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 1-9 in the reply filed on 10/03/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the shared technical feature should be the method of claim 1. This is not found persuasive for the following reasons:
Applicant primarily argues:
“The Office Actkion asserts that Groups I-II lack unity of invention because even though the inventions of these groups require the technical feature of a nickel zinc cobalt spinel ferrite of ceramic form, this technical feature is not a special technical feature as it does not make a contribution over the prior art in view of Souriou et al. ("Influential parameters on electromagnetic properties of nickel-zinc ferrites for antenna miniaturization", 2010) ("Souriou").
However, Group II/claim 10 states: "Method for manufacturing an antenna configured for frequencies less than one gigahertz implementing a method of obtaining a nickel zinc cobalt spinel ferrite of ceramic form according to claim 1." As such, the method of Group II/claim 10 inherently comprises the methodology recited claim 1 (i.e., the method of claim 10 can therefore be interpreted as a method according to claim 1, further comprising a step of forming an antenna). That is, the analysis in the Office Action is deficient/improper because the technical features of the inventions of Groups I-II amount to more than a mere a nickel zinc cobalt spinel ferrite of ceramic form. Instead, the technical features common to each of the inventions of Groups I-II are each of the method steps according to claim 1.
As such (and because the findings in the Office Action merely relate to "a nickel zinc cobalt spinel ferrite of ceramic form"), the analysis in the Office Action is deficient/improper at least because the Patent Office identifies no reference(s) that would have fairly led one skilled in the art to arrive at the technical features which are common to each of the inventions/claims of Groups I-II. That is, the subject-matter of claim 1 (which is common to each of Groups I-II) has not been properly established as being identical and/or substantially similar to that of Souriou. When the claims are properly considered, Applicant respectfully submits that the technical features (e.g., the subject matter of claim 1) that are recited in each of the claims of Groups I-II are a special technical feature as such features make a contribution over the prior art (such as Souriou).”
Remarks, p. 2-3
The examiner respectfully traverses as follows:
While applicant argues that the technical feature is the method according to claim 1, Group II states it implements “a method of obtaining a nickel zinc cobalt spinel ferrite of ceramic form according to claim 1”, which is a product-by-process limitation as stated in item #8 of the Office Action mailed 08/04/2025. Therefore, the method of claim 1 is not required by Group II, and the shared technical feature is only a nickel zinc cobalt spinel ferrite of ceramic form which is taught by Souriou (Souriou, Abstract; p. 3, Conclusion).
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim 10 is 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 10/03/2025.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-9 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In order to ensure proper preamble structure, it is suggested to amend:
Claim 1, line 1, amend “Method” to “A method”.
Claims 2-9, in line 1 of each, amend “Method” to “The method”.
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 1-9 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.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 1 recites the broad recitation “the maximum temperature for forty-five minutes to three hours”, and the claim also recites “preferably between forty-five and an hour and fifteen minutes” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Regarding dependent claims 2-9, these claims do not remedy the deficiencies of parent claim 1 noted above, and are rejected for the same rationale.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 2 recites the broad recitation “maximum temperature is comprised between 985°C and 1010°C”, and the claim also recites “preferably equal to 995°C” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Souriou et al. (“Influential parameters on electromagnetic properties of nickel–zinc ferrites for antenna miniaturization”, 2010) (Souriou) in view of Huizing et al. (EP 0247681 A1) (Huizing) and Manova et al. (“Mechanochemical synthesis and characterization of nanodimensional iron–cobalt spinel oxides”, 2009) (Manova).
Regarding claims 1-3 and 5-6, Souriou teaches Ni-Zn-Co ferrite nanopowders prepared through coprecipitation, the method comprising mixing nickel chloride, zinc chloride, and iron (III) chloride and pouring these solutions into a boiling solution of NaOH (i.e., obtaining a precipitate of iron, nickel, zinc, and cobalt hydroxides by coprecipitation) (i.e., claim 6). After coprecipitation, pH is set between 11.5 and 12, which was found to be optimal for precipitation. The reaction is continued for 30 minutes and then cooled to ambient temperature, centrifuged, dried in an electrical oven (i.e., drying the rinsed precipitate), and calcined to obtain a ferrite powder (i.e., obtaining a powder). The powder is compacted by uniaxial pressing into a toroidal shape (i.e., forming into a compact by pressing the powder), followed by sintering in air for 1 hour at a heating rate of 300 °C/h to a maximum temperature of 1000°C, which falls within the claimed range, and were subsequently cooled at a cooling rate of 600 °C/h to room temperature (i.e., sintering the compact through a progressive temperature rise to a maximum temperature comprised between 950°C and 1010°C, maintaining the temperature for 45 minutes to an hour and 15 minutes, and a progressive fall in temperature to reach ambient temperature) (i.e., claim 2) (Souriou, p. 1, II. Experimental Procedure).
