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Claims 1-3 and 21 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on August 14, 2026. Applicant traversed the restriction requirement through amendment of claims to overcome the original technical feature presented by the examiner in remarks filed June 16, 2026. The examiner notes that the technical feature is still found in the art under different combination of references (see 103 rejections below). However, for the purposes of compact prosecution, the restriction requirement is lifted whereby all pending claims are hereby examined. Thus, claims 1-14 and 16-21 are pending for prosecution.
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. CN202111291814.1, filed on November 2, 2021.
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 3, 8-11, 13-14, and 18-21 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.
Regarding claims 3, 8-11, 13, and 18-20, the phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. This rejection is in terms of the use of the term at the beginning of a limitation (or limitations). It is unclear whether the limitations following the word preferably further limit the claimed invention or are merely examples of the scope. In terms of these limitations, if they are not required features, it is recommended that these limitations be set forth using the term ‘optionally’ rather than ‘preferably’ in order to make clear that the limitations are not required features of the claims. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claims 9 and 14 recite a limitation of “drying and pre-heating” but then refers to the step as “drying and pre-sintering”. It is unclear if the pre-heating and pre-sintering designations are used interchangeably as the same step or if pre-heating and pre-sintering are separate processes in step 3. For the purposes of examination, the terms are treated as synonymous.
Claim 13 recites “specifically” in line 2 regarding a two step cooling process of the sintered product. Claim 13 states “specifically, the sintered product is firstly cooled”. Use of the term “specifically” raises confusion as to the bounds of the process as the claimed invention whereby the cooling stage of the sintering is unclear in its scope. Thus, claim 13 is indefinite.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "the first sintering" in lines 1-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "the second sintering" in lines 1-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "the third sintering" in lines 1-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 21, the limitation “using the microwave ferrite material according to claim 1” renders the claim indefinite. The claim is indefinite because it is unclear as to whether it is directed to a process as the claim does not set forth any steps involved in the process. Mention of “using the microwave ferrite material” in a “method for manufacturing a third-order intermodulation circulator” merely recites a use without any active, positive steps delimiting how this application/use is actually practiced.
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.
Claims 1, 2 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guan et al (CN111187067A, hereinafter Guan Doc1) in view of Guan et al (CN111004028A, hereinafter Guan Doc2) and Cruickshank et al (US PGPub 20150171501).
Regarding claim 1, Guan in both documents teaches preparation of a microwave ferrite material for circulators. In Doc1, Guan teaches a broad composition Y3-2a-b-c-d-eCa2a+b+c+d+eVaGebSncTidZreInfAlgMnhSikFe5-a-b-c-d-e-f-g-h-kO12. In Doc2, Guan teaches preparation solely using precursors Fe2O3, Y2O3, CaCO3, SnO2, MnCO3, and In2O3. Guan teaches a ferrite of specific compounds including Sn and In to ensure high saturated magnetization, a reduced material ferrite resonance line width, and reduced insertion loss. Thus, when using the teachings of the broad composition of Doc1 in view of the specific composition of Doc2, the formula simplifies to Y3-cCacSncInfMnhFe5-c-f-hO12 whereby c is between 0 and 0.6, f is between 0 and 0.6, and h is between 0 and 0.1, according to Doc1. In Doc2, Guan teaches including raw materials in parts by weight of 45.5-49.5 Fe2O3, 37.5-39.5 Y2O3, 5.2-6.2 CaCO3, 6.5-8.5 SnO2, 0.4-0.7 MnCO3, and 0.2-0.5 In2O3. Thus, these included compositions overlap with the claimed ranges of a between 0.26 and 0.3 (for Ca and Sn or “c”), b between 0.01 and 0.1 (for In or “f”), and c between 0.001 and 0.1 (for Mn or “h”). 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 suitable amounts for preparing ferrite materials in use of circulators while specifically selecting for Sn and In to include to ensure high magnetization and reduced ferrite resonance line width with reduced insertion loss to arrive at the invention as claimed. Guan in both documents does not specifically apply the circulator for intermodulation but teaches broadly for communication-based circulators. Cruickshank teaches specific implementation of microwave ferrites (yttrium iron garnets) into intermodulation circulators and subsequent characterization (paragraphs [0129-134] and Table 4). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to implement the ferrite material of Guan (both docs) into a known circulator device such as a third-order intermodulation circulator of Cruickshank as a known suitable device of use of such ferrites and arrive at the invention as claimed. Thus, Guan (both docs) and Cruickshank teach the claimed “A microwave ferrite material for a third-order intermodulation circulator, wherein the microwave ferrite material has a chemical formula of Y3-aCaaSnaInbMncFe5-a-b-cO12, wherein 0.26 ≤ a ≤ 0.3, 0.01 ≤ b≤ 0.1, and 0.001 ≤ c ≤ 0.1”.
