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 .
Specification
It is noted that there are two copies of the instant specification. They appear to be identical except for spacing and page numbering. Please indicate the preferred copy should there be a difference beyond formatting.
Claim Objections
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: The claim contains the phrase “comprise are particles” in ln 3 of the claim. This appears to be a typographical error. This phrase is treated as ‘are 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 1-22 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. Claim 1, ln 8 recites a loss tan δε of less than 0.1 and ln 9 recites a loss δµ of less than 0.1 but fails to recite the frequency range or ranges that correspond to these loss ranges. This renders the claim indefinite.
While not a suggestion of claim language, in the interest of compact prosecution, the frequency range of 50 MHz to 4 GHz will be searched to correspond with the claimed loss ranges. Applicant cites this range as favored at the top of page 22 of the disclosure (marked 1/2). Claims 2-22 are ultimately dependent from claim 1.
Appropriate correction is required.
b. Claim 3 recites a ferrite having formula NiaZn(1-a)Fe2O4, which renders the claim indefinite. The variable “a” is not defined.
While not a suggestion of claim language, in the interest of compact prosecution, the variable “a” is defined as 0 > a < 1.
Appropriate correction is required.
c. Claim 12 recites a polymer having a tan δε < 0.02, which renders the claim indefinite. The claim fails to recite the corresponding frequency range.
While not a suggestion of claim language, in the interest of compact prosecution, the frequency range of 50 MHz to 4 GHz will be searched to correspond with this loss range.
Appropriate correction is required.
d. Claim 13 recites a polymer having a tan δε < 0.01, which renders the claim indefinite. The claim fails to recite the corresponding frequency range.
While not a suggestion of claim language, in the interest of compact prosecution, the frequency range of 50 MHz to 4 GHz will be searched to correspond with this loss range.
Appropriate correction is required.
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”. 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 1-7, 12-17, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 1070779414 A to Sethumadhavan et al. (hereinafter Sethumadhavan), using a machine translation.
Regarding claim 1, Sethumadhavan discloses a magnetodielectric polymer composite (substrate) with a matrix comprised of one or more apolar polymers accommodating dispersed particles having soft-magnetic properties (para [0007]) and a mean particle size d50 of 0.01 µm (10 nm) to 10 µm (para [0047]), which overlaps the instantly claimed range of 0.05 to 10 µm,
wherein the particles having soft-magnetic properties are surrounded by amphiphilic hyperbranched spacer molecules ((2-aminoethyl)-3-aminopropyltrimethoxysilane (para [0046]), with the magnetodielectric polymer composite having a dielectric attenuation loss tan δε of ≤ 0.1 in the range of 0 to 500 MHz (para [0055]), which overlaps the instantly claimed range of less than 0.1, and has a magnetic attenuation loss tan δµ of ≤ 0.05 in the range of 0 to 500 MHz (para [0054]), which overlaps the instantly claimed range of less than 0.1. 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’. The reference is silent regarding the limitation “a refractive index n increased by comparison with a magnetodielectric polymer composite without amphiphilic hyperbranched spacer molecules, the refractive index n being defined as:
PNG
media_image1.png
74
430
media_image1.png
Greyscale
where ε’ is the permittivity and µ' is the magnetic permeability of the magnetodielectric polymer composite”.
However, the reference does teach an overlapping composite comprising overlapping magnetic particles of an overlapping size coated with an overlapping amphiphilic material and dispersed in an overlapping polymer matrix. The composite also has overlapping dielectric loss and magnetic loss. 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 composites overlap and have overlapping dielectric and magnetic properties. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the Sethumadhavan composite to have overlapping permittivity and permeability, absent evidence to the contrary, which would lead to an overlapping refractive index as defined by equation 1, above. As the refractive indices are expected to overlap, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the Sethumadhavan composite to have a refractive index n increased by comparison with a magnetodielectric polymer composite without amphiphilic hyperbranched spacer molecules, absent evidence to the contrary.
This rejection is based on the interpretation set forth in para 5a, above.
Regarding claim 2, Sethumadhavan discloses the magnetodielectric polymer composite according to Claim 1, wherein the particles having soft-magnetic properties comprise ceramic or metal oxide compounds containing the elements cobalt, iron, manganese and/or nickel (para [0043]).
