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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 12, 18, 19, and 29 are objected to because of the following informalities:
a) In claims 12 and 29, the term “Me1” refers to three distinct groups of elements. These groups are referred to as Me1, Me1a, and Me1b for clarity. The term “Me2” refers to two distinct groups of elements. These groups are referred to as Me2 and Me2b for clarity.
Appropriate correction is required.
b) Claim 18 recites the term “an inductor” twice.
Appropriate correction is required.
c) In claim 19, ln 6, appears to contain a typographical error. The term “particle-s” is treated as ‘particles’.
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 6, 12, 18, 21, and 29 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) 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, claims 6 and 21 recite the broad recitation about 1000000:1 or greater, and the claim also recites about 200:1 to about 1000000:1. 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.
While not a suggestion of claim language, in the interest of compact prosecution, the narrow range will be searched.
Appropriate correction is required.
b) Claims 12 and 29 recite “spinel ferrites of formula [Me1,Me2]xFe2-xO4” in ln 3 of both claims, which renders the claims indefinite. Spinel ferrites typically have the formula MFe2O4. It is not clear if this is a typographical error or intended to convey a different formula. If this is the intended formula, the value for “x” is not recited.
While not a suggestion of claim language, in the interest of compact prosecution, the formula “[Me1,Me2]xFe2-xO4” is treated as ‘[Me1,Me2]Fe2O4’.
Appropriate correction is required.
c) Claim 18 is a “use” claim. The claim is indefinite because it merely recites a use without any active, positive steps delimiting how this use is actually practiced.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 instant claims contain the transitional phrase “comprising”. Per MPEP 2111.03 ‘The transitional term “comprising”, which is synonymous with “including,” “containing,” or “characterized by,” is inclusive or open-ended and does not exclude additional, unrecited elements or method steps'. This open-ended definition has been taken into consideration in the following rejections.
Claims 1, 2, 5, 9, 11-13, 17-20, 26, 28-30, 32, 36, and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2004/0238796 A1 to Abe.
Regarding claim 1, Abe discloses a composite material comprising (i) ferromagnetic metallic particles, (ii) resistive magnetic particles (para [0018]), wherein either (i) or (ii) is present in the form of core particles and the other of (i) and (ii) is present in the form of coating particles which at least in part coat the core particles (para [0039] and Fig. 1A).
Component (iii), dielectric material or binder, is optional and not required.
Regarding claim 2, Abe discloses the composite material of claim 1, wherein the core particles (1) comprise said ferromagnetic metallic particles and the coating particles (2) comprise said resistive magnetic particles (Fig. 1A and para [0039]).
Regarding claim 5, Abe discloses the composite material of claim 1, wherein essentially all of the coating particles (2) are bound to the core particles (Fig. 1A and para [0064]).
Regarding claim 9, Abe discloses the composite material of claim 1, wherein the ferromagnetic metallic particles have an electrical resistivity of about 100 microOhm-cm (10-7 Ohm-m, para [0030]), which falls completely within the instantly claimed range of about 20 microOhm-cm to about 500 microOhm-cm.
Regarding claim 11, Abe discloses the composite material of claim 1, wherein the ferromagnetic metallic particles comprise a material selected from a group comprising FeSi, FeNi, and FeCo alloys (para [0025]).
Regarding claim 12, Abe discloses the composite material of claim 1, wherein the resistive magnetic particles comprise a material selected from the group consisting of: (i) spinel ferrites of formula [Me1,Me2]Fe2O4, wherein Me1 and Me2 are selected from Mg (para [0030]), Ni, Zn, Fe, Co, and combinations thereof (para [0031]); and (ii) garnet ferrites of formula [Y(Me1a)]3Fe5O12, wherein Me1a is selected from elements of the lanthanide series and combinations thereof (para [0041]).
This rejection is based on the interpretation set forth in para #4b, above.
Regarding claim 13, Abe discloses the composite material of claim 1, wherein the resistive magnetic particles comprise a crystal structure selected from the group consisting of spinel-type (para [0030]-[0031]), garnet-type (para [0041]), and combinations thereof (para [0041]).
Regarding claim 17, Abe discloses an electronic device or component (para [0009] and [0113]) comprising the composite material of claim 1.