Regarding claim 2, Guan (both docs) and Cruickshank teach the microwave ferrite material of claim 1. Further, Guan Doc2 teaches raw materials of Fe2O3, Y2O3, CaCO3, SnO2, MnCO3, and In2O3. In Doc1, Guan also discloses the possibility of such precursors to provide the individual elements for bulk compositions. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to use the specific precursor raw materials of Guan in Doc2 as a known starting precursor mixture for providing the desired ferrite material and arrive at the invention as claimed. Thus, Guan (both docs) and Cruickshank teach the claimed “The microwave ferrite material according to claim 1, wherein raw materials of the microwave ferrite material comprise Y2O3, CaCO3, SnO2, In2O3, MnCO3, and Fe2O3.”
Regarding claim 21, Guan (both docs) and Cruickshank teach the microwave ferrite material of claim 1. Guan in both documents does not specifically apply the circulator for intermodulation but teaches broadly for communication-based circulators. Cruickshank teaches specific implementation of microwave ferrites (yttrium iron garnets) into intermodulation circulators and subsequent characterization (paragraphs [0129-134] and Table 4). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to implement the ferrite material of Guan (both docs) into a known circulator device such as a third-order intermodulation circulator of Cruickshank as a known suitable device of use of such ferrites and arrive at the invention as claimed. Thus, Guan (both docs) and Cruickshank teach the claimed “A method for manufacturing a third-order intermodulation circulator, comprising using the microwave ferrite material according to claim 1”.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guan et al (CN111187067A, hereinafter Guan Doc1) in view of Guan et al (CN111004028A, hereinafter Guan Doc2) and Cruickshank et al (US PGPub 20150171501) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Endou et al (CN1719658A).
Regarding claim 3, Guan (both docs) and Cruickshank teach the microwave ferrite material of claim 2. Guan (Doc1) teaches that all raw materials should have purity not less than 99.4%, thus suitable for MnCO3. Endou also teaches preparation of garnet ferrite materials using oxide raw materials (yttrium, iron, indium) and calcium carbonate whereby the purity is more than or equal to 99.9%. 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 suitable purity requirements in raw precursor materials for preparing garnet ferrite materials to arrive at the invention as claimed. Thus, Guan (both docs), Cruickshank, and Endou teach the claimed “The microwave ferrite material according to claim 2, wherein the Y2O3 has a purity of more than or equal to 99.95%; preferably, the CaCO3 has a purity of more than or equal to 99.5%; preferably, the SnO2 has a purity of more than or equal to 99.5%; preferably, the In2O3 has a purity of more than or equal to 99.99%; preferably, the MnCO3 has a purity of more than or equal to 99%; preferably, the Fe2O3 has a purity of more than or equal to 99.5%”.
Claims 4-6 and 8-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guan et al (CN111187067A, hereinafter Guan Doc1) in view of Guan et al (CN111004028A, hereinafter Guan Doc2), Qin (CN101591168A), Sung Min et al (KR20090081047A), and Jiang et al (CN111205075A).
