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 .
Status of Claims
Applicant’s amendments dated 11/7/25 have been entered. Claims 21 and 40 have been amended.
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.
Claims 21-24, 27-32, 34, 38, 39, 41, and 43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Pousthomis et al. (US 2018/0348577).
Regarding claims 21-24, 28, and 38, Pousthomis teaches a composite article, such as a waveguide, (Pousthomis para 70, 897) formed from a ferrite nanoparticle (item 3), such as garnet, and a polymer surrounding medium (item 71), such as a curable epoxy or urethane, or a thermoplastic, such as poly(methyl methacrylate) (PMMA) or polycarbonate (Pousthomis para 421, 422, 430-432, 916-925). This composite material may be considered a ‘feedstock’ (Pousthomis para 922-925). Finally, the feedstock of Pousthomis may be arranged to provide a 3D geometry with a planned refractive index (Pousthomis para 70; fig 8, 9).
As these are the same materials as claimed, it would be expected to possess the same behavior and properties, such as having a refractive index for radio-frequency radiation. It is respectfully noted that Applicant does not claim a specific structure or refractive index at a specific frequency. 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.
Regarding claim 27, Pousthomis teaches a composite article as above for claim 24. Pousthomis further teaches that the plurality of ferrite nanoparticles may be surface-functionalized (Pousthomis para 191, 309-311).
Regarding claims 29, 30, 32, 41, 43, Pousthomis teaches a composite article as above for claim 21. Pousthomis further teaches that the polymeric surrounding medium, as above curable epoxy or urethane, thermoplastic PMMA or polycarbonate, may also be utilized as an auxiliary (support) material (Pousthomis para 811-814, 1351, 1355) that is ‘arranged on/around’ the ferrite-and-polymer feedstock as a layer (Pousthomis para 1345-1347). Further, this layer may comprise none of the ferrite particles such that the auxiliary layer does not absorb any incident light (Pousthomis para 1346). As these are the same materials as the ferrite-and-polymer feedstock they are considered to be “chemically compatible” with each other. Further, as one layer has the ferrite and one does not, this defines a local concentration change in the ferrite loading and a gradient in the three dimensions, as well as defining a non-ferrite portion of the ferrite-and-polymer material (Pousthomis para 1346, 814).
Regarding claim 31, Pousthomis teaches a composite article as above for claim 30. Pousthomis further teaches that the cured/curable polymer may be a photocurable polymer, such as UV curable (Pousthomis para 923-924).
Regarding claim 34, Pousthomis teaches a composite article as above for claim 32. Pousthomis further teaches that the support/auxiliary materials may be arranged in a pattern with regions of different populations of particles (Pousthomis para 993-998).
Regarding claim 39, Pousthomis teaches a composite article as above for claim 21. Pousthomis further teaches that the composite article may have the shape of a tube (i.e. curved) (Pousthomis para 1237, 1239, 1323).
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.
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 25, 26, 33, and 42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pousthomis et al. (US 2018/0348577), as above for claim 24.
Regarding claim 25, Pousthomis teaches a composite article as above for claim 24. Pousthomis further teaches that the amount of ferrite-containing particles is 95 wt% or less (Pousthomis para 1225). While Pousthomis does not explicitly teach 1-50 vol%, up to 95 wt% substantially overlaps with the claimed range when converted to volume%.
Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would have considered the invention to have been obvious because the amount of ferrite-containing particles taught by Pousthomis overlaps with the instantly claimed amount of ferrite-containing particles and therefore is considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any portion of the disclosed ranges including the instantly claimed ranges from the ranges disclosed in the prior art reference, see MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 26, Pousthomis teaches a composite article as above for claim 24. Applicant’s specification provides an example of 20-100 nm for ferrites at As-Published paragraph 34. Pousthomis teaches that the ferrite particles may be from 5 nm to 100 nm, inclusive (Pousthomis para 114-115). Therefore, Pousthomis teaches at least that overlapping particle sizes for the ferrites, which provides for “a size corresponding to a single magnetic domain.”
Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would have considered the invention to have been obvious because the size of ferrite particles taught by Pousthomis overlaps with the instantly claimed size of ferrite particles and therefore is considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any portion of the disclosed ranges including the instantly claimed ranges from the ranges disclosed in the prior art reference, see MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 33, Pousthomis teaches a composite article as above for claim 32. Pousthomis further teaches that the concentration of the ferritic particles in the surrounding medium may be 95 wt% or less (Pousthomis para 1225). This provides for embodiments where the concentration change between the layers will be greater than 1%.
Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would have considered the invention to have been obvious because the change in concentration taught by Pousthomis overlaps with the instantly claimed change in concentration and therefore is considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any portion of the disclosed ranges including the instantly claimed ranges from the ranges disclosed in the prior art reference, see MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 42, Pousthomis teaches a composite article as above for claim 29. Pousthomis teaches that acrylonitriles and styrenes may be used as the polymeric material (Pousthomis 937-939). While Pousthomis doesn’t explicitly put acrylonitrile-butadiene-styrene in this grouping, Pousthomis does teach that acrylonitrile-butadiene-styrene is an appropriate polymer for use at paragraph 623.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 35-37, and 40 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.
Regarding claim 35, Pousthomis does not teach the claimed feature requiring that the patterned matrix has gaps that vary impedance.
Regarding claim 36, Pousthomis does not teach gaps as above, and further does not teach that they are less than one-tenth of a wavelength.
Regarding claim 37, Pousthomis does not teach that the composite article is a millimeter or radio-frequency lens.
Regarding claim 40, Pousthomis does not teach the claimed A, B, or C sandwich structures comprising the claimed first and second homogenous dielectric materials.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s argument, see Remarks page 9, filed 11/7/25, with respect to the 112(b) of claim 40 has been fully considered and are persuasive. The 112(b) rejection of claim 40 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 11/7/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on pages 10 and 11 and again on page 11 that the prior art of record does not teach ‘a desired impedance or refractive index for a radio-frequency radiation.’
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As noted in the rejection, above, as these are the same materials as claimed, it would be expected to possess the same behavior and properties, such as having a refractive index for radio-frequency radiation. It is respectfully noted that Applicant does not claim a specific structure or refractive index at a specific frequency. 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.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 LAURA B FIGG whose telephone number is (571)272-9882. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9a-6p Mountain.
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, Frank Vineis can be reached at (571) 270-1547. 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.B.F/Examiner, Art Unit 1781 1/10/2026
/ALICIA J WEYDEMEYER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1781