Regarding claim 18, Abe discloses use of the composite material of claim 1 in a device selected from the group consisting of an electronic device, an inductor (para [0113]), a transmit and receive module (communication equipment, para [0008]), and an EMI suppressor or absorber (para [0113]).
Claim 18 is a use claim. See para #4c, above.
Regarding claim 19, Abe discloses a method of fabricating a composite material, the material comprising a plurality of core particles, each core particle coated with a plurality of coating particles, the method comprising the steps of:
(a) providing a plurality of core particles and a plurality of coating particles,
wherein the core particles comprise ferromagnetic metallic particles and the coating
particles comprise resistive magnetic particles;
(b) mixing said core particles and said coating particles(para [0040]); and
(c) heating and applying pressure to the mixture from (b) to consolidate and densify the particles (para [0046]).
Annealing step (d) is optional and not required.
Regarding claim 20, Abe discloses the method of claim 19, further comprising forming the mixture from (b) into a desired shape prior to or during (c) (para [0046]).
Regarding claim 26, Abe discloses the method of claim 19, wherein the ferromagnetic metallic particles have an electrical resistivity of about 100 microOhm-cm (10-7 Ohm-m, para [0030]), which falls completely within the instantly claimed range of about 20 microOhm-cm to about 500 microOhm-cm.
Regarding claim 28, Abe discloses the method of claim 19, wherein the ferromagnetic metallic particles comprise a material selected from a group comprising FeSi, FeNi, and FeCo, alloys (para [0025]).
Regarding claim 29, Abe discloses the method of claim 19, wherein the resistive magnetic particles comprise a material selected from the group consisting of: (i) spinel ferrites of formula [Me1,Me2]Fe2O4, wherein Me1 and Me2 are selected from Mg (para [0030]), Ni, Zn, Fe, Co, and combinations thereof (para [0031]); and (ii) garnet ferrites of formula [Y(Me1a)]3Fe5O12, wherein Me1a is selected from elements of the lanthanide series and combinations thereof (para [0041]).
This rejection is based on the interpretation set forth in para #4b, above.
Regarding claim 30, Abe discloses the method of claim 19, wherein the resistive magnetic particles comprise a crystal structure selected from the group consisting of spinel-type (para [0030]-[0031], garnet-type (para [0041]), and combinations thereof (para [0041).
Regarding claim 32, Abe discloses the method of claim 19, wherein in the formed composite material the coating particles cover from 10 to 100 percent of the surface of the core particles (Fig. 1A, 1B, and 1C).
Regarding claim 36, Abe discloses a composite material fabricated by the method of claim 19 (para [0039]).
Regarding claim 37, Abe discloses an electronic device comprising the composite material of claim 36 (para [0113]).
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 instant claims contain the transitional phrase “comprising”. See MPEP 2111.03, cited above. This open-ended definition has been taken into consideration in the following rejections.
Claims 1-4, 6-10, and 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2005/0129775 A1 to Lanphere et al. (hereinafter Lanphere).
Regarding claims 1 and 15, Lanphere discloses a composite material (particle 10) comprising one or more (i) ferromagnetic metallic particles (para [0014]) selected from a group that includes Ni, Co, Fe or alloys thereof, such as Mu metal, and (ii) resistive magnetic particles, such as Ni-Zn-Fe soft ferrite (para [0037]), and (iii) a dielectric material (polymer matrix, para [0035]) in which the particles of (i) and (ii) are embedded (Fig. 1). The reference further discloses that areas B, C, and S of particle 10 comprise a polymer matrix material. One or more ferromagnetic particles are distributed in the core (C), and in coating layers (B) and (S) (Fig. 1 and para [0136]). Therefore either (i) or (ii) is present in the form of core particles (particles in the core) and the other of (i) and (ii) is present in the form of coating particles (particles in the coating layer) which at least in part coat the core particles. Component (iii), dielectric material, while present is optional and not required.
The reference recites all of the magnetic materials as ferromagnetic materials. However, para [0037] expressly recites Ni-Zn-Fe soft ferrite, which is a resistive magnetic material. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the ferrite as a resistive magnetic material and not as ferromagnetic. It would be obvious to select both a ferromagnetic material and a resistive material, particularly a soft ferrite, as the one or more magnetic materials to provide biocompatible magnetic materials (para [0037]) for biomedical applications (para [0002]).
