CTFR 18/127,707 CTFR 93902 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Response to Amendments and Status of Claims Applicant’s amendments to the claims, filed February 2, 2026, are acknowledged. Claim 1 is amended. No new matter has been added. Claims 5-6 remain withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, Group II, directed to a production method, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely elected in the reply filed October 9, 2025. Claims 1-6 are pending, and Claims 1-4 are currently considered in this office action. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA 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. 07-20-02-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over in view of Yamazaki043 (previously cited, US 20050282043 A) in view of Chen (previously cited, CN 114195498 A, see updated English machine translation) . Regarding Claim 1 , Yamazaki043 discloses a hexagonal ferrite powder comprising at least one of Ba, Sr and Ca, and wherein Fe may be substituted with a metal element to adjust coercivity, specifically with 0.004-0.045at% (mol%) of one tetravalent element and optionally further 0.004-0.045at% of a divalent metal element (para. [0011]-[0013]; para. [0022]-[0025]; para. [0028]; [0033]). Thus, Yamakazi043 discloses a total content of Fe site substituting element (mol)/[Fe content (mol)] ranging from 0.004-0.045 when including a tetravalent substituting element, and 0.008-0.090 when including both a tetravalent substituting element and a divalent element, which overlaps and reads on the claimed range of 0.001-0.06. Yamazaki043 further discloses an average tabular diameter of 15-30nm (a-axis) and an average tabular ratio (a-axis to c-axis ratio) of 3.0-4.9, which equates to a Dx volume of 541-7069 nm3 and overlaps the claimed range of 2200 nm3 or less. Yamazaki043 fails to disclose wherein the amounts of Sr and Ba satisfy a molar ratio Sr/(Ba+Sr) of 0.01-0.15, as claimed. Chen teaches wherein a hexagonal barium ferrite comprising Ba1-x-y, wherein x is 0.03-0.2 Ca and y is 0.03-0.2 Sr, in order to reduce distortion in the crystal lattice and enhance alignment of magnetic moments, thereby stabilizing magnetic domain structure and achieving superior magnetic properties, including a high remanence of 4100 Gs (Abstract; para. [0032]-[0033]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included 0.03-0.2 Ca and 0.03-0.2 Sr, based on one mol of Ba, as taught by Chen, for the invention disclosed by Yamakazi043, in order to reduce distortion in the crystal lattice and enhance alignment of magnetic moments, thereby stabilizing magnetic domain structure and achieving superior magnetic properties, including a high remanence of 4100 Gs (see teaching above). The values taught by Chen equate to a Sr/(Ba+Sr) range of 0.031-0.25, and reads and overlaps the claimed range of 0.01-0.015. Regarding the Fe substitution element/Fe ratio range, the Dx volume range, and the Sr/(Ba+Sr) ratio range, in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP § 2144.05.I . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over in view of Yamazaki043 (previously cited, US 20050282043 A) in view of Chen (previously cited, CN 114195498 A, see updated English machine translation), as applied to Claim 1 above, in further view of Masada (previously cited, US 20150123026 A1) . Regarding Claim 4 , Yamazaki043 fails to disclose wherein Bi is contained, and does not disclose the claimed Bi/Fe molar ratio of 0.005-0.05. Masada teaches wherein a hexagonal ferrite comprises a Bi/Fe ratio of 2.5-6% or more (0.025 or more and 0.06 or less) in order to reduce particle size and enhance magnetic characteristics (Abstract; para. [0013]; para. [0026]), which reads on the claimed range of 0.005-0.05. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included Bi and in a ratio Bi/Fe of 2.5-6% (0.025-0.06), which reads on the claimed range of 0.005-0.05, as taught by Masada, for the invention disclosed by Yamazaki043, in order to reduce particle size and enhance magnetic characteristics (see teaching above). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP § 2144.05.I . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kinoshita (previously cited, JP 01-035901 A, English Machine Translation provided) in view of Hattori (previously cited, US 20110175014 A), Yamazaki969 (previously cited, US 20030072969) and Shirata (previously cited, US 20150187380 A) . Regarding Claim 2 , Kinoshita discloses a hexagonal barium strontium ferrite powder comprising the formula Ba1-ySryFe12-2xMxM'xO19, wherein y is 0.03-0.80 and equates to Sr/(Sr+Ba) is 0.03-0.80, which reads on the claimed range of 0.01-0.30 (Abstract and para. (0020]). Kinoshita is silent towards the magnetocrystalline anisotropy constant (Ku), and therefore does not disclose the claimed relationship wherein Ku≥ 0.1*(Sr/(Ba+Sr))+0.13. Hattori teaches wherein a hexagonal ferrite magnetic powder comprises a constant of crystal magnetic anisotropy 5x10 -1 -J/cc (5x10 -1 MJ/m3) or more in order to achieve high thermal stability (para. [0055]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have had a crystal magnetic anisotropy (Ku) of 5x10 -1 -J/cc or more, which equates to 5x10 -1 MJ/m3 or more, as taught by Hattori, for the invention disclosed by Kinoshita, in order to obtain a high thermal stability. One of ordinary skill in the art will appreciate that a crystal magnetic anisotropy (Ku) 5x10 -1 MJ/m3 or more reads on the claimed relationship wherein Ku ≥ 0.1*(Sr/(Ba+Sr))+0.13. For example, a Sr/(Ba+Sr) of 0.03, as disclosed by Kinoshita (see Abstract and para. (0020]), equates to a 0.1*(Sr/(Ba+Sr))+0.13 value of 0.133, which is less than or equal to the Ku value of 0.5 or more. