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 .
The amendment filed 10/21/2025 has been entered. Claims 2-4, 6, 12-14, and 16 have been canceled. New claims 21-28 have been added. Claims 1, 5, 7-11, 15, and 17-28 are pending in the application. The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 21 recites, “wherein the first material comprises a ferrite material comprising Manganese Zinc (MnZn), and claim 22 recites, “wherein the second material comprises a ceramic material comprising barium titanate”; and although the original disclosure (see Paragraph 049 of the specification as filed) provides support for the first material to comprise a ceramic material comprising barium titanate, and the second material to comprise a ferrite material comprising MnZn, the original disclosure at the time of filing does not provide support for the reverse wherein the first material (of high relative electrical permittivity) comprises MnZn ferrite, and second material (of high relative magnetic permeability) comprises barium titanate as recited in instant claims 21 and 22, respectively.
Claims 1, 5, 7-11, 15, and 17-28 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. Claim 1 recites, “An apparatus that is configured to emit and/or receive electromagnetic waves, the apparatus comprising: a composite material that comprises a homogeneous medium that comprises: a first material having a relative electrical permittivity of at least 100 and up to 500,000; and a second material that contacts the first material, the second material having a relative magnetic permeability of at least 100 and up to 500,000, wherein the relative electrical permittivity of the first material is within a factor of 10 of the relative magnetic permeability of the second material, wherein the composite material is manufactured by: combining the first material and the second material; and pressurizing the combined first material and the second material with a pressure that is less than 1.85 MPa while the first material and the second material are positioned within a mold” (emphasis added); while Claim 11 is similarly directed to an “apparatus to emit and/or receive electromagnetic waves, the apparatus comprising: a composite material that comprises a homogeneous medium that comprises: a first material having a relative electrical permittivity of at least 100 and up to 500,000; and a second material having a relative magnetic permeability of at least 100 and up to 500,000, wherein the relative electrical permittivity of the first material is within a factor of 10 of the relative magnetic permeability of the second material” (emphasis added). However, it is first noted that it is unclear whether the first material and second material are now required to have a relative electrical permittivity and a relative magnetic permeability, respectively, that each spans the entire “of at least 100 and up to 500,000” (emphasis added) numerical range under some arbitrary conditions or combination of conditions, or whether the numerical limitations are meant to be directed to ranges within which individual values of the relative electrical permittivity and relative magnetic permeability fall, e.g., “in a range of at least 100 up to 500,000” (e.g., similar to original claim 6). It is also noted that with respect to the “relative” limitations in bold above, given that “relative electrical permittivity” (i.e., dielectric constant) and “relative magnetic permeability” are relative properties that are highly dependent upon the method and conditions under which they are measured, e.g., frequency, temperature, etc. (as broadly discussed in the 112(b) rejection as recited in Paragraph 7 of the prior office action dated 3/24/2025, which is incorporated herein by reference), and can vary widely based upon the method and conditions utilized to measure and/or determine said properties (as evidenced by Khader, Dielectric, magnetic and ferroelectric studies in (x)Mn0.5Zn0.5Fe2O4 + (1-x)BaTiO3 magnetoelectric nano-composites, Entire document, particularly Fig. 3; Roy, Recent advances in multiferroic thin films and composites, Section 3; or Vijatović, History and Challenges of Barium Titanate: Part II, Figs. 3-4; or Farheen, Electrical Relaxations Studies of Ferromagnetic-Ferroelectric Composites, Entire document, particularly Fig. 3), the recitation that the first and second materials have relative electrical permittivity and relative magnetic permeability, respectively, of at least 100 and up to 500,000 while also reciting that “the relative electrical permittivity of the first material is within a factor of 10 of the relative magnetic permeability of the second material” without specifying the methods and specific conditions under which each relative property is measured renders the claims indefinite, particularly when in combination with the “factor of 10” limitation given that relative magnetic permeability is measured by a different method(s) than relative electrical permittivity and the specification provides no guidance with respect to the measurement methods and/or conditions for determining each relative property. It is further unclear whether the underlined limitations above are meant to require a “medium” separate from the first and second materials, e.g., a matrix in which the first and second materials are dispersed; or whether the limitations are meant to refer to the first and second materials being homogeneously mixed such that they form a “homogeneous medium”; or whether the first or second material alone may constitute the “homogeneous medium” with the other dispersed therein whether homogeneously or heterogeneously; or some other “homogeneous medium” arrangement given that in looking to the specification, the only recitation with respect to the “homogeneous medium” is in Paragraph 049 (of the specification as filed) which broadly states, “The composite material may be an array of first materials and second materials, or may be a homogenous medium to support an effective media theory” (emphasis added) with no working or hypothetical examples thereof, and no further specifics as to the “effective media” (effective medium) theory to which the “homogeneous medium” supports. Hence, one having ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the claimed invention and could not interpret the metes and bounds of the claim so as to understand how to avoid infringement.