Although there are no disclosures on the progressive temperature rise and fall being 2°C to 4°C per minute, or 3°C per minute (i.e., claim 3) as presently claimed, it has long been an axiom of United States patent law that it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges of result-effective variables by routine experimentation. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ("The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages."); In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 276 (CCPA 1980) ("[D]iscovery of an optimum value of a result effective variable in a known process is ordinarily within the skill of the art."); In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456 (CCPA 1955) ("[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation."). "Only if the 'results of optimizing a variable' are 'unexpectedly good' can a patent be obtained for the claimed critical range." In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (quoting In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 620 (CCPA 1977)).
At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to vary the temperature rise and fall rate, including over the amounts presently claimed, in order to effectively sinter and cool the powder.
However, Souriou does not explicitly teach (a) rinsing the precipitate in order to obtain a rinsed precipitate and (b) grinding the rinsed precipitate in order to obtain a powder.
With respect to the difference (a), Huizing teaches the synthesis of Co-Zn ferrite by coprecipitation, wherein a precursor solution of iron, zinc, and cobalt is prepared and added to an aqueous NaOH solution. After coprecipitation, the suspension was washed (Huizing, Col. 3, lines 35-53).
As Huizing expressly teaches, the washing is performed in order to neutralize the pH of the suspension (Huizing, Col. 3, lines 50-52; claim 5).
Huizing is analogous art as it is drawn to synthesis of ferrites by coprecipitation (Huizing, Abstract).
In light of the motivation of washing the suspension as disclosed by Huizing, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Souriou by washing the precipitates after coprecipitation in order to neutralize the pH, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
With respect to the difference (b), Manova teaches the synthesis of iron-cobalt spinel oxides includes ferrites (Manova, Abstract), wherein the synthesis includes coprecipitation and mechanical milling of the coprecipitated precursors prior to heating (Manova, p. 356, Experimental).
As Manova expressly teaches, after 1 hour of mechanical milling, ferrites are formed, and longer milling induces an increase in crystal size while defects decrease with treatment time (Manova, Abstract).
Manova is analogous art as it is drawn to the synthesis of ferrites through coprecipitation (Manova, Abstract).
In light of the motivation of milling (i.e., grinding) as disclosed by Manova, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Souriou by grinding the dried precipitates in order to increase crystal size while decrease crystal defects, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 4 and 8, Souriou, in view of Huizing and Manova, teaches the method according to claim 1 and claim 6, wherein the washing comprises suspending the precipitate in water at a temperature of 70 to 95°C (Huizing, claim 5) (i.e., each cleaning operation comprising a dilution with water), which falls within the claimed range, and further wherein the washing continues until the pH is less than 8 (Huizing, Col. 3, lines 50-52) (i.e., claim 8). Therefore, a succession of washings is disclosed by Huizing in order to decrease the pH of the suspension and would correspond to one cleaning per day as the time frame for cleaning is not restricted.
Regarding claim 5, Souriou, in view of Huizing and Manova, teaches the method according to claim 1, calcination prior to grinding to form a powder (Souriou, p. 1, II. Experimental Procedure; Manova, p. 356, Experimental) (i.e., the method does not comprise calcination of the powder).
Regarding claim 7, Souriou, in view of Huizing and Manova, teaches the method according to claim 6, wherein as Souriou, in view of Huizing and Manova, teaches the method of forming a nickel zinc cobalt spinel ferrite that is substantially identical to the claimed method, the claimed reactions implemented in the obtaining the precipitate would inherently occur in the method of Souriou, in view of Huizing and Manova.
Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP 2112.01 (I).
Regarding claim 9, Souriou, in view of Huizing and Manova, teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the uniaxial pressing into a toroidal shape (Souriou, p. 1, II. Experimental Procedure) corresponds to the operation of die-stamping and compressing of the powder into a powder bed, as die-stamping is the process of shaping a metal by pressing with a die and in Souriou, the powder is pressed into a toroidal shape, i.e., a toroidal shaped die. Further, a person of skill in the art would know to eject the compacted powder in order to use the final product (i.e., operation of ejecting the compact).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Catriona Corallo whose telephone number is (571)272-8957. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8am-5pm.
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, Ching-Yiu Fung can be reached at (571)270-5713. 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.
/C.M.C./Examiner, Art Unit 1732
/CORIS FUNG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1732
Prosecution Insights