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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 3-9 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on July 17, 2026.
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims in the reply filed on July 17, 2026 is acknowledged.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. CN202110784246.2 and PCT/CN2021/129668, filed on July 12, 2021 and November 10, 2021, respectively.
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because “use” is not a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter
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.
Claim 10 is 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.
Claim 10 directs to a “Use” of the bi-component microwave ferrite material of claim 1 is indefinite as to whether it is directed to a process as the claim does not set forth any steps involved in the process. Mention of the microwave ferrite “used for a microwave communication device” merely recites a use without any active, positive steps delimiting how this application/use is actually practiced.
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)(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.
(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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kumar et al (NPL "Positive exchange bias and inverted hysteresis loop in Y3Fe5O12/Gd3Ga5O12").
Kumar anneals a Y3Fe5O12 ferrite material onto a lattice-matched Gd3Ga5O12 layer which leads to formation of a thin interfacial Gd3Fe5O12 ferrimagnetic layer. Kumar provides both the “raw” ferrite materials as films prior to formation of the joint or hybrid ferrite. Thus, the subsequent material forms a bi-component ferrite composed of Y3Fe5O12 and Gd3Fe5O12 and represents the claimed invention whereby a = b = c = A = B = C = 0. Therefore, Kumar teaches the claimed “A high-saturation low-loss bi-component microwave ferrite material, wherein raw materials for the high-saturation low-loss bi-component microwave ferrite material comprises a first microwave ferrite material and a second microwave ferrite material; the first microwave ferrite material is: Y3-aCaaFe5-a-b-cZraInbMncO12 wherein 0 ≤ a ≤ 0.7, 0 ≤ b ≤ 0.7, 0 ≤ c ≤ 0.7; and the second microwave ferrite material is: Gd3-ACaAFe5-A-B-CGeAIn-BTi-CO12, wherein 0 ≤ A ≤ 0.7, 0 ≤ B ≤ 0.7, 0 ≤ C ≤ 0.7.”.
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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kumar et al (NPL) in view of Zlatkov et al (CN108780687A).
Regarding claim 1, Kumar anneals a Y3Fe5O12 ferrite material onto a lattice-matched Gd3Ga5O12 layer which leads to formation of a thin interfacial Gd3Fe5O12 ferrimagnetic layer. Thus, the subsequent material forms a bi-component ferrite composed of Y3Fe5O12 and Gd3Fe5O12 and represents the claimed invention whereby a = b = c = A = B = C = 0. Kumar does not discuss alloying or doping such materials with accessory elements prior to forming the bi-component. Zlatkov discusses a method for manufacturing a hybrid magnet which can comprise at least a soft magnetic material and at least one kind of hard magnetic material. However, Zlatkov does not limit the method to such components and opens the possibility to a hybrid magnet comprising “at least two different magnetic materials” which could thus be two soft magnetic materials. Zlatkov teaches the soft magnetic materials can be garnet ferrites of either Yttrium or Gadolinium (Y3Fe5O12, Gd3Fe5O12) and thus an obvious alternative method for forming the bi-component ferrite disclosed by Kumar. Zlatkov also discloses additional magnetic passivation materials which can be anti-magnetic material or paramagnetic material including manganese and germanium as an alloy preferred material and can be understood as dopants. Although Zlatkov does not disclose molar amounts for providing such passivation materials, the inclusion of such as dopants would be understood to fall within a range of 0-0.7. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to substitute the method of Kumar for forming a bi-component ferrite with the method of Zlatkov by providing two soft magnetic garnet ferrites and optionally alloy with manganese and/or germanium as magnetic passivation materials and arrive at the invention as claimed. Thus, Zlatkov and Kumar teach the claimed “A high-saturation low-loss bi-component microwave ferrite material, wherein raw materials for the high-saturation low-loss bi-component microwave ferrite material comprises a first microwave ferrite material and a second microwave ferrite material; the first microwave ferrite material is: Y3-aCaaFe5-a-b-cZraInbMncO12 wherein 0 ≤ a ≤ 0.7, 0 ≤ b ≤ 0.7, 0 ≤ c ≤ 0.7; and the second microwave ferrite material is: Gd3-ACaAFe5-A-B-CGeAIn-BTi-CO12, wherein 0 ≤ A ≤ 0.7, 0 ≤ B ≤ 0.7, 0 ≤ C ≤ 0.7.”.
