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 .
Claim Objections
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. The amount of B is not further limited in claim 18 from claim 1. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 5-13, 15, and 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Tetsuhiro (JP2018002497A).
In re claim 1, Tetsuhiro discloses a dielectric ceramic composition (Summary of the Invention ¶1-3) comprising an oxide (I) of A, R, and B, wherein the oxide (I) has a tetragonal tungsten bronze type structure; the A contains K and Ba; the R is at least one selected from a group consisting of La, Ce, Pr, Nd, Sm, Eu, Gd, Tb, Dy, Ho, Er, Tm, Yb, Lu, Y, and Sc (Summary of the Invention ¶2, Technical Field ¶15; Note that both compounds are a tetragonal tungsten bronze type structure.);
the B is at least one selected from a group consisting of Nb and Ta (Summary of the Invention ¶2);
the B is contained in an amount of 4.75 mol or more and 5.25 mol or less with respect to 2 mol of the A (Technical Field ¶13, ¶17-20; Tetsuhiro discloses the claimed range of 0.35 ≦ x ≦ 0.75, 0.20 ≦ y ≦ 0.85, 0.25 ≦ a ≦ 0.75, and a + b = 1.00, to create a product with ideal high temperature load lifetime, leakage current characteristics, and suppression of mitigation of oxygen defects. A value of ‘x’ being 0.35, ‘y’ being 0.75, ‘a’ being 0.3, and ‘b’ being 0.7 produces a value of Nb of 5.15 moles with respect to 2 mol of the A, as claimed.).; and
the A, R, and B are contained in a total molar fraction of 0.975 or more with respect to all metal elements contained in the dielectric ceramic composition (Table 1: Sample 37; Note that the Examiner is taking Sr to be part of the ‘A’ site.).
In re claim 5, Tetsuhiro discloses the dielectric ceramic composition according to claim 1, as explained above. Tetsuhiro further discloses wherein the K is contained in a molar fraction of 0.1 or more and 0.95 or less in the A (Table 1: Sample 37; K is contained in an amount of 0.35 moles).
In re claim 6, Tetsuhiro discloses the dielectric ceramic composition according to claim 1, as explained above. Tetsuhiro further discloses wherein the Ba is contained in a molar fraction of 0.05 or more and 0.9 or less in the A (Table 1: Sample 37; Ba is contained in an amount of 0.44 moles.).
In re claim 7, Tetsuhiro discloses the dielectric ceramic composition according to claim 1, as explained above. Tetsuhiro further discloses wherein the R is contained in an amount of 0.4 mol or more and 0.967 mol or less with respect to 2 mol of the A (Table 1: Sample 37; R is contained in an amount of 0.425 moles per 2 moles of A.).
In re claim 8, Tetsuhiro discloses the dielectric ceramic composition according to claim 1, as explained above. Tetsuhiro further discloses wherein the K and the Ba are contained in a total molar fraction of 0.8 or more in the A (Table 1: Sample 37; The molar fraction is 0.81.).
In re claim 9, Tetsuhiro discloses the dielectric ceramic composition according to claim 1, as explained above. Tetsuhiro further discloses wherein the A further contains an alkali metal element or an alkaline earth metal element (Summary of the Invention ¶2; Sr is an alkaline earth metal.) .
In re claim 10, Tetsuhiro discloses the dielectric ceramic composition according to claim 1, as explained above. Tetsuhiro further discloses wherein the Nb is contained in a molar fraction of 1 in the B (Summary of the Invention ¶2; Table 1: Sample 37).
In re claim 11, Tetsuhiro discloses the dielectric ceramic composition according to claim 1, as explained above. Tetsuhiro further discloses wherein the K is contained in a molar fraction of 0.2 or more in the A (Table 1: Sample 37; The molar fraction of K is 0.36.).
In re claim 12, Tetsuhiro discloses the dielectric ceramic composition according to claim 1, as explained above. Tetsuhiro further discloses wherein the R is contained in an amount of 0.466 mol or more with respect to 2 mol of the A (Table 1: Sample 37).
In re claim 13, Tetsuhiro discloses the dielectric ceramic composition according to claim 1, as explained above. Tetsuhiro further discloses wherein the La and the Pr are contained in a total molar fraction of 0.333 or more in the R (Table 1: Sample 36; Note that the only rare earth element is La.).
In re claim 15, Tetsuhiro discloses the dielectric ceramic composition according to claim 1, as explained above. Tetsuhiro further discloses wherein the Nb is contained in a molar fraction of 1 in the B (Table 1: Sample 36; Note that only Nb is in the B.) .
