DETAILED ACTION
The claims 1-15 are pending and presented for the examination.
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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/03/2024 is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: line one of claim 8 should read “The composite dielectric material” rather than “The composite dielectric materials”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 2 and 7 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.
Claims 2 and 7 each contain limitations with multiple ranges for the same property, with one range designated as “particularly”. The presence of multiple ranges of varying breadth for the same property within a single claim renders unclear which should be the controlling range for the intended claim coverage.
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.
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.
Claims 1-7, 10-11, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Su et al (Recent development on modification of synthesized barium titanate (BaTiO3) and polymer/BaTiO3 dielectric composites) in view of Hunt et al (US 7031136 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Su et al teaches composite materials comprising a polymer matrix and dielectric ceramic (BaTiO3) particles. The matrix component can be a thermoplastic polymer (see section 4.1.1 and embodiment comprising PMMA matrix at Fig. 11, PMMA being a thermoplastic polymer). Su et al further teaches that the dielectric particles can be coated with a polymeric component (see 4.2.3 and Figs. 13-14) and further that this coating can be the same as the matrix polymer (see 4.2.2 and Fig. 11). To one of ordinary skill in the art, it therefore would have been obvious from the Su et al teachings to prepare a thermoplastic polymer matrix/dielectric particle composite having a thermoplastic polymer component also coated onto the particle surfaces, wherein the coating polymer is the same as that of the matrix, as each of these features are disclosed in detail in said Su et al document.
Su et al does not specify that the bonding of the thermoplastic polymer and the dielectric particles is non-covalent. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Su et al in view of Hunt et al in order to use a non-covalently bonded polymer coating/shell on the particles. Hunt et al teaches composite dielectric materials comprising particles within a polymeric matrix (see Abstract; column 2, lines 50-55; and column 7, lines 32-37). While Hunt et al teaches embodiments wherein covalent bonding between the matrix and particulate components is present, Hunt et al also specifies that such covalent bonding of passivated nanoparticulates in the polymer matrix is not always necessary to hold the particulates in place, and that polymer/nanoparticulate bonding can be by secondary bonds, such as hydrogen bonds or Van Der Waals interactions (see column 7, lines 10-20). Hunt et al further teaches that the nanoparticulate can be enmeshed within a polymer matrix that can be a thermoplastic polymer, and gives specific detail as to the softening temperature mechanism of embedding nanoparticulates in such matrices (ibid.).
The Hunt et al teachings would indicate to one of ordinary skill in the art that preparation of composites of the type taught by Su et al does not necessitate covalent bonding. The Hunt et al teachings would further indicate that, when the Su et al embodiments having the same thermoplastic polymer (such as PMMA) as the matrix and the particle coating are prepared, covalent bonding is not present, because the nanoparticles can be “enmeshed within a polymer matrix.” Therefore, one of ordinary skill would have had motivation to use other embedding/bonding mechanisms that covalent bonding to produce polymer/dielectric ceramics of the type taught by Su et al. Each limitation of claim 1 is therefore met by the teachings of the prior art of record, and the claim is obvious and not patentably distinct.
Regarding claim 2, Su et al teaches that polymers used as the matrix component in the composite can be thermoplastic polymers such as polystyrene, and that said polymers have dielectric strengths in a range of about 450-850 MV/m (see 5.3). This range falls within that of the instant claim, thus meeting the further limitation of claim 2.
Regarding claim 3, Su et al teaches that the matrix component can be a thermoplastic polymer that is among those listed in the instant claims (see i.e. 5.3, 4.1.1, 4.2.3 – polystyrene and polypropylene). These equivalent matrix polymers would necessarily have equivalent properties to those of the instant claims, and thus would necessarily have a self-healing capability. MPEP 2112.01 states "A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present."
Regarding claim 4, Su et al teaches that the polymer matrix can be polystyrene or polypropylene (see 4.1.1, 4.2.3).
Regarding claims 5-6, Su et al teaches that the dielectric ceramic component is BaTiO3.
Regarding claim 7, Su et al teaches that the dielectric particles can have a shell thickness (polymer coating) of 7-12 nm (see 4.2.3).