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP § 2144.05.I. Kinoshita fails to disclose the claimed particle volume Dx. Yamazaki969 teaches wherein the particle diameter to thickness ratio is preferably 1-15 in order to produce a particle volume preferably 1000-10,000 nm3, thereby balancing improved packing density with orientation while further balancing for noise (para. [0033]). Shirata teaches a hexagonal barium strontium ferrite powder comprising a crystallite diameter (a-axis direction) of 10-25nm in order to balance thermal fluctuations affecting the stability of the magnetization with noise and reductions to the SNR (Abstract; para. [0013]; M-type; para. [0064]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have comprised a diameter to thickness ratio of 1-15, as taught by Yamazaki696, and an a-axis diameter size of 10-25nm, as taught by Shirata, thereby comprising a particle volume Dx of 1000-10000nm3, which overlaps the claimed range of 2200nm3 or less, as taught by Yamazaki696, for the invention disclosed by Kinoshita. One would be motivated to comprise powder with these sizes in order to improve packing density while balancing for orientation characteristics and for noise (see teachings by Yamazaki696 above in regards to diameter/thickness ratio), and in order to balance thermal fluctuations affecting the stability of the magnetization with noise and the SNR (see teachings by Shirata above regarding particle diameter size). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP § 2144.05.I. Additionally, for example, a crystallite diameter of 20nm, with a tabular ratio of 5 (a-axis diameter to c-axis thickness ratio), would comprise a Dx volume of 1257 nm3, which further reads on the parameters required by Yamazaki (Dx of at least 1000nm3, tabular ratio 1-15) and Shirata (diameter of 10-25nm), and overlaps the claimed Dx of 2200nm3 or less. Regarding Claim 3 , Kinoshita discloses Ba1-ySryFe12-2xMxM'xO19, wherein y is 0.03-0.80 and equates to Sr/(Sr+Ba) is 0.03-0.80, which reads on the claimed range of 0.01-0.15 (Abstract and para. (0020]) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 2-3 are alternatively rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kinoshita (previously cited, JP 01-035901 A, English Machine Translation provided) in view of Hattori (previously cited, US 20110175014 A) and Yamazaki043 (previously cited, US 20050282043 A) . Regarding Claim 2 , Kinoshita discloses a hexagonal barium strontium ferrite powder comprising the formula Ba1-ySryFe12-2xMxM'xO19, wherein y is 0.03-0.80 and equates to Sr/(Sr+Ba) is 0.03-0.80, which reads on the claimed range of 0.01-0.30 (Abstract and para. (0020]). Kinoshita is silent towards the magnetocrystalline anisotropy constant (Ku), and therefore does not disclose the claimed relationship wherein Ku≥ 0.1*(Sr/(Ba+Sr))+0.13. Hattori teaches wherein an hexagonal ferrite magnetic powder comprises a constant of crystal magnetic anisotropy 5x10 -1 -J/cc (5x10 -1 MJ/m3) or more in order to achieve high thermal stability (para. [0055]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have had a crystal magnetic anisotropy (Ku) of 5x10 -1 -J/cc or more, which equates to 5x10 -1 MJ/m3 or more, as taught by Hattori, for the invention disclosed by Kinoshita, in order to obtain a high thermal stability. One of ordinary skill in the art will appreciate that a crystal magnetic anisotropy (Ku) 5x10 -1 MJ/m3 or more reads on the claimed relationship wherein Ku ≥ 0.1*(Sr/(Ba+Sr))+0.13. For example, a Sr/(Ba+Sr) of 0.03, as disclosed by Kinoshita (see Abstract and para. (0020]), equates to a 0.1*(Sr/(Ba+Sr))+0.13 value of 0.133, which is less than or equal to the Ku value of 0.5 or more. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP § 2144.05.I. Kinoshita fails to disclose the claimed particle volume Dx. Yamazaki043 teaches wherein a diameter of the magnetic powder 15-30nm, in order to balance sufficient magnetic characteristics with noise, while obtaining the required SN ratio for a magnetic recording medium and a tabular ratio (diameter to thickness ratio) is 3.0-4.9, in order to balance magnetic characteristics and noise reduction with the powder packing ratio. One of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that these parameters comprise a Dx particle volume of 541-7,069 nm3, which reads on the claimed range of 2200nm3 or less. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have comprised a particle diameter (a-axis diameter) of 15-30nm and diameter to thickness ratio of 3-4.9, and therefore a particle volume Dx of 541-7,069nm3, which overlaps the claimed range of 2200nm3 or less, as taught by Yamazaki043, for the invention disclosed by Kinoshita. One would be motivated to comprise powder with these sizes in order to balance sufficient magnetic characteristics with noise reduction, while obtaining the required SN ratio for a magnetic recording medium, and to balance for the powder packing ratio. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP § 2144.05.I. Regarding Claim 3 , Kinoshita discloses Ba1-ySryFe12-2xMxM'xO19, wherein y is 0.03-0.80 and equates to Sr/(Sr+Ba) is 0.03-0.80, which reads on the claimed range of 0.01-0.15 (Abstract and para. (0020]) . Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments, filed February 20, 2026, with respect to Claims 1 and 4 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Kinoshita in view of Yamazaki969 and Shirata, and alternatively over Kinoshita in view of Yamazaki043, have been fully considered and are persuasive in view of Applicant’s amendments to the claims further limiting the composition and the amount of Fe substituting element. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Yamazaki043 in view of Chen, as detailed above. Applicant’s arguments directed to Claim 1 are deemed moot in view of the new grounds of rejection. Applicant’s arguments, filed February 20, 2026, with respect to Claims 2-3, rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Kinoshita in view of Hattori, Yamazaki969 and Shirata, and alternatively over Kinoshita in view of Hattori and Yamazaki043, have been fully considered but are respectfully not found persuasive. Regarding Kinoshita and Shirata: Applicant argues that Shirata and Kinoshita comprise different Sr/(Ba+Sr) ratios (0.6-0.95) and therefore the teachings of crystallite diameter size by Shirata cannot be applied to Kinoshita (Remarks, Pg. 6-7). This argument is not found persuasive. Shirata discloses wherein a particular amount of Ba is required in relationship to Fe for achieving the particle size distribution, but does not disclose wherein the amount of Ba to Sr ratio affects achieving the claimed particle sizes, or that the benefits of the particle size are dependent on the Ba/Sr ratio of the hexagonal ferrite. Additionally, it appears the Ba to Sr ratios are merely preferred embodiments because Shirata uses the language “desirably” and “preferably” in reference to the amounts of Ba to Sr (see para. [0065]). Applicant argues that Kinoshita does not teach the total content limitation (referring to the amount of Fe substitutional element) (Remarks, Pg. 9). This argument is not found persuasive. The feature is not currently claimed in the recitation of Claim 2. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., amount of Fe substitutional element to Fe ratio) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). 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). Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Raghuram (Magnetic properties of hydrothermally synthesized Ba1–xSrxFe12O19 (x = 0.0–0.8) nanomaterials) : teaches a barium strontium hexaferrite (BSFO) having varying amounts of Sr substitutions and a particle size of 7-28nm (Abstract). An (Magnetic properties of Ba1 xSrxFe12O19 grown by a sol–gel method): teaches a barium strontium hexaferrite (BSFO) having varying amounts of Sr substitutions and a hexagonal platelet particle shape comprising a size of 80-85nm (Abstract, Pg. 414, Col. 1, para. 2). 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 CATHERINE P SMITH whose telephone number is (303)297-4428. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00-4:00 MT. 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, Keith Walker can be reached at (571)-272-3458. 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. CATHERINE P. SMITH Patent Examiner Art Unit 1735 /CATHERINE P SMITH/Examiner, Art Unit 1735 /KEITH WALKER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1735 Application/Control Number: 18/127,707 Page 2 Art Unit: 1735 Application/Control Number: 18/127,707 Page 3 Art Unit: 1735 Application/Control Number: 18/127,707 Page 4 Art Unit: 1735 Application/Control Number: 18/127,707 Page 5 Art Unit: 1735 Application/Control Number: 18/127,707 Page 6 Art Unit: 1735 Application/Control Number: 18/127,707 Page 7 Art Unit: 1735 Application/Control Number: 18/127,707 Page 8 Art Unit: 1735 Application/Control Number: 18/127,707 Page 9 Art Unit: 1735 Application/Control Number: 18/127,707 Page 10 Art Unit: 1735 Application/Control Number: 18/127,707 Page 11 Art Unit: 1735 Application/Control Number: 18/127,707 Page 12 Art Unit: 1735 Application/Control Number: 18/127,707 Page 13 Art Unit: 1735
Prosecution Insights