In re claim 17, Tetsuhiro discloses the dielectric ceramic composition according to claim 1, as explained above. Tetsuhiro further discloses wherein the A is contained in a molar fraction of 0.2 or more and 0.3 or less with respect to all metal elements contained in the oxide (I) (Technical Field ¶13, ¶17-20; Tetsuhiro discloses the claimed range of 0.35 ≦ x ≦ 0.75, 0.20 ≦ y ≦ 0.85, 0.25 ≦ a ≦ 0.75, and a + b = 1.00, to create a product with ideal high temperature load lifetime, leakage current characteristics, and suppression of mitigation of oxygen defects. A value of ‘x’ being 0.35, ‘y’ being 0.75, ‘a’ being 0.3, and ‘b’ being 0.7 produces a molar fraction of A of 0.26.).
In re claim 18, Tetsuhiro discloses the dielectric ceramic composition according to claim 1, as explained above. Tetsuhiro further discloses wherein the B is contained in an amount of 4.75 mol or more and 5.25 mol or less with respect to 2 mol of the A (Technical Field ¶13, ¶17-20; Tetsuhiro discloses the claimed range of 0.35 ≦ x ≦ 0.75, 0.20 ≦ y ≦ 0.85, 0.25 ≦ a ≦ 0.75, and a + b = 1.00, to create a product with ideal high temperature load lifetime, leakage current characteristics, and suppression of mitigation of oxygen defects. A value of ‘x’ being 0.35, ‘y’ being 0.75, ‘a’ being 0.3, and ‘b’ being 0.7 produces a value of Nb of 5.15 moles with respect to 2 mol of the A, as claimed.).
In re claim 19, Tetsuhiro discloses the dielectric ceramic composition according to claim 1, as explained above. Tetsuhiro further discloses two electrodes (3 – Figure 1, Technical Field ¶4);
and a dielectric portion (2 – Figure 1, Technical Field ¶4) between the two electrodes (Figure 1), wherein the dielectric portion comprises the dielectric ceramic composition according to claim 1 (See Rejection of Claim 1).
Claim(s) 2-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Tetsuhiro (JP2018002497A) in view of Murata et al. (US Publication 2022/0028614).
In re claim 2, Tetsuhiro discloses the dielectric ceramic composition according to claim 1, as explained above. Tetsuhiro does not disclose further comprising an oxide (II) of X, wherein the X is at least one selected from a group consisting of Mn, Cu, Fe, Co, Ni, V, and Si.
Murata discloses a dielectric composition having a tetragonal tungsten bronze structure further including an oxide (II) of X, wherein the X is at least one selected from a group consisting of Mn, Cu, Fe, Co, Ni, V, and Si (¶22).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the oxide of Murata to achieve a dielectric having a high dielectric constant and resistivity (¶22 – Murata).
In re claim 3, Tetsuhiro discloses the dielectric ceramic composition according to claim 2, as explained above. Tetsuhiro does not disclose wherein the X is contained in an amount of 0.18 mol or less with respect to 2 mol of the A.
Murata discloses wherein the X is contained in an amount of 0.18 mol or less with respect to 2 mol of the A (Table 1: Sample 7).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the oxide of Murata to achieve a dielectric having a high dielectric constant and resistivity (¶22 – Murata).
In re claim 4, Tetsuhiro discloses the dielectric ceramic composition according to claim 2, as explained above. Tetsuhiro does not disclose wherein the A, R, B, and X are contained in a total molar fraction of 0.8 or more and 1 or less with respect to all metal elements contained in the dielectric ceramic composition.
Murata discloses wherein the A, R, B, and X are contained in a total molar fraction of 0.8 or more and 1 or less with respect to all metal elements contained in the dielectric ceramic composition (Table 1: Sample 7).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the oxide of Murata to achieve a dielectric having a high dielectric constant and resistivity (¶22 – Murata).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 14 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The prior art does not teach nor suggest (in combination with other claim limitations) wherein the K and the Ba are contained in a total molar fraction of 1 in the A.
Claim 16 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The prior art does not teach nor suggest (in combination with other claim limitations) the dielectric ceramic composition according to claim 1, wherein the oxide of A, R, and B is represented by: K2-2xBa2x(A1)yRσ(1-2x/3)B5+zO15+δin which, A1 is an element other than K and Ba, 0 < x < 1, 0 ≤ y ≤ 0.5, -0.25 ≤ z ≤ 0.25, and -5 ≤δ≤ 7.5.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Natori et al. (US Publication 2003/0020157) [¶67]
Zelner et al. (US Publication 2022/0170178) [¶34]
Yamazaki et al. (US Publication 2015/0295162) [¶55]
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARUN RAMASWAMY whose telephone number is (571)270-1962. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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 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.
/ARUN RAMASWAMY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2848