Regarding claim 10, Su et al teaches that the dielectric composite is used in a capacitor comprising a layer of the composite dielectric material arranged between a first electrode and a second electrode (see Fig. 11).
Regarding claim 11, Su et al teaches that the dielectric composite is produced by a method of forming a mixture comprising a gel of the thermoplastic polymer and a dispersion of the dielectric particle component (see 3.3), wherein embodiments are taught with the particles being coated by a shell of the thermoplastic polymer, and wherein the thus obtained mixture is deposited as a layer to produce the final produce composite dielectric material.
Regarding claim 15, Su et al teaches a method of producing a capacitor through deposition according to instant claim 11, as discussed above. Su et al further teaches that the capacitor comprises a first and a second electrode with the dielectric layer positioned between (see Fig. 11), thus necessitating steps of providing a first electrode and arranging a second electrode on the composite dielectric material.
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Su et al (Recent development on modification of synthesized barium titanate (BaTiO3) and polymer/BaTiO3 dielectric composites) in view of Hunt et al (US 7031136 B2) and in further view of Frank (US 9899154 B2).
Regarding claim 8, the claim differs from Su et al in view of Hunt et al as applied above because Su et al does not teach that the article taught therein has a plurality of layers with differing particle densities. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the instant filing to modify Su et al in further view of Frank in order to prepare capacitors from the dielectrics according to the structural teachings of Frank. Frank teaches a capacitor having a main body formed from a composite dielectric material, said dielectric being present in a plurality of layers in which a first layer comprises dielectric particulate with a larger size than the particulate of a second layer (see Fig. 11 and column 25, lines 30-45). This necessitates a larger density of particles in one layer as compared to the other. One would have been motivated to use this structure taught by Frank when preparing dielectrics with the Su et al composite material because Frank constitutes a detailed teaching that would enable one to prepare a working article from the Su et al material. This would be seen as and advantageous results by one of ordinary skill in the art, and as such the prior art of record teaches each limitation of the instant claim. The claim is therefore not patentably distinct over the prior art of record.
Regarding claim 9, as discussed above, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Su et al in further view of Frank in order to form a capacitor according to the Frank structural teachings. Frank further teaches that the aforementioned layers of differing densities are arranged in an alternating manner. As such, said modification in view of Frank would also meet each limitation of instant claim 9, and the claim is not patentably distinct over the prior art of record.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Su et al (Recent development on modification of synthesized barium titanate (BaTiO3) and polymer/BaTiO3 dielectric composites) in view of Hunt et al (US 7031136 B2) and in further view of Borland et al (US 8183108 B2).
Regarding claim 14, the claim differs from Su et al in view of Hunt et al as applied above because Su et al does not teach that the deposited layer has a thickness of 50-200 nm. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Su et al in further view of Borland et al in order to form a deposited layer having the thickness taught therein. Borland et al teaches a method of making dense dielectrics layers via chemical solution deposition, and teaches that dielectric layers are formed by repeated deposition of precursor layers. These precursor layers are equivalent to the polymer/particle composite taught by Su et al. Borland et al teaches formation of said layers having thicknesses of 150 nm (see column 7, lines 60-67). One of ordinary skill would have had motivation to use the deposited layer thickness taught by Borland et al when preparing the layers as taught by Su et al because Su et al is not specific in this regard for a practically prepared dielectric device, and thus one would look to other teachings for specific parameters for the deposition. Borland et al provides such a teaching, and one would have had a reasonable expectation of success in the modification because Su et al and Borland et al are each drawn to depositable dielectric formulations. Each limitation of claim 14 is therefore met by the teachings of the prior art of record, and the claim is obvious and not patentably distinct.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12-13 are 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, either alone or in combination, fails to teach or suggest a method meeting each limitation of instant claim 11, and wherein the further steps of instant claims 12 or 13 are undertaken.
Conclusion
15. Claims 1-11 and 14-15 are rejected. Claims 12-13 are objected to.
16. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
17. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NOAH S WIESE whose telephone number is (571)270-3596. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 7:30am-4:30pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Amber Orlando can be reached on 571-270-3149. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/NOAH S WIESE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1731
NSW4 September 2026
Prosecution Insights