration of substantially rectangular parallelepiped shape with round corners of the claimed core particles was significant (see also MPEP §2144. 04 IV B).
Regarding claim 5, such limitations have been met as discussed above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUN LI whose telephone number is (571)270-5858. The examiner can normally be reached IFP.
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, Ching-Yiu (Coris) Fung can be reached at 571-270-5713. 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.
/JUN LI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1732
Prosecution Insights