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 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 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 1-10 and 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2013/0169488 A1 to Kum et al. (hereinafter Kum).
Regarding claim 1, Kum discloses a Co₂Y-type ferrite (para [0038] and [0042]), comprising:
oxides of at least Ba, La (M2 is at least one of La and Y), Co, Me (M1), and Fe;
wherein Me (M1) is at least one element selected from the group consisting of Mn, Cu, Ni, and Mg (para [0014]-[0015]).
The Kum ferrite overlaps and encompasses the instantly claimed Co₂Y-type ferrite comprising:
oxides of at least Ba, La, Co, Me, Fe and optionally Ca;
wherein Me is at least Ni and optionally one of more of Zn, Cu, Mn, or Mg.
Note that Ca is optional and not required.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include both La and Ni in the ferrite to provide a composition with the desired combination of mechanical and magnetic properties for use in antennas (para [0094]).
Regarding claims 2 and 3, Kum discloses the Co₂Y-type ferrite of Claim 1, wherein the Co₂Y-type ferrite has a formula
Ba2-pSrpCo2-y-zZnyM1zFe12-qM2qO22 (para [0014]),
wherein M1 is at least one element selected from Mn, Cu, Ni, and Mg, M2 is at least one selected from the group consisting of La and Y, p is about 0 to about 1, q is about 0 to about 1, y is about 0.1 to about 0.9, and z is about 0 to about 0.8.
When p is 0, M1 is at least Ni and M2 is at least La, the formula is
Ba2Co2-y-zZnyNizFe12-qLaqO22, with the aforementioned values of y, z and q, which overlaps the instantly claimed formula, as recited below, when n=0.
Ba1-xLaxCanCo2-y-zMeyFe12-mO22,
wherein x is 0.01 to 0.5, or 0.1 to 0.5; y is 0.01 to 1.5, or 0.1 to 1, or 0.2 to 0.5; z is -0.5 to 0.5, or -0.2 to 0; m is -2 to 2, or 0.1 to 0.5; and n is 0 to 0.5; or 0.01 to 0.5. 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 4, Kum discloses the Co₂Y-type ferrite of Claim 1, wherein the Co₂Y-type ferrite has a D₅₀ (average) particle size of about 0.5 to about 3 micrometers (para [0058]), which overlaps the instantly claimed range of 2 to 10 micrometers. See MPEP 2144.05(I), cited above.
Regarding claim 5, Kum discloses the Co₂Y-type ferrite of Claim 1, but is silent regarding porosity, particularly wherein the Co₂Y-type ferrite has a porosity of 0 to 50 volume percent based on the total volume of the Co₂Y-type ferrite. However, the ferrite products overlap, as discussed above and are made by overlapping methods, as discussed below. 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’. The ferrites overlap and are made by overlapping methods. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the Kum ferrite to have overlapping properties, including but not limited to overlapping porosity, absent evidence to the contrary.
Regarding claim 6, Kum discloses the Co₂Y-type ferrite of Claim 1, wherein the Co₂Y-type ferrite has a relative magnetic permeability of 2 or greater over a bandwidth of 100 MHz to 3 GHz (para [0041]), which overlaps the instantly claimed range of greater than or equal to 3 over the frequency range of 1 to 2 GHz. See MPEP 2144.05(I), cited above.
Regarding claim 7, Kum discloses the Co₂Y-type ferrite of Claim 1, wherein the Co₂Y-type ferrite has a magnetic loss of less than or equal to 0.9 over a bandwidth of 100 MHz to 3 GHz (para [0041]), which overlaps the instantly claimed range of less than or equal to 0.75 over the frequency range of 1 to 2 GHz. See MPEP 2144.05(I), cited above.
Regarding claim 8, Kum discloses the Co₂Y-type ferrite of Claim 1, wherein the Co₂Y-type ferrite has a permittivity of less than or equal to 9 over the frequency range of 1 to 2 GHz (Fig. 5), which falls within the instantly claimed range of less than or equal to 9 over the frequency range of 1 to 2 GHz.
