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
Claims 13-23 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 12/11/25.
Applicant’s election without traverse of the invention of Group I, claims 1-12, in the reply filed on 12/11/25 is acknowledged.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7, and 9-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gorter in US2960471 as evidenced by Shigemura in their publication “Synthesis of non-magnetic-ion-substituted Ca-based M-type ferrite” (previously cited).
Regarding Claim 1: Gorter teaches the creation of a hexagonal ferrite of the family MFe12O19, having a magnetoplumbite structure, which is also known as an M-type ferrite (See Column 1, Lines 11-25). The material of Gorter may be of formula MCoaTiaFe12-2aO19, wherein M is chosen from the group consisting of primarily Ba, Sr, and Pb, and optionally up to 40% of Ca, and a is between 1 and 1.6. Gorter thus teaches an M-type ferrite, comprising oxides of Me being Ba, Sr, or Pb; Me’ being Ti; Me” being Ca; Co; Ti; and Fe. Gorter thus teaches an overlapping range of oxide components. Overlapping ranges have been held to present a prima facie case of obviousness over the prior art. Those of ordinary skill would only need to select from the overlapping portion of the range to arrive at the invention as claimed.
Gorter is silent in terms of the presence of a dielectric phase having a formula Me”TiO3; however, such a phase would have been necessarily present in the material of Gorter as is evidenced by Shigemaru. Shigemaru shows that M-type ferrites containing Titanium necessarily contains MTiO3 phases when the substitution of Fe (a in Gorter, x in Shigemura) is greater than 0.3. Shigemaru uses similar synthetic techniques as Gorter, which are the mixing of various precursor compounds and firing the materials at temperatures between 900 and 1300 C (See Section). Gorter also teaches mixing and firing in the range from 900 to 1280C (See Column 2 and Example 1). As the precursors and final product of Shigemura are both M-ferrites containing substantial amounts of titanium and fired at the same temperatures, those of ordinary skill in the art would expect the same crystalline phases in the same amounts. As this is the case, those of ordinary skill would expect the material of Gorter to necessarily contain a dielectric phase having the formula M”TiO3, which may include CaTiO3.
Regarding Claim 2-4: The material of Gorter may be of formula MCoaTiaFe12-2aO19, wherein M is chosen from the group consisting of primarily Ba, Sr, and Pb, and optionally up to 40% of Ca, and a is between 1 and 1.6. This is an overlapping range of compositions with those instantly claimed. Overlapping ranges have been held to establish a prima facie case of obviousness over the prior art. Those of ordinary skill would only need to select from the overlapping portion of the range to arrive at the invention as claimed.
Regarding Claim 5: Gorter and the evidentiary document to Shigemaru are silent in terms of the amount of the dielectric phase that is created with the (Co,Ti) containing M-ferrite; however, as the materials are provided with the same range of alkaline earth metals and titanium, and processed in the same manner, those of ordinary skill in the art would have expected the composition of Gorter to have an overlapping ratio of said magnetic phase to said dielectric phase. Materials of the same composition and processed from the same precursors in the same manner must necessarily have the same phases and the same ratio of phases.
Regarding Claim 7: Gorter is silent in terms of the nature of the magnetoplumbite structure and whether said structure is provided in the form of a solid-solution or a bi-phase. However, the composition of Gorter is made from the same composition and is fired at an overlapping range of temperatures (See Paragraph 26 of Original Disclosure). Those of ordinary skill would have expected the composition of Gorter to have the same structure as that which is claimed, being either a solid-solution or of a biphasic nature.
Regarding Claim 9-12: Gorter shows the properties of the material at various frequencies, but is silent in terms of the properties at 200 MHz as claimed (It is noted that the properties of these materials are not linear as is evidenced by applicant’s figures). As the materials of Gorter are of the same composition and structure as those that are claimed, they would necessarily have the same properties of having a permeability greater than or equal to 30, a figure of merit greater than or equal to 50, and a loss tangent of less than or equal to 0.8 at 200 megahertz, as claimed. The composition of Gorter would also necessarily have a Snoek product of greater than or equal to 5 gigahertz at over the frequency range of 1 to 300 megahertz, as claimed. Materials of the same composition and structure must necessarily have the same properties as those properties stem directly from the composition and structure of the material.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gorter as evidenced by Shigemura as applied to claim 1 above, and further evidenced by Vu in their publication “CuO-based sintering aids for low temperature sintering of BaFe12O19 ceramics”.
Gorter as evidenced by Shigemura teaches the creation of M-type ferrites having the compositions and phases as set forth in instant claim 1 as is discussed above.
Gorter is silent in terms of the grain size of the as-created M-type ferrite.
However, the effects of sintering temperature on the grain size distribution of M-type ferrites, particularly BaFe12O19 based ferrites, are known and shown by Vu. Vu explores the effects of sintering aids on the sintering and grain growth of ferrites. Vu shows that even without sintering the average grain size of BaFe12O19 sintered at a temperature of 1250C is about 6 microns, when examined using scanning electron microscope (See Figure 7, bottom graph; SEM- section 2). Gorter teaches the sintering of the barium ferrites for a matter of hours at temperatures greater than 1200 (particularly showing 1280 and 1350C) for a period of a few hours (See Examples). Those of ordinary skill in the art would have expected the grain size of Gorter’s material to be on the order of several microns, and within the range from 1 to 100 microns, when examined by electron microscope as it is sintered under similar temperatures as those shown by Vu.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 6 is 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 following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Gorter doesn’t teach compositions containing the claimed phases as are set forth in instant claim 6.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW E HOBAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3585. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30am-6:00pm.
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, Jonathan Johnson can be reached at 571-272-1177. 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.
/Matthew E. Hoban/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1734