Regarding claim 2, Lanphere discloses the composite material of claim 1, wherein the core particles comprise particles selected from a group comprising said ferromagnetic metallic particles and the coating particles comprise particles selected from a group comprising said resistive magnetic particles (para [0037]). The reference recites this particular arrangement as a preference for MRI contrast agents (para [0165]).
Regarding claim 3, Lanphere discloses the composite material of claim 1, wherein the core particles comprise particles selected from a group comprising said
resistive magnetic particles and the coating particles comprise particles selected from a group comprising said ferromagnetic metallic particles. This arrangement is an obvious alternative to the previously cited arrangement outside of MRI, as long as one or more magnetic materials are biocompatible (para [0037]).
Regarding claim 4, Lanphere discloses the composite material of claim 1, wherein a first portion of the coating particles (in layer B) is bound to the core particles and a second portion (in layer S) of the coating particles is embedded in the dielectric material (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 6, Lanphere discloses the composite material of claim 1, wherein the core particles have a form selected from spheroids (particles or powders), and platelets (flakes), the spheroids having an aspect ratio (longest dimension to thickness) from at least about 2:1 to at most about 20:1, which overlaps the instantly claimed ranges of about 1:1 to about 10:1, and about 10:1 to about 200:1. See MPEP 2144.05(I), which states that ‘In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists’.
Regarding claim 7, Lanphere discloses the composite material of claim 1, wherein the core particles have an average particle size of less than about 40 microns (para [0131]), which overlaps the instantly claimed range of about 50 nm to about 500 micrometers. See MPEP 2144.05(I), cited above.
Regarding claim 8, Lanphere discloses the composite material of claim 1, wherein the coating particles have an average particle size of less than about 40 microns (para [0131]), which overlaps the instantly claimed range of about 5 nm to about 100 micrometers. See MPEP 2144.05(I), cited above.
Regarding claim 9, Lanphere discloses the composite material of claim 1, wherein the ferromagnetic metallic particles (for example, Mu metal, para [0037]) have an electrical resistivity of about 47-60 microOhm-cm, which falls within the instantly claimed range of about 20 microOhm-cm to about 500 microOhm-cm.
Regarding claim 10, Lanphere discloses the composite material of claim 1, wherein the resistive magnetic particles (for example, Ni-Zn-Fe ferrite, para [0037]) have an electrical resistivity from about 106 to 109 Ohm-cm, which overlaps the instantly claimed range of 108 Ohm-cm to about 1012 Ohm-cm. See MPEP 2144.05(I), cited above.
Regarding claim 12, Lanphere discloses the composite material of claim 1, wherein the resistive magnetic particles comprise a material selected from the group consisting of: (i) spinel ferrites of formula [Me1,Me2]Fe2O4, wherein Me1 and Me2 are selected from Ni, Zn, and Fe (para [0037]).
This rejection is based on the interpretation set forth in para #4b, above.
Regarding claim 13, Lanphere discloses the composite material of claim 1, wherein the resistive magnetic particles comprise a spinel-type crystal structure (para [0037]).
Regarding claim 14, Lanphere discloses the composite material of claim 1, wherein the coating particles are present in an amount of about 0.1 to about 90% by weight (para [0130]), which overlaps the instantly claimed range of greater than 0.01 wt-% and less than 2 wt-% based on the weight of the core particles as 100%. See MPEP 2144.05(I), cited above.
Claims 6-8, 10, 14, 16, 21, 22, 24, 25, 27, 31, and 33-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abe.
Regarding claims 6 and 21, Abe discloses the composite material of claim 1 and the method of claim 19, wherein the core particles have a form selected from spheroids (substantially spherical), platelets (discs or flakes)(para [0027]), and fibers (para [0050]), the spheroids having an aspect ratio (longest dimension to thickness) from about 1:1 (substantially spherical, para [0027] or spherical, para [0050]) which overlaps the instantly claimed range of about 1:1 to about to about 10:1. See MPEP 2144.05(I), cited above.
Fig. 1C shows elongated particles but does not expressly disclose that the platelets have an aspect ratio from about 10:1 to about 200:1, or that the fibers have an aspect ratio from about 200:1 to about 1000000:1 or greater. However, Abe does teach that the particles can be deformed to the desired shape by compression forming. It would therefore be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize compression to facilitation formation of platelets and fibers with the optimal aspect ratio for use in the desired frequency range (para [0028]).