Regarding claim 4, Guan in both documents teaches preparation of a microwave ferrite material. In Doc1, Guan teaches a broad composition Y3-2a-b-c-d-eCa2a+b+c+d+eVaGebSncTidZreInfAlgMnhSikFe5-a-b-c-d-e-f-g-h-kO12. In Doc2, Guan teaches preparation solely using precursors Fe2O3, Y2O3, CaCO3, SnO2, MnCO3, and In2O3. Guan teaches a ferrite of specific compounds including Sn and In to ensure high saturated magnetization, a reduced material ferrite resonance line width, and reduced insertion loss. Thus, when using the teachings of the broad composition of Doc1 in view of the specific composition of Doc2, the formula simplifies to Y3-cCacSncInfMnhFe5-c-f-hO12 whereby c is between 0 and 0.6, f is between 0 and 0.6, and h is between 0 and 0.1, according to Doc1. In Doc2, Guan teaches including raw materials in parts by weight of 45.5-49.5 Fe2O3, 37.5-39.5 Y2O3, 5.2-6.2 CaCO3, 6.5-8.5 SnO2, 0.4-0.7 MnCO3, and 0.2-0.5 In2O3. Thus, these included compositions overlap with the claimed ranges of a between 0.26 and 0.3 (for Ca and Sn or “c”), b between 0.01 and 0.1 (for In or “f”), and c between 0.001 and 0.1 (for Mn or “h”). 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 suitable amounts for preparing ferrite materials in use of circulators while specifically selecting for Sn and In to include to ensure high magnetization and reduced ferrite resonance line width with reduced insertion loss to arrive at the invention as claimed. In both documents, Guan teaches the same preparation process/method. The examiner will reference the process from Doc2 given its relevancy to the specific raw materials for weighing in step 1 as claimed. After weighing the materials, Guan carries out wet ball milling using water, raw materials, and a steel ball mill (relevant to step 2 as claimed). Guan does not specify deionized water, does not use zirconia balls, and does not include a dispersant to obtain a first slurry. Qin similarly teaches preparation of low loss and small line width ferrite materials of similar composition to that of Guan and thus their process is relevant to be broadly applied for yttrium iron garnets. Qin teaches in their primary wet ball milling step inclusion of a dispersant/dispersing agent and specifically discloses deionized water as a suitable solution component. Qin states the dispersing agent can influence milling effect. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to substitute water for deionized water as a known medium of water suitable for wet ball milling in forming a slurry for preparing yttrium iron garnets and to include a dispersant in order to modulate the milling effect (i.e., improve dispersibility of materials, improve crushing/milling/mixing) and arrive at the limitations as claimed. Qin also does not disclose use of a zirconia ball, but Sung Min teaches in their preparation of yttrium iron garnet materials that zirconia is a suitable ball mill material for ball milling. Sung Min states that zirconia can help stabilize thermal expansion coefficients of the prepared garnet. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to substitute a steel ball mill for a zirconia ball mill as a known alternative ball mill capable of preparing iron garnet materials capable of stabilizing thermal expansion coefficients and arrive at the limitation as claimed. After obtaining the first slurry, Guan teaches drying the first slurry and then presintering to obtain the powder. Guan performs secondary ball milling by mixing water and a stainless steel ball to the mix again with the obtained powder. Qin specifically discloses deionized water as a suitable solution component. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to substitute water for deionized water as a known medium of water suitable for wet ball milling in forming a slurry for preparing yttrium iron garnets arrive at the limitation as claimed. Sung Min teaches in their preparation of yttrium iron garnet materials that zirconia is a suitable ball mill material for ball milling. Sung Min states that zirconia can help stabilize thermal expansion coefficients of the prepared garnet. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to substitute a steel ball mill for a zirconia ball mill as a known alternative ball mill capable of preparing iron garnet materials capable of stabilizing thermal expansion coefficients and arrive at the limitation as claimed. Guan does not teach use of a solvent/co-solvent in this step. Sung Min does teach a solvent such as ethanol can be included in wet ball milling steps which helps prevent precipitation when preparing the slurry. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to include a solvent in the ball milling step to help reduce precipitation in preparing the slurry and arrive at the limitation as claimed.Following secondary ball milling, Guan teaches a granulation step whereby the slurry from secondary ball milling is mixed with an adhesive (polyvinyl alcohol) which is also referred to as a binder by Guan. Guan does not specify centrifugal spray to obtain the second powder after granulation. Jiang teaches preparation of a soft magnetic ferrite with a similar process to that of Guan. Although Jiang teaches specific to nickel-zinc ferrites and not to the yttrium iron garnet, the process of preparing ferrite materials are highly similar and applies a similar granulation step of mixing a slurry post-ball milling with a PVA binder. Thus, the method of Jiang is analogous to Guan and would be predicted to have high success in preparing a powder post-granulation of Guan. Jiang teaches a centrifugal spray granulation in preparing the powder. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to perform a centrifugal spray step following granulation, as informed by Jiang, as a known process for preparing powders after granulation in ferrite materials and arrive at the limitation as claimed. Following granulation, Guan teaches molding the granulates, sintering the mold, and grinding the powder in sequential steps to obtain the microwave ferrite material (steps 7-9 of Guan). Thus, Guan (both docs), Qin, Sung Min, and Jiang teach the claimed “A preparation method for a microwave ferrite material, comprising the following steps: (1) weighing: weighing out corresponding raw materials according to calculation based on a composition of the microwave ferrite material, wherein the microwave ferrite material has a chemical formula of Y3-aCaaSnaInbMncFe5-a-b-cO12, wherein 0.26 ≤ a ≤ 0.3, 0.01 ≤ b ≤ 0.1, and 0.001 ≤ c ≤ 0.1; (2) primary ball milling: mixing deionized water, zirconia balls, a dispersant and the raw materials weighed out in step (1), and performing ball milling to obtain a first slurry; (3) drying and pre-heating: drying and pre-sintering the first slurry obtained in step (2) sequentially to obtain a first powder; (4) secondary ball milling: mixing deionized water, zirconia balls, a co-solvent and the first powder obtained in step (3), and performing ball milling to obtain a second slurry; (5) granulation: mixing a binder and the second slurry obtained in step (4), and performing centrifugal spray to obtain a second powder; and (6) after-treatment: molding, sintering and grinding the second powder obtained in step (5) sequentially to obtain the microwave ferrite material”.
Regarding claim 5, Guan (both docs), Qin, Sung Min, and Jiang teach the method of claim 4. As described in the rejection of claim 4, the process of Guan is modified to provide deionized water specifically and a zirconia ball as opposed to steel ball. Guan teaches a mass ratio of primary ball milling: material:water:ball = 1:(0.9-1):(1.5-4.5). 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 suitable mass ratios for preparing a slurry with regards to amounts of water and ball mill to the material to arrive at the invention as claimed. Thus, Guan (both docs), Qin, Sung Min, and Jiang teach the claimed “The preparation method according to claim 4, wherein the mixing in step (2) has a mass ratio of raw materials: deionized water: zirconia balls = 1: (1-1.3): (4-8)”.
Regarding claim 6, Guan (both docs), Qin, Sung Min, and Jiang teach the method of claim 4. As described in the rejection of claim 4, the process of Guan is modified to provide a dispersant as informed by Qin. Qin teaches a dispersing agent can be ethanol or acetone. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to select for a dispersing agent such as acetone as disclosed by Qin as a known material capable of dispersing the raw materials to improve the milling effect and arrive at the invention as claimed. Thus, Guan (both docs), Qin, Sung Min, and Jiang teach the claimed “The preparation method according to claim 4, wherein the dispersant in step (2) comprises acetone”.
Regarding claim 8, Guan (both docs), Qin, Sung Min, and Jiang teach the method of claim 4. Guan does not disclose a rotation speed but teaches primary ball milling for 15-20h. Sung Min teaches rotational speed of ball mills can be set in the range of about 50-500 rpm and milling can be performed for 1-100h in consideration of target particle size “and the like”. 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 of ball milling rotational speeds and of ball milling time periods as known suitable parameters capable of preparing a slurry for iron garnets and as known parameters that can influence target properties such as particle size to arrive at the invention as claimed. Thus, Guan (both docs), Qin, Sung Min, and Jiang teach the claimed “The preparation method according to claim 4, wherein the ball milling in step (2) has a rotation speed of 60-80 rpm; preferably, the ball milling in step (2) is carried out for a period of 20-40 h”.