Dependent claims 5, 7-10, 15, and 17-28 do not remedy the above and hence are indefinite for the same reasons. Further, with respect to dependent claims 21-22, given that MnZn ferrite is a ferrite material that is known to have a high relative magnetic permeability in a range as claimed with respect to the second material, while barium titanate is a ceramic material that is known to have a high relative electrical permittivity in a range as claimed with respect to the first material but a low relative magnetic permeability (and thus not suitable as the claimed “second material having a relative magnetic permeability of that least 100”), it is unclear whether the claims are meant to be directed to a composite wherein the first material having a relative electrical permittivity of at least 100 and up to 500,000, e.g., BaTiO3, “further” comprises MnZn ferrite, e.g., as dispersed particles therein, and a composite wherein the second material having a relative magnetic permeability of at least 100 up to 500,000, e.g., MnZn ferrite, “further” comprises a ceramic material comprising barium titanate (BaTiO3), e.g., as dispersed particles therein, or whether the specific “first” and “second” materials as recited in instant claims 21-22, respectively, were inadvertently reversed (as alluded to above with respect to the 112(a) rejection), or whether the claims are actually directed to a first material of MnZn ferrite having a relative electrical permittivity of at least 100 and somehow up to 500,000, and a second material of barium titanate ceramic that somehow has a relative magnetic permeability of at least 100 and up to 500,000.
Claim Interpretation
Consistent with MPEP § 2111, claims are given their broadest reasonable interpretation wherein “the meaning given to a claim term must be consistent with the ordinary and customary meaning of the term (unless the term has been given a special definition in the specification), and must be consistent with the use of the claim term in the specification and drawings. Further, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims must be consistent with the interpretation that those skilled in the art would reach. In re Cortright, 165 F.3d 1353, 1359, 49 USPQ2d 1464, 1468 (Fed. Cir. 1999).” However, although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 f.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993.) It is also noted that a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. Further, it is noted that product-by-process claims are not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps. “Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior art product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964,966 (Fed. Cir. 1985.)
Hence, for examination purposes with respect to prior art, the claimed “manufactured by” limitations of instant claim 1 are considered process limitations in the product claims such that the product-by-process claims are not limited to the claimed process steps, only the structure implied by the steps. It is also noted that the claimed “homogeneous medium” has been interpreted in its broadest sense in light of the instant specification, e.g., one that “can support” an “effective-medium theory” (see for example, Guérin, Effective-medium theory for finite-size aggregates, Entire document; or Yu, Applicability of the effective medium theory for optimizing thermal radiative properties of systems containing wavelength-sized particles, Entire document; or Srinivas, The effective magnetoelectric coefficients of polycrystalline multiferroic composites, Entire document). It is further noted that the claimed “of at least 100 and up to 500,000” has been interpreted as a range within which a value of said relative electrical permittivity of said first material and a value of said relative magnetic permeability of said second material, individually, fall when measured utilizing some arbitrary method(s) under some arbitrary conditions. Lastly, with respect to instant claims 21-22, given that barium titanate is a ceramic material that is known to have very high relative electrical permittivity (i.e., in a range as with the claimed “first” material) and low relative magnetic permeability (e.g., lower than the claimed “at least 100” as with the claimed “second” material), while a manganese zinc (MnZn) ferrite material is a ferrite material that is known to have very high magnetic permeability (i.e., in a range as with the claimed “second” material), such that it would have been clearly evident to one skilled in the art that these materials were obviously incorrectly recited in the reverse for the claimed first and second materials, particularly in light of the instant specification, the Examiner has assumed that claims 21 and 22 are meant to recite the MnZn ferrite material as the claimed “second material” and the barium titanate as the claimed “first material”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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.
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.
Claims 1, 5, 7-11, 15, and 17-28 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 Khader (Dielectric, magnetic and ferroelectric studies in (x)Mn0.5Zn0.5Fe2O4 + (1-x)BaTiO3 magnetoelectric nano-composites). Khader discloses magneto-electric (ME) nano-composites of (x)Mn0.5Zn0.5Fe2O4 + (1-x)BaTiO3, with x=15%, 30%, and 45%, labeled ME1, ME2, and ME3, respectively, produced by sintering mixtures of highly ferroelectric BaTiO3 (BT) and highly magnetostrictive magnetic component Mn0.5Zn0.5Fe2O4 (MZF) providing nano-composites having nano crystalline phases with the MZF ferrite present in a spinel cubic structure and the BT present in a tetragonal perovskite structure, and the nano-composites having a homogeneous microstructure with uniform dispersion of BT grains such that the BT grains are surrounded by MZF grains (Entire document, particularly Abstract, Experimental, and Section 3.1, reading upon the claimed “composite material that comprises a homogeneous medium that comprises: a first material…and a second material” as in instant claims 1 and 11, and particularly “a second material that contacts the first material” as in instant claim 1); wherein such ferroelectric ferromagnetic or ME composites