This rejection is based on the interpretation set forth in para 4a, above.
Regarding claims 7 and 24, Abe discloses the composite material of claim 1 and the method of claim 19, wherein the core particles have an average particle size of 100 micrometers or less (para [0033]), which overlaps the instantly claimed range of about 50 nm to about 500 micrometers. See MPEP 2144.05(I), cited above.
Regarding claims 8 and 25, Abe discloses the composite material of claim 1 and the method of claim 19, wherein the coating particles have an average particle size of 20 nm or higher (para [0034]), which overlaps the instantly claimed range of about 5 nm to about 100 micrometers. See MPEP 2144.05(I), cited above.
Regarding claims 10 and 27, Abe discloses the composite material of claim 1 and the method of claim 19, wherein the resistive magnetic particles have an electrical resistivity of 107 or higher (para [0030]), which overlaps the instantly claimed range of about 108 Ohm-cm to about 1012 Ohm-cm. See MPEP 2144.05(I), cited above.
Regarding claims 14 and 31, Abe discloses the composite material of claim 1 and the method of claim 19, wherein the coating particles are present in an
amount of at least 1% to at least 50% by volume of the composite magnetic material (para [0032]) but does not expressly disclose coating particles present in an amount of greater than 0.01 wt-% and less than 2 wt-% based on the weight of the core particles as 100%. However, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optime the amount of coating particle to control thickness of the coating layer and ultimately provide the desired electrical resistivity without significantly compromising saturation magnetization (para [0032]).
Regarding claim 16, Abe discloses the composite material of claim 1, wherein the material has a weak loss (para [0028]) but is silent regarding the limitation “wherein the provides a reduction in core loss of at least about 60%, at least about 70%, or at least about 80% compared to a conventional ferromagnetic core when used in an inductor at any frequency from 10kHz to 5 MHz, or from 10kHz to 10 MHz, or from 10kHz to 50 MHz, or from 10kHz to 100MHz. However, the composite material of claim 1 is anticipated by Abe. See MPEP 2112.01(I), which states that ‘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…"When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not."…Therefore, the prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed product’. Abe anticipated the composite material. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect overlapping reductions in core loss under the same conditions, absent evidence to the contrary.
Regarding claim 22, Abe discloses the method of claim 21, wherein the provided core particles are spheroids and the method further comprises deforming the core particles to increase their aspect ratio (Fig. 1C, para [0045], and para [0066]) but fails to expressly disclose that the aspect ratio is increased to a range from about 10:1 to about 200:1. However, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the aspect ratio of the core particles to optimize magnetic properties (para [0066]).
Regarding claim 33, Abe discloses the method of claim 19, further comprising, in another embodiment, providing a dielectric material (dextran) (a) and mixing the dielectric or binder material with the core particles and coating particles in (b) (para [0097]).
Regarding claim 34, Abe discloses the method of claim 33, wherein in the formed composite material (Fig. 5B) the dielectric material (dextran, 4A) partially fills small gaps between coated core particles (1/2A) and additional coating layers (2B, 2C) (via adsorption para [0024] and compression [0097] of a dextran film), and wherein the
dielectric material (4B) comprises unbound coating particles in layer 2C.
Regarding claim 35, Abe discloses the method of claim 33, wherein in the formed composite material the dielectric material or binder material fills gaps between coated core particles (1/2A) and additional coating layers (2B, 2C), and wherein the dielectric material (4A) is essentially devoid of unbound coating particles in layer 2B.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abe in view of US 2005/0074600 A1 to Ma et al. (hereinafter Ma).
Regarding claim 23, Abe discloses the method of claim 22, wherein the deforming comprises subjecting the provided core particles to a mechanical pulverization process (para [0049]) but does not expressly disclose subjecting the core particles to ball milling.
However, Ma does teach a method of making core magnetic particles coated with an insulating magnetic phase (Fig. 22 and para [0044]) wherein the core particles are subjected to ball milling to deform the core particles (para [0065]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to employ the ball milling of Ma as an obvious alternative to the mechanical pulverization of Abe to facilitate large production of large quantities of magnetic materials in a variety of shapes (Ma, para [0065] and Abe, para [0050]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LYNNE EDMONDSON whose telephone number is (571)272-2678. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-6:30.
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.
/L.E./Examiner, Art Unit 1734
/Matthew E. Hoban/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1734