Claims 1-2 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kumar et al in view of Zlatkov et al as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hill et al (US PGPub 20200027632).
Regarding claim 1, Kumar and Zlatkov teach the bi-component microwave ferrite material but do not disclose additional inclusion of Calcium, Zirconium, Indium or Titanium. Hill teaches in an analogous invention modifying synthetic garnet compositions such as Yttrium Iron Garnet (YIG) and Gadolinium Iron Garnet (GIG) to increase the dielectric constant of the material (paragraphs [0036-37]) and improve the Curie temperature (paragraphs [0057-59]). Hill teaches that such synthetic garnets typically have a base formula unit of A3B5O12. In Fig. 2, Hill discloses the crystal structure of a YIG whereby YIG has a dodecahedral site, an octahedral site, and a tetrahedral site. The Y/Gd ions occupy the dodecahedral site while Fe ions occupy octahedral and tetrahedral sites. In paragraph [0040], Hill teaches that modifications towards synthetic garnets occur by substituting disclosed ions for some of the Y/Gd dodecahedral sites in combination with some replacement of the Fe ions in the octahedral sites. Thus, these incorporated ions of Hill would “subtract” out the Y/Gd and Fe ions as represented by the claimed formulas. In paragraph [0040]. Hill teaches that Zirconium can be introduced to octahedral sites (thus subtracting out only Fe and not Y/Gd). In paragraph [0041], Hill teaches modification by introducing one or more high valency ions with an oxidation state greater than 3+ to the octahedral or tetrahedral sites in combination with substituting Ca2+ for Y/Gd in the dodecahedral site for charge compensation. The high valence ions include Zr, Ti and can be applied to Gd-based garnets (paragraph [0041]). In paragraphs [0047-52], Hill teaches generic compositional formulas for the Y/Gd synthetic garnet compositions which overlaps with the claimed first and second ferrite formulas. Hill discloses Indium (In) as another potential ion which can be interchangeable with Zr. Ca is included in a range of 0-1.6 (overlaps with 0-0.7). In and/or Zr can be included in a range of 0-0.7 (overlaps with claimed range of 0-0.7). The amount of Ti included is not specifically disclosed but Hill teaches that Ti has a valency of 4+ which is identical to Zr, thus Ti would be thought of as interchangeable for the purposes of synthetic incorporation and could be included within the same range of 0-0.7 based on rationale of charge balancing that Hill discloses (paragraphs [0051-52]). Overlapping ranges have been held to present a prima facie case of obviousness over the prior art. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to select from the overlapping portion of the range as known ranges for preparing synthetically modified garnet ferrites to arrive at the invention as claimed. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to synthetically modify the individual soft garnet ferrites of Kumar and Zlatkov with any of In, Zr, Ca, and/or Ti, as informed by Hill, to increase the dielectric constant of the material and Curie temperature for forming a bi-component microwave ferrite and arrive at the invention as claimed. Thus, Kumar, Zlatkov, and Hill teach the claimed “A high-saturation low-loss bi-component microwave ferrite material, wherein raw materials for the high-saturation low-loss bi-component microwave ferrite material comprises a first microwave ferrite material and a second microwave ferrite material; the first microwave ferrite material is: Y3-aCaaFe5-a-b-cZraInbMncO12 wherein 0 ≤ a ≤ 0.7, 0 ≤ b ≤ 0.7, 0 ≤ c ≤ 0.7; and the second microwave ferrite material is: Gd3-ACaAFe5-A-B-CGeAIn-BTi-CO12, wherein 0 ≤ A ≤ 0.7, 0 ≤ B ≤ 0.7, 0 ≤ C ≤ 0.7”.