are known to be exploited for sensors, wave guides, modulators, phase inverters, rectifiers, transducers, etc. (Introduction, reading upon the claimed “apparatus that is configured to emit and/or receive electromagnetic waves” of instant claim 1 and “apparatus to emit and/or received electromagnetic waves” of instant claim 11, and particularly the claimed “apparatus is one or more of an antenna, a lens, a composite, or a waveguide” as in instant claims 8 and 18). Khader discloses that the ME composites were prepared by thoroughly mixing MZF and BT powders in required molar proportions and sintering, wherein the sintered powders were then grinded and pressed in the form of pellets of 10 mm diameter and 1-2 mm thickness (e.g., a shaped or “molded” composite); and given that the BaTiO3 (i.e., a ceramic material comprising barium titanate) and the Mn0.5Zn0.5Fe2O4 (i.e., a ferrite material comprising MnZn) as disclosed by Khader inherently have properties as instantly claimed when measured by some arbitrary method and under some arbitrary conditions, and that as evident from the examples, the ME composites disclosed by Khader exhibit dielectric enhancement properties, dielectric dispersion at lower frequencies, a low dissipation factor and a dielectric constant that is almost constant at higher frequencies (thus operable “at a frequency below approximately 10 kHz and up to approximately 10 GHz” as in instant claims 7 and 17), and would inherently exhibit properties as instantly claimed under some arbitrary measurement method and/or conditions (Experimental, and Results and discussion sections), the Examiner takes the position that Khader discloses the claimed invention with sufficient specificity to anticipate instant claims 1, 5, 7-11, 15, and 17-28, especially given that the claimed “pressurizing the combined first material and the second material with a pressure that is less than 1.85 MPa while the first material and the second material are positioned within a mold” limitation of instant claim 1 is a process limitation in the product claim that as broadly recited does not provide any additional structural or material limitations to differentiate the claimed composite from the composites disclosed by Khader, absent any clear evidence to the contrary. Alternatively, given that the composites taught by Khader comprise barium titanate (BaTiO3) and MnZn ferrite (Mn0.5Zn0.5Fe2O4) as in the instant invention, and are produced by essentially the same method, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to reasonably expect the barium titanate, MnZn ferrite, and resulting composite materials as taught by Khader, being the same materials as in the instant invention, to exhibit the same properties as in the instant claims when measured by the same methods and/or under the same conditions as in the instant invention, and hence, absent any clear showing of criticality and/or unexpected results, the claimed invention as recited in instant claims 1, 5, 7-11, 15, and 17-28 alternatively would have been obvious over the teachings of Khader.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 10/21/2025 have been considered but are moot because the above new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Any objection or rejection from the prior office action not restated above has been withdrawn by the Examiner in light of Applicant’s response filed 10/21/2025.
Citation of pertinent prior art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Choudhari (Mn0.7Zn0.3Fe2O4 + BaTiO3 composites: structural, morphological, magnetic, M-E effect and dielectric properties) discloses composites comprising constituent phases of (1-x) Mn0.7Zn0.3Fe2O4 (MZFO) + (x)BaTiO3 (BTO), with x = 0.0, 0.25, 0.50, and 1.0, synthesized by a ceramic route from a homogeneous mixture of ground MZFO and BTO particles. Verma (Multiferroic effects in MFe2O4/BaTiO3 (M = Mn, Co, Ni, Zn) nanocomposites) discloses multiferroic nanocomposites of MFe2O4/BaTiO3 (MFO/BTO) thin films synthesized by a metallo-organic decomposition method wherein the resulting nanocomposites have confirmed ME coupling. Farheen (Electrical Relaxations Studies of Ferromagnetic-Ferroelectric Composites) discloses ferromagnetic-ferroelectric composites synthesized by using Mn-Zn ferrite, particularly Mn0.9Zn0.1Fe2O4, and BaTiO3 (BTO) nanoparticles in a ratio of Ti+3 to Fe+3 of 0.25:0.75 (a), 0.37:0.63 (b), and 0.5:0.5 (c), resulting in the coexistence of ferroelectric and ferromagnetic phases in the composite. Cui (CN104987062A, machine translation attached) discloses a magnetic-dielectric composite ceramic material formed by sintering core-shell particles comprising a core of BaTiO3 and a shell material of YFeO3 that facilitates the miniaturization trend of electronic components. Chowdhury (US2011/0008008A1) discloses multiferroic materials having tunable permittivity or permeability properties useful for an apparatus having a waveguide or for an antenna, wherein Chowdhury teaches that a multiferroic medium may be a homogeneous or a heterogeneous crystalline material with an example homogeneous multiferroic medium including some cations selected to confer ferroelectric characteristics to the material, and others that confer ferromagnetic characteristics, wherein non-limiting homogeneous multiferroic materials are expected to include some compounds with a perovskite structure; while a heterogenous multiferroic medium may provide a degree of freedom not provided by a homogeneous multiferroic material for producing the desired coupling between ferroelectric and ferromagnetic domains, and include composite materials having separate domains of, e.g., ferromagnetic and ferroelectric materials or a layered medium of for example, 50 nm layers of BaTiO3 (e.g., ferroelectric) alternating with 150 nm layers of CoFe2O4 or BaFe12O19 (e.g., ferromagnetic).
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 MONIQUE R JACKSON whose telephone number is (571)272-1508. The examiner can normally be reached Mondays-Thursdays from 10:00AM-5:00PM.
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, Callie Shosho can be reached at 571-272-1123. 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.
/MONIQUE R JACKSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1787