Regarding claim 3, Sethumadhavan discloses the magnetodielectric polymer composite according to Claim 2, wherein the particles having soft-magnetic properties are particles of Z type cobalt hexaferrite having a formula Ba3Co2Fe24O41, nickel zinc ferrite having a general formula NiaZn(1-a)Fe2O4 and/or magnetite (Fe3O4) (para [0043]).
This rejection is based on the interpretation set forth in para 5b, above.
Regarding claim 4, Sethumadhavan discloses the magnetodielectric polymer composite according to Claim 1, wherein the particles having soft-magnetic properties
are microscale/submicron spinel ferrites that are Ni-Zn ferrites (para [0043])
having a mean particle size d₅₀ of 0.01 µm (10 nm) to 10 µm (para [0047], size of all magnetic particles), which overlaps the instantly claimed range of 0.1 to 10.0 µm, or microscale/submicron hexaferrites that are Co₂Z type having a formula Ba₃Co₂Fe₂₄O₄₁ (para [0043]) and a mean particle size d50 of 0.01 µm to 10 µm (para [0047]), which overlaps the instantly claimed range of 0.1 to 10.0 µm, or a submicron/nanoscale. magnetite having a formula Fe₃O₄ and a mean particle size d50 of 0.01 µm to 10 µm (para [0047]), which overlaps the instantly claimed range of 0.05 to 10.0 µm. See MPEP 2144.05(I), cited above.
Regarding claim 5, Sethumadhavan discloses the magnetodielectric polymer composite according to Claim 1, wherein the particles having soft-magnetic properties
include a mixture with differing composition (at least one of the listed magnetic materials, para [0043]) and differing mean particle size d50 (mixture can contain both nano and micro-sized particles, para [0047]), the mean particle size d50 of the particles each of the same composition differing by at least 1 µm from those of different composition (by an order of magnitude, which differs by at least 1 µm). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the combination of magnetic materials and particle sizes to provide the desired combination of magnetic, thermomechanical, and electrical properties for the intended application (para [0004]-[0005]).
Regarding claim 6, Sethumadhavan discloses the magnetodielectric polymer composite according to Claim 5, wherein the mean particle size d50 of the particles each of the same composition differ by at least 2 µm (para [0047], different sizes, as discussed above) from those of different composition (para [0043], different magnetic materials, as discussed above). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the combination of magnetic materials and particle sizes to provide the desired combination of magnetic, thermomechanical, and electrical properties for the intended application (para [0004]-[0005]).
Regarding claim 7, Sethumadhavan discloses the magnetodielectric polymer composite according to Claim 5, wherein the mean particle size d50 of the particles each of the same composition differ by at least 3 µm (para [0047], different sizes, as discussed above) from those of different composition (para [0043], different magnetic materials, as discussed above). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the combination of magnetic materials and particle sizes to provide the desired combination of magnetic, thermomechanical, and electrical properties for the intended application (para [0004]-[0005]).
Regarding claim 12, Sethumadhavan discloses the magnetodielectric polymer composite according to Claim 1, wherein the polymer matrix comprises one or more apolar polymers having a dielectric attenuation tan δε < 0.02, such as polyester (para [0027]). Polyester has a dielectric attenuation tan δε of 0.0001 at 100 MHz, which falls within the instantly claimed range of < 0.02.
This rejection is based on the interpretation set forth in para 5c, above.
Regarding claim 13, Sethumadhavan discloses the magnetodielectric polymer composite according to Claim 12, wherein the polymer matrix comprises one or more apolar polymers having a dielectric attenuation tan δε < 0.01, such as polyester (para [0027]). Polyester has a dielectric attenuation tan δε of 0.0001 at 100 MHz, which falls within the instantly claimed range of < 0.01.
This rejection is based on the interpretation set forth in para 5d, above.
Regarding claim 14, Sethumadhavan discloses the magnetodielectric polymer composite according to Claim 1, wherein the apolar polymers of the matrix are
polyolefins (para [0035]), styrene-containing polymers (para [0028]), polyesters (para [0027]), polycarbonate (PC) (para [0030]), polyphenylene ethers (PPE) (polyarylene ethers, para [0042]), fluorine-containing polymers (para [0078]), thermoplastic elastomers (para [0035]), silicone (para [0027]), ethylene-propylene-diene rubbers (EPDM)(para [0032]), epoxy resin casting compounds and/or acrylate ester-containing epoxy resins (para [0027]).
