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 .
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) 24 to 27, 32 to 37 and 39 are is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by Li et al (Physics).
The Li et al reference teaches a product and method of growing single crystal ferroelectric, note, entire reference. The material is of the formula AB2O4. The A is strontium and the B is terbium. The process consists of first creating a powder of the AB2O4. The powder is first pressed into a pellet or blank. The this is then annealed or fired at temperatures above 1200 for up to 48 hours. The single crystal is grown from the fired material by means of the laser float zone method, note, page 3 section 2.
With regards to claims 25 to 27 and 33 to 35, the Li et al reference teaches a SrTb2O4 single crystal.
With regards to claim 36, the Li et al reference teaches an atmosphere of less than 20% oxygen, note section 2 during growth.
With regards to claim 37, the Li et al reference teaches using argon during growth, note section 2.
With regards to claim 39, the Li et al reference teaches isostatic pressing, note section 2.
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.
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) 14 to 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al (Physics) in view of Li et al (Physical Chemistry).
The Li et al reference is relied on for the same reasons as stated, supra, and differs from the instant claim in the use of the crystal. However, the Li et al reference teaches the use of a AB2O4 as a ferroelectric, note page 28548. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention to modify the Li et al reference by the Li et al (physical chemistry) reference to use as a ferroelectric in order to increase the use of such a material.
With regards to claims 15 to 17 the Li et al (physics) reference teaches a SrTb2O4 single crystal, note page 1.
Claim(s) s 28 to 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al.
The Li et al reference is relied on for the same reasons as stated, supra, and differs from the instant claim in the use of the single crystal. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention to determine through routine experimentation the optimum, operable use, a rechargeable storage in the Li et al reference in order to as the SrTbO3 is of the same type of other crystals used as parts of batteries.
Claim(s) s 38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al.
The Li et al reference is relied on for the same reasons as stated, supra, and differs from the instant claim in the pressure during the floating zone growth. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention to determine through routine experimentation the optimum, operable pressure during crystal growth in the Li et al reference in order to reduce impurities in the chamber during growth.
Claim(s) s 40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al.
The Li et al reference is relied on for the same reasons as stated, supra, and differs from the instant claim in the use of a balloon for pressing. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention to determine through routine experimentation the optimum, operable means to shape in the Li et al reference in order to have the material in the shape for crystal growth.
Response to Applicants’ Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed July 26, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicants’ argument concerning claims 14 to 17 is noted. However, the examiner has amended the rejection in view of the amendments to this claims. The 112b rejections have been overcome.
Applicants’ argument concerning claim 24 to 27 has been considered and not deemed persuasive. The Li et al reference does teach the claim limitations of the material being used, a SrTb2O4 single crystal spinel. The claims are not so limited in scope to include other materials. Further, the newly cited reference of Li et al (physical chemistry) shows that the use of the above compound to be well known in the art.
Applicants’ argument concerning claim 28 to 31 has been considered and not deemed persuasive. The Li et al reference does teach the claim limitations of the material being used, a SrTb2O4 single crystal spinel. There is references in the art and of record showing the use of this material or generic AB2O4 compounds with a similar use to that as claimed. Therefore, it is well within the skill of the art to use the compound as claimed.
Applicants’ argument concerning the method claims is noted. However, the Li et al reference does teach the specific compound and a method of growing it as a single crystal. The claims are method claims and not use claims. The reference need teach the method of growing. It is noted, that the augment is based on the use and not differences in method.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 ROBERT M KUNEMUND whose telephone number is (571)272-1464. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 am to 4:30 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, Kaj Olsen can be reached at 571-272-1344. 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.
RMK
/ROBERT M KUNEMUND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1714
Prosecution Insights