Regarding claim 9, Kum discloses the Co₂Y-type ferrite of Claim 1, wherein the Co₂Y-type ferrite has a dielectric loss of less than or equal to about 0.02 over the frequency range of 1 to 2 GHz (Fig. 6), which overlaps the instantly claimed range of less than or equal to 0.01 over the frequency range of 1 to 2 GHz. See MPEP 2144.05(I), cited above.
Regarding claim 10, Kum discloses a composite comprising a polymer and the Co₂Y-type ferrite of Claim 1 (para [0013]).
Regarding claim 13, Kum discloses the composite of Claim 10, wherein the composite has a permeability of greater than or equal to 1.5 (2 or greater) over the frequency range of 1 to 2 GHz (para [0041]).
Regarding claim 14, Kum discloses the composite of Claim 10, wherein the composite comprises about 40 to 80 wt% of the ferrite (magnetic substance, para [0084]), which is expected to overlap at least a portion of the instantly claimed range of 5 to 95 volume percent of the Co₂Y-type ferrite based on the total volume of the composite. See MPEP 2144.05(I), cited above. It would also be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the volume of ferrite in the composite to facilitate formation of miniaturized antennas with the desired properties (para [0084]).
Regarding claim 15, Kum discloses the composite of Claim 10, but is silent regarding porosity, particularly wherein the composite has a porosity of 0 to 45 volume percent based on the total volume of the composite. However, see MPEP 2112.01(I), cited above. The composites overlap, as discussed above, and are made by overlapping methods, as discussed below. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the Kum composite to have overlapping properties including but not limited to overlapping porosity, absent evidence to the contrary. It would also be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize porosity to use the ferrite in communication applications (para [0084]).
Regarding claims 16 and 17, Kum discloses an article comprising the Co₂Y-type ferrite of Claim 1, wherein the article is an antenna (para [0020]).
Regarding claim 18, Kum discloses a method of making a Co₂Y-type ferrite comprising:
milling ferrite precursor compounds comprising oxides of at least Ba, La, Co, Me, and Fe, wherein Me includes Ni and optionally another divalent element to form a magnetic oxide mixture (para [0049]-[0051]); and
calcining the magnetic oxide mixture to form the Co₂Y-type ferrite (para [0056).
The reference is silent regarding a particular calcining atmosphere. Therefore, calcining is presumed to occur in an air atmosphere, absent evidence to the contrary.
Regarding claim 19, Kum discloses the method of Claim 18, wherein the calcining the magnetic oxide mixture occurs at a calcining temperature of about 800 to 1,000°C (para [0056]), which overlaps the instantly claimed range of 800 to 1,300°C for a calcining time of about 1 to about 10 hours (para [0057]), which falls within the instantly claimed range of 0.5 to 20 hours. See MPEP 2144.05(I), cited above.
Regarding claim 20, Kum discloses the method of Claim 18, further comprising forming a composite comprising the Co₂Y-type ferrite and a polymer (para [0086]).
Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kum in view of US 2002/0039667 A1 to Takaya et al. (hereinafter Takaya).
Regarding claim 11, Kum discloses the composite of Claim 10, wherein the polymer comprises a thermoplastic polymer selected from a group that includes polyphenylenes and polycarbonates (para [0081]) but does not expressly recite the polymer comprising at least one of a paraffin wax, polytetrafluoroethylene, a polyethylene, a polypropylene, polyolefin, a polyurethane, a silicone polymer, a liquid crystalline polymer, poly(ether ether ketone), or poly(phenylene sulfide).
However, Takaya does teach a composite material, such as an antenna (para [0124]), comprising at least one thermoplastic resin (para [0123]) and a magnetic material (para [0122]). The resin is selected from a group that includes polycarbonates, fluororesins, and polyphenylenes, particularly polyphenylene sulfides as obvious variants (para [0198]). The magnetic material is selected from a group that includes hexagonal ferrites (para [0196]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to employ the polyphenylene sulfide resin of Takaya as an obvious alternative to the phenylene resin of Kum in the ferrite composite to facilitate molding antennas with the desired size and shape (para [0087]) while maintaining magnetic (Kum, para [0094]) and mechanical properties (Kum, para [0085]).
Regarding claim 12, Kum discloses the composite of Claim 10, wherein the polymer comprises a thermoplastic polymer selected from a group that includes polyphenylenes and polycarbonates (para [0081]) but does not expressly recite the polymer comprising polytetrafluoroethylene or poly(phenylene sulfide).
