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 § 102 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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claim(s) 1 , and 3- 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(2) as being anticipation by Aga 2022/0340444 . Regarding claim 1, Aga teaches a Mn-Zn-based ferrite powder (Paragraph [0047]) comprising at least spherical or polyhedral ferrite particles (Claim 1) , wherein the ferrite particles have a stepped feature with convex polygonal contours on the surfaces thereof (Fig. 4) , the ferrite powder has a BET specific surface area of 0.35 m²/g to 10.00 m²/g (Paragraph [0046]). Aga does not expressly state that that the ferrite has a spinel phase as a main phase and a content of a zinc oxide ( ZnO ) phase is 0% by mass to 0.8% by mass. However, “ t he discovery of a previously unappreciated property of a prior art composition, or of a scientific explanation for the prior art’s functioning, does not render the old composition patentably new to the discoverer.” Atlas Powder Co. v. Ireco Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1347, 51 USPQ2d 1943, 1947 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Thus the claiming of a new use, new function or unknown property which is inherently present in the prior art does not necessarily make the claim patentable. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1254, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). In re Crish, 393 F.3d 1253, 1258, 73 USP Q2d 1364, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2004). See MPEP 2112. The instant product is substantially similar to the product of Aga because it has a substantially similar chemical composition, shape and possesses similar physical properties. Regarding claim 3, the stepped feature has two or more steps (Paragraph [0016]) . Regarding claim 4, the ferrite powder has a shape factor SF-1 of 100 to 110 (Paragraph [0017]) . Regarding claim 5, the ferrite powder has sphere-like particles having the stepped feature in a percentage content (Ps) of 50% or more (Paragraph [0039]) . Regarding claims 6-7, Aga does not expressly state the spinel phase crystallite diameter and lattice constant. However, “ t he discovery of a previously unappreciated property of a prior art composition, or of a scientific explanation for the prior art’s functioning, does not render the old composition patentably new to the discoverer.” Atlas Powder Co. v. Ireco Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1347, 51 USPQ2d 1943, 1947 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Thus the claiming of a new use, new function or unknown property which is inherently present in the prior art does not necessarily make the claim patentable. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1254, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). In re Crish, 393 F.3d 1253, 1258, 73 USP Q2d 1364, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2004). See MPEP 2112. The instant product is substantially similar to the product of Aga because it has a substantially similar chemical composition, shape and possesses similar physical properties. Regarding claim 8, Aga teaches the ferrite powder has a 50% diameter (D50) of 0.10 µm to 20.00 µm in a volume distribution of particle sizes thereof (Paragraph [0018]) . Regarding claims 9-10, Aga teaches that may be a resin composite material used as an electromagnetic shielding material (Abstract). 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. Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aga US 2022/0340444 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of JP H04304700 . Aga teaches that the ferrite material may include, manganese, zinc, and iron (Paragraph [0047]. The manganese may be present in an amount of 4 to 17% by mass, and the iron content may be 60 to 65% by mass (Paragraph [0047]). Aga does not expressly state the content of zinc in the ferrite composition. JP ‘700 teaches a manganese-zinc ferrite that is used in electromagnetic shielding (Title, Abstract, Background). The content of the zinc in the ferrite composition may be 10-30 mol% (Claim 1), which overlaps the range for zinc in instant claim 2. 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) . At the time of invention, it would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art to make the manganese-zinc ferrite of Aga including a zinc content in the range of 10 to 30 mol percent in view of JP ‘700. The suggestion or motivation for doing so would have been to provide a zinc content amount to the product of Aga that was required in Aga but not disclosed. The zinc content of JP ‘700 would have provided predictable results in the ferrite material of Aga. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT JAMES A FIORITO whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-9921 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday-Friday 9AM-5PM . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Amber Orlando can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571) 270-3149 . 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. /JAMES A FIORITO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1731