Regarding claim 15, Sethumadhavan discloses the magnetodielectric polymer composite according to Claim 14, wherein the polyolefins are cyclic olefin polymers
(COP), cyclic olefin copolymers (COC), polyethylene (PE) or polypropylene (PP) (para [0028] and [0036]); the styrene-containing polymers are polystyrene (PS), impact-modified polystyrene or acrylonitrile-butadiene-styrene copolymers (ABS) (para [0038]); the fluorine-containing polymers are polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE), polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF), perfluoro (ethylene-propylene (FEP) or ethylene-tetrafluoroethylene copolymers (ETFE) (para [0078]); and the epoxy resin casting compounds are cold- or hot-curing epoxy (para [0027]).
Regarding claim 16, Sethumadhavan discloses the magnetodielectric polymer composite according to Claim 15, as discussed above. The polymers set forth in the instant claim further limit the scope of the styrene containing polymers within the Markush group of claim 15 but do not necessitate its selection. The reference does teach polystyrene (para [0027]), which falls within the Markush group of parent claim 15, as discussed above. Therefore, the reference reads on the instant claim.
Regarding claim 17, Sethumadhavan discloses a process for producing the magnetodielectric polymer composite according to Claim 1, comprising
mixing individual constituents with one another by compounding (para [0066], casting or molding) and or by providing a dispersion comprised of a solution of the at least one apolar polymer, the particles having soft-magnetic properties and the amphiphilic hyperbranched spacer molecules in solvent (para [0066]-[0069]) and subsequently removing the solvent (para [0075]).
Regarding claim 22, Sethumadhavan discloses an antenna (para [0082] and para [0119]) comprising a magnetodielectric polymer composite according to Claim 1, wherein the magnetodielectric polymer composite ensheathes the antenna (Fig 4 and para [0064]) and the antenna operates in the frequency range of 100 to 800 MHz (para [0081]), which falls within the instantly claimed range of 50 MHz to 4 GHz. The antenna may also be laminated between two composite sheets (substrates) which would ensheathe the antenna (para [0077]).
Claims 18-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sethumadhavan in view of US 2014/0087616 A1 to Adams et al. (hereinafter Adams).
Regarding claim 18, Sethumadhavan discloses the process for producing the magnetodielectric polymer composite according to Claim 17, but fails to expressly disclose wherein said compounding comprises mixing in an extruder or a kneader.
However, Adams does teach a method of making a composite comprising mixing precursor materials in an extruder (para [0040]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to compound the precursor materials of Sethumadhavan by mixing in an extruder, as set forth in Adams, to facilitate homogeneous mixing of viscous casting materials for lamination (Sethumadhavan, para [0072]).
Regarding claim 19, Sethumadhavan discloses the process for producing the magnetodielectric polymer composite according to Claim 17, further comprising
processing the compounded or dried polymer composite by a shaping process such as casting via roller coating (para [0074]) or molding (para [0076]) but does not expressly recite a shaping process selected from injection moulding, injection-compression moulding, compression moulding, extrusion or resin casting.
However, Adams does teach a method of making a composite comprising a shaping process selected from a group that includes extrusion and roller coating (para [0028]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to employ the extrusion process of Adams as an obvious alternative to the casting and molding processes of Sethumadhavan and thereby facilitate formation of a variety of materials into diverse shapes in a relatively simple manner (Adams, para [0047]).
Regarding claim 20, Sethumadhavan in view of Adams discloses the process for producing the magnetodielectric polymer composite according to Claim 19, wherein the shaping process produces the magnetodielectric composite in a form that is suitable for 3D printing (coating, Adams para [0028]). Adams shapes the composite by extrusion, which can form both simple and complex shapes (Adams, para [0047]).
Claim 20 recites the intended use limitation “wherein the shaping process produces the magnetodielectric composite in a form that is suitable for 3D printing”. See MPEP 2111.02(II), which states that ‘To satisfy an intended use limitation which is limiting, a prior art structure which is capable of performing the intended use as recited in the preamble meets the claim’. In the instant case, the shaping process is extrusion which forms a coating (para [0028]) that can be simple or complex (para [0047]). Therefore, the shaped coating is deemed capable of use in and therefore suitable for 3D printing.
Regarding claim 21, Sethumadhavan in view of Adams discloses the process for producing a magnetodielectric polymer composite according to Claim 20, wherein the form suitable for 3D printing is selected from a group that includes powders (Adams, para [0027], particles), liquid resins (Adams, para [0040], liquid coating comprising resin) and liquid silicone elastomers (Sethumadhavan, para [0027]).
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
Prosecution Insights