However, Takaya does teach a composite material, such as an antenna (para [0124]), comprising at least one thermoplastic resin (para [0123]) and a magnetic material (para [0122]). The resin is selected from a group that includes polycarbonates, fluororesins, and polyphenylenes, particularly polyphenylene sulfides as obvious variants (para [0198]). The magnetic material is selected from a group that includes hexagonal ferrites (para [0196]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to employ the polyphenylene sulfide resin of Takaya as an obvious alternative to the phenylene resin of Kum in the ferrite composite to facilitate molding antennas with the desired size and shape (para [0087]) while maintaining magnetic (Kum, para [0094]) and mechanical properties (Kum, para [0085]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 5, filed 4/1/26, with respect to the claim objection have been fully considered and are persuasive. The most recent amendment to the claim resolves the issue.
Therefore, the objection to claim 19 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 5, filed 4/1/26, with respect to the 112 rejection have been fully considered and are persuasive. The formula of claim 3 limits Me to Ni.
Therefore, the 112(b) rejection of claim 3 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 4/1/26, regarding Kum, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Kum does not teach a Co2 Y-type ferrite comprising both La and Ni. However, the reference expressly discloses
Ba2-pSrpCo2-y-zZnyM1zFe12-qM2qO22 (para [0014]),
wherein M1 is at least one element selected from Mn, Cu, Ni, and Mg, M2 is at least one selected from the group consisting of La and Y. This is a formula that comprises both La and Ni. M1 is at least one of a closed group of 4 elements that includes Ni. M2 is at least one of a closed group of 2 elements that includes La. Therefore, the reference does suggest a Co2 Y-type ferrite comprising both La and Ni.
Applicant also argues that the reference teaches myriad options with only one option being M2 as La rather than Y. However, M2 as La is one of two options, the other option being M2 as Y.
Applicant further argues that for La to present q must not be 0. However, the reference states that q is from about 0 to 1 in para [0015], [0016], [0019], [0039], [0047], [0077], [0089], and claims 1, 7 and 14. This is about 10 different places stating that q can be more than 0.
Applicant argues that among a myriad of options M1 must be Ni rather than Mn, Cu, or Mg. However, the reference teaches that M1 is at least one of Ni, Mn, Cu, and Mg. Therefor, Ni can be present in every iteration. When only one element M1 is present, there is a 1 in 4 chance that the element is Ni. Four is a small, finite number.
Applicant also argues that to arrive at the instant composition, z in the reference cannot be 0. However, the reference teaches that z is from 0 to about 0.8 in para [0015], [0016], [0019], [0039], [0047], [0077], [0089], and claims 1, 7 and 14. This is about 10 different places stating that z can be more than 0.
The formula Ba2-pSrpCo2-y-zZnyM1zFe12-qM2qO22 (para [0014]), wherein M1 is at least one element selected from Mn, Cu, Ni, and Mg, M2 is at least one selected from the group consisting of La and Y, p is about 0 to about 1, q is about 0 to about 1, y is about 0.1 to about 0.9, and z is about 0 to about 0.8 (para [0015]) teaches a closed, finite system with a limited number of options for a Co2 Y-type ferrite with overlapping amounts of Ba, La, Co, Ni, and Fe. Also note that Mn, Cu and Mg are also allowed as optional elements in combination with Ni as M2 elements. Therefore, the reference does teach overlapping formulas comprising both La and Ni.
Applicant also argues that the examples in Kum do not expressly disclose compositions comprising both La and Ni. However, the reference is not limited to the examples. The rejections are based on the broad teachings of the reference, as discussed above. See MPEP 2123 regarding rejections over prior art’s broad disclosure instead of preferred embodiments.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Applicant further argues that beneficial results are associated with the claimed Co2 Y-type ferrite including both La and Ni. However, as discussed above, Kum does teach an overlapping Co2 Y-type ferrite including both La and Ni.
Therefore, the 103 rejection of claims 1-10 and 13-20 as obvious over Kum stands.
The 103 rejection of claims 11 and 12 as obvious over Kum in view of Takaya also stands.
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 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
Prosecution Insights