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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01/05/2026 was filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s argument/amendment with respect to claim 8 filed on 04/09/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to Yoon (See Applicant’s response, page 7-9, “Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and 103”), Applicant argues that condition (1) is satisfied only when x is at most between approximately 0.1 and 0.11 (at page 8 of the arguments) and Yoon does not teach the specific molar contents of dysprosium, vanadium or molybdenum, manganese or magnesium, and silicon as recited in claim 8, as amended (at page 8-9 of the arguments). The examiner respectfully disagree.
The rule is the prior art must show each of the element of claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1). Based on paragraphs 20, 41, 51, 57, 71-72 and 77-78 of Yoon, each of the elements listed ratio satisfied claim 8. Unexpected result is only applicable to an obviousness rejection not anticipation rejection. See MPEP 2112.01(I), citing Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985). As such, Yoon still anticipated claim 8 even with added limitation.
Accordingly, for the reasons set forth above, the rejection of claim 8 remain rejected as set forth below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 8 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yoon et al. (US20170190626).
With respect to claim 8, Yoon discloses a dielectric ceramic composition comprising: barium titanate as a main component (see paragraph 20, noting BaTiO.sub.3), wherein an elemental ratio of barium to titanium is 0.90 or more and 0.98 or less (see paragraph 41 and 51, reference teaches that having a ratio of 90% BaTiO3 and 10% BaTi2O5 teaches these ratio and that ratio satisfies Ba/Ti ratio. BaTiO3 (0.9*1=0.9), BaTi2O5 (0.1*0.5=0.05), 0.9+0.05= 0.95), and wherein the dielectric ceramic composition contains 0.5 mol or more and 3.0 mol or less of dysprosium per 100 mol of titanium (see paragraph 77 in combination with paragraph 78, noting 0.25 mol to 5.0 mol based on 100 mol of the base material powder), contains 0.05 mol or more and 0.5 mol or less of a donor element per 100 mol of titanium (see paragraph 57-59, noting and 0.2 mol to 5.0 mol based on 100 mol of the base material powder), contains 0.05 mol or more and 3.0 mol or less of an acceptor element per 100 mol of titanium (see paragraph 57-59, noting and 0.2 mol to 5.0 mol based on 100 mol of the base material powder), and contains 0.5 mol or more and 3.0 mol or less of silicon per 100 mol of titanium (see paragraph 71 in combination with 72, noting 0.2 mol to 5.0 mol based on 100 mol of the base material powder), wherein the donor element is at least one of vanadium or molybdenum (see paragraph 57-59, noting vanadium), and wherein the acceptor element is at least one of manganese and magnesium (see paragraph 57-59, noting manganese).
With respect to claim 12, Yoon discloses a multilayer ceramic electronic device (see paragraph 6) comprising: a dielectric ceramic composition as claimed in claim 8 (see the above rejection of claim 8).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-7 and 11 are allowed.
With respect to independent claim 1, the prior art fails to teach, or fairly
suggest, the second crystal grain including at least Ba₄Ti₁₁O₂₆, when taken in conjunction with the remaining limitations of claim 1. Claims 2-7 and 11 are
allowed by virtue of their dependency from claim 1.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later
than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably
accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on
Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ESTHER N LIAN whose telephone number is (571)272-5726. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 - 5:00 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, 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.
/ESTHER N LIAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2847
/Timothy J. Dole/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2847
Prosecution Insights