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 1-4 and 10-16) in the reply filed on 08/05/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there is a technical relationship that involves the same special technical feature. This is not found persuasive because although Groups I-III share perovskite-related subject matter, JP-2005-075700 A teaches the common Ti/Zr/Hf-containing perovskite-forming chemistry. Thus, that common feature does not provide a contribution over the prior art. The remaining features of Group I relate to the production method, and Group II to the ceramic compact structure, and Group III to the precursor raw material and these do not constitute the same or corresponding special technical feature.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 5-9 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 08/05/2026.
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 1-3 and 10-16 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.
Regarding claims 1 and 10-16, the phrase "a perovskite-type ceramic compact" renders the claim indefinite because of the use of “type”. It is unclear how closely a ceramic compact must resemble a perovskite in order to be considered to be “perovskite-type”. See MPEP § 2173.05(b) III. E.
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) 1-4 and 10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yamaguchi (“The Development of Low-Temperature Sintering Techniques for Functional Ceramic Devices Using Chemical Reactions,” 2020)
With respect to claim 1, Yamaguchi teaches the claimed low-temperature production of an alkaline-earth perovskite ceramic compact (Yamaguchi, abstract).
Claim 1 requires “a method for producing a perovskite-type ceramic compact.” Yamaguchi expressly describes acid-base chemical sintering used to prepare bulk BaZrO3 perovskite ceramics below 100 °C (Yamaguchi, pp. 753-754).
Claim 1 further requires “contacting a precursor compact comprising singly a gel comprising (i) water and (ii) a Ti oxide, a Zr oxide, a Hf oxide, or a mixture thereof, with a liquid comprising a hydroxide of the alkaline earth metal element, and producing the perovskite-type ceramic compact.” Yamaguchi teaches forming ZrO2 hydrous gel on BaZrO3 particles, pressing that precursor powder into pellets, and immersing the pellets in concentrated barium hydroxide solution at 75 °C to form dense, well-connected BaZrO3 bulk ceramics (Yamaguchi, p. 753, 4 and Figs. 10-11). Yamaguchi further teaches that SrTiO3 is produced by reacting Sr(OH)2·8H2O with TiO2 hydrous gel, that internal gel water promotes Sr-ion diffusion, and that ABO3 materials where A is Ca, Sr, or Ba and B is Ti, Zr, or Hf are successfully produced by this acid-base process (Yamaguchi, pp. 749-750, Figs. 4-6). Yamaguchi teaches sintering process of the precursor powder being prepared by introducing a ZrO2 hydrous gel at the surface of the BZO particles by a wet process. This precursor powder was then pressed into pellets and immersed in a concentrated barium hydroxide solution at 75°C (pg 753: Fig 10).
Claim 1 further requires “wherein the perovskite-type ceramic compact consists of a perovskite-type ceramic comprising the alkaline earth metal element, Ti, Zr, and/or Hf, and O.” Yamaguchi identifies ABO3 perovskites in which A is Ca, Sr, or Ba and B is Ti, Zr, or Hf, and specifically forms dense BaZrO3 bulk ceramic (Yamaguchi, pp. 749-750 and 753). Ikeda independently confirms cubic BaZrO3 from barium hydroxide and zirconium oxide (Ikeda, [0089]-[0091]). The proposed process uses those same stoichiometric sources and therefore yields the recited alkaline-earth/Ti-Zr-Hf/O perovskite composition.
Regarding claim 2, the Yamaguchi process teaches the production of a hydrous gel which has not been crystallized and is thus, amorphous (Yamaguchi, abstract).
Regarding claim 3, the Yamaguchi process teaches that ZrO2 gel added consists of particles of ZrO2 gel (Yamaguchi, abstract).
Regarding claim 4, the Yamaguchi process teaches the subject matter of claim 1 as discussed above.
Claim 4 further requires “wherein the precursor compact is a green compact of a mixture of particles consisting of the gel and particles consisting of the perovskite-type ceramic.” Yamaguchi teaches ZrO2 hydrous-gel-coated BaZrO3 precursor particles, presses the precursor powder into pellets, and then performs hydroxide immersion (Yamaguchi, p. 753). The pressed precursor therefore contains both gel material and pre-existing BaZrO3 perovskite particles.
Regarding claim 10, the Yamaguchi method teaches the subject matter of claim 1.
Claim 10 further requires “wherein the perovskite-type ceramic comprises the Hf.” Yamaguchi teaches Hf as an available B-site element in ABO3 prepared by the acid-base process (Yamaguchi, p. 750).