Regarding claim 2, Kumar, Zlatkov, and Hill teach the bi-component microwave ferrite material of claim 1 but do not disclose mass ratios between the yttrium and gadolinium garnet materials for forming the bi-component or hybrid material. When forming hybrid compositions as such, it is well understood in the art that inclusion of individual or unique elements will drive certain properties of the formed composition whereby more or fewer amounts of such elements could impact the Curie temperature and/or dielectric constant as disclosed by Hill. Such a mass ratio between the individual garnet ferrite materials would represent a result-effective variable for optimizing corresponding magnetic properties such as dielectric constant and Curie temperature. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to modify the mass ratios between provided garnet ferrites of Kumar and Zlatkov, as informed by Hill, to have a sufficiently "high” dielectric constants and/or Curie temperature, as such a value represents an optimization of a result-effective variable (i.e. mass ratio) for use as a microwave ferrite material and arrive at the invention as claimed. Thus, Kumar, Zlatkov, and Hill teach the claimed “The high-saturation low-loss bi-component microwave ferrite material according to claim 1, wherein a mass ratio of the first microwave ferrite material to the second microwave ferrite material is (1-3):(1-3)”.
Regarding claim 10, Kumar, Zlatkov, and Hill teach the bi-component microwave ferrite material of claim 1. Neither Kumar nor Zlatkov disclose use as a communication device. However, Hill teaches that garnet ferrites are commonly used as microwave magnetic materials which are widely used in various telecommunication devices largely because of their favorable magnetic properties such as narrow linewidth at its ferromagnetic resonance frequency (paragraph [0003]). Hill states that such garnets are particularly useful in RF electronics operating in the lower frequency portions of the microwave regions, thus microwave communication devices. In paragraphs [0123-127] and Figs. 12, 15-17, Hill discloses how the garnet ferrites can be incorporated into different components of a telecommunication base station, such as used for cellular networks and wireless communications. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to incorporate the prepared bi-component microwave ferrite into a telecommunication device as a known application of such materials for their favorable magnetic properties, as informed by Hill, and arrive at the invention as claimed. Thus, Kumar, Zlatkov, and Hill teach the claimed “Use of the high-saturation low-loss bi-component microwave ferrite material according to claim 1, wherein the high-saturation low-loss bi-component microwave ferrite material is used for a microwave communication device.”.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kumar et al in view of Zlatkov et al and Hill et al as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Xiang et al (CN104213251B).
Kumar, Zlatkov, and Hill teach the bi-component microwave ferrite material of claim 1 but do not disclose mass ratios between the yttrium and gadolinium garnet materials for forming the bi-component or hybrid material. Xiang teaches preparation of a hybrid magnetic composite microwave ferrite material but not specifically for garnet ferrites as taught by Kumar, Zlatkov, and Hill. However, one of ordinary skill in the art could appreciate the analogous teachings by Xiang that demonstrate how modifying included compositions of individual ferrites prior to forming the bi-component material impacts relevant magnetic and crystalline structure properties and would be an analogous teaching. Xiang provides in mol% ratios as opposed to mass ratios but such corresponding mass ratios can be easily calculated from the provided chemical compositions in examples 1-6. Xiang provides 70mol% (ex 1, 5-6), 50% (ex 2), or 90% (ex 3-4) of Ni0.5Zn0.5Fe2O4 (mol weight: 237.73g/mol) and 30%, 50%, or 10% of BaTiO3 (mol weight: 233.19g/mol). Thus, the mass ratios provided are: 2.38:1, 1.01:1, and 9.18:1. Overlapping ranges have been held to present a prima facie case of obviousness over the prior art. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to select from the overlapping portion of the range as known relevant mass ratios possible for forming a bi-component microwave ferrite material to arrive at the invention as claimed. Therefore, Kumar, Zlatkov, Hill, and Xiang teach the claimed “The high-saturation low-loss bi-component microwave ferrite material according to claim 1, wherein a mass ratio of the first microwave ferrite material to the second microwave ferrite material is (1-3):(1-3)”.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Wang et al (CN112876230A) teach a ferrite material for 5G circulators with relevant elements to the application. Wang et al (CN112661503A) teach a garnet ferrite material with relevant elements to the applicat.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Noa W. F. Grooms whose telephone number is (571)272-9981. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-3:30PM EST.
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, Curtis Mayes can be reached at (571) 272-1234. 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.
/NWFG/Examiner, Art Unit 1759
/MELVIN C. MAYES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1759
Prosecution Insights