Regarding claim 11, the Yamaguchi method teaches the subject matter of claim 1.
Claim 11 further requires “wherein the perovskite-type ceramic comprises the Ti.” Yamaguchi reports SrTiO3 produced from Sr(OH)2 and TiO2 hydrous gel (Yamaguchi, pp. 749-750, Figs. 4 and 6).
Regarding claim 12, the modified Yamaguchi method teaches the subject matter of claim 1.
Claim 12 further requires “wherein the perovskite-type ceramic comprises the Zr.” Yamaguchi teaches the bulk product is BaZrO3 (Yamaguchi, p. 753, 4)
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.
Claim(s) 13-14 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamaguchi (“The Development of Low-Temperature Sintering Techniques for Functional Ceramic Devices Using Chemical Reactions,” 2020) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ikeda (US 2008/0260624 A1).
Regarding claim 13, the Yamaguchi method teaches the subject matter of claim 1.
Claim 13 further requires “wherein the perovskite-type ceramic comprises the Ti and the Zr.” The current combination does not explicitly teach “the Ti and the Zr” mixed B-site selection in a pressed pellet. However, Ikeda prepares titanium-zirconium hydroxide coprecipitate, converts it to titanium-zirconium oxide, and reacts it with alkaline-earth hydroxide to form cubic barium titanate zirconate perovskite (Ikeda, [0097]-[0099] and [0113]-[0116]).
It would have been obvious to use Ikeda’s mixed Ti-Zr B-site precursor in the modified Yamaguchi pellet because Ikeda teaches that coprecipitation produces the corresponding mixed perovskite and permits B-site composition control, predictably obtaining a Ti/Zr solid-solution perovskite in the same shaped process.
Regarding claim 14, the Yamaguchi method teaches the subject matter of claim 1.
Claim 14 further requires “wherein the perovskite-type ceramic comprises the Ti and the Hf.” The current combination does not explicitly teach “the Ti and the Hf” mixed B-site selection in a pressed pellet. However, Ikeda prepares a titanium-hafnium hydroxide coprecipitate and reacts the corresponding oxide with barium hydroxide to form barium titanate hafnate perovskite (Ikeda, [0110]-[0112]).
It would have been obvious to use that demonstrated mixed Ti-Hf precursor in the modified pellet to predictably obtain the same known Ti/Hf solid-solution composition in a shaped compact appropriate for its desired use.
Regarding claim 15, the Yamaguchi method teaches the subject matter of claim 1.
Claim 15 further requires “wherein the perovskite-type ceramic comprises the Hf and the Zr.” The references do not explicitly teach “the Hf and the Zr” in a working example. However, Ikeda teaches hydrous oxides of at least one B-site element selected from Ti, Zr, and Hf, and demonstrates that two B-site oxides can be coprecipitated and carried through the same alkaline-earth hydroxide reaction as a mixed perovskite (Ikeda, [0029]-[0036], [0097]-[0099], [0110]-[0112]).
It would have been obvious to substitute Zr for Ti in Ikeda’s demonstrated Ti-Hf pair because Zr and Hf are taught as alternative group-4 B-site elements performing the same perovskite-forming function, predictably obtaining the corresponding Hf-Zr solid solution.
Regarding claim 16, Yamaguchi teaches the subject matter of claim 1.
Claim 16 further requires “wherein the perovskite-type ceramic comprises the Ti, the Zr, and the Hf.” The references do not explicitly teach “the Ti, the Zr, and the Hf” in one working example. Ikeda teaches “at least one” B-site element selected from Ti, Zr, and Hf and separately demonstrates Ti-Zr and Ti-Hf mixed B-site perovskites (Ikeda, [0029]-[0036], [0097]-[0099], [0110]-[0112]).
It would have been obvious to include both demonstrated Zr and Hf substitutions in the Ti-containing B-site composition because each occupies the same B site and is introduced by the same coprecipitation/hydrothermal route, predictably providing a compositionally adjustable Ti-Zr-Hf perovskite. The shared process conditions and crystal role provide a reasonable expectation of forming the solid solution.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STARFARI TESHAWN MCCLAIN whose telephone number is (571)272-0169. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 AM- 5 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, Anthony Zimmer can be reached at (571) 270-3591. 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.
/STARFARI TESHAWN MCCLAIN/ Examiner, Art Unit 1736
/ANTHONY J ZIMMER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1736