Regarding claim 9, Guan (both docs), Qin, Sung Min, and Jiang teach the method of claim 4. Guan teaches a drying step after primary ball milling by heating at 150°C for 15h. Guan also teaches screening the ball milled material prior to pre-sintering/pre-heating and after drying but with a 30 mesh screen. In their process, Qin teaches persistent use of 60 mesh sieves for any screening steps. Mesh sizes are known for screening out particles of desired sizing, thus any mesh sieve can be predictably interchanged with one another with a predictable result of obtaining particles of desired size ranges/uniformity. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to substitute the 30 mesh screen of Guan for a 60 mesh screen of Qin as a known alternative suitable mesh screen size in screening ferrite particles following primary ball milling steps and drying to arrive at the limitation as claimed. Guan teaches pre-sintering/pre-heating as 1050-1200°C for 6-10h. 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 suitable pre-sintering/pre-heating temperatures and times suitable for preparing microwave ferrite materials to arrive at the invention as claimed. Thus, Guan (both docs), Qin, Sung Min, and Jiang teach the claimed “The preparation method according to claim 4, wherein the drying in step (3) has a temperature of 120-150°C; preferably, the drying in step (3) is carried out for a period of 16-20 h; preferably, step (3) further comprises screening a powder between the drying and the pre-heating; preferably, the screening is performed with a mesh size of 40-80 mesh; preferably, the pre-heating in step (3) has a temperature of 1200-1300°C; preferably, the pre-heating in step (3) has a heating rate of 1-2°C/min; preferably, the pre-heating in step (3) is carried out for a period of 4-8 h; preferably, the pre-heating in step (3) is performed in an oxygen atmosphere, and oxygen introduction begins when the temperature increases to 800°C, and ends when the temperature decreases to 800°C, and the oxygen introduction has a flow rate of 20-50 L/min”.
Regarding claim 10, Guan (both docs), Qin, Sung Min, and Jiang teach the method of claim 4. As described in the rejection of claim 4, the process of Guan is modified to provide deionized water specifically and a zirconia ball as opposed to steel ball. Guan teaches a mass ratio for all ball milling: material:water:ball = 1:(0.9-1):(1.5-4.5). 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 suitable mass ratios for preparing a slurry with regards to amounts of water and ball mill to the material to arrive at the invention as claimed. Guan does not disclose a rotation speed but teaches secondary ball milling for 20-30h. Sung Min teaches rotational speed of ball mills can be set in the range of about 50-500 rpm and milling can be performed for 1-100h in consideration of target particle size “and the like”. 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 of ball milling rotational speeds and of ball milling time periods as known suitable parameters capable of preparing a slurry for iron garnets and as known parameters that can influence target properties such as particle size to arrive at the invention as claimed. Thus, Guan (both docs), Qin, Sung Min, and Jiang teach the claimed “The preparation method according to claim 4, wherein the mixing in step (4) has a mass ratio of first powder: deionized water: zirconia balls = 1: (1-1.3): (4- 8); preferably, the co-solvent in step (4) comprises SiO2; preferably, the co-solvent in step (4) has a concentration of 50-500 ppm in the second slurry; preferably, the ball milling in step (4) has a rotation speed of 50-80 rpm; preferably, the ball milling in step (4) is carried out for a period of 30-50 h”.
Regarding claim 11, Guan (both docs), Qin, Sung Min, and Jiang teach the method of claim 4. Guan teaches addition of polyvinyl alcohol as a binder/adhesive following the secondary ball milling step and during the granulation step. Thus, Guan (both docs), Qin, Sung Min, and Jiang teach the claimed “The preparation method according to claim 4, wherein the binder in step (5) comprises an aqueous solution of polyvinyl alcohol; preferably, the binder in step (5) has a concentration of 9-11 wt%; preferably, the binder in step (5) has an addition amount of 8-12wt%; preferably, the second powder in step (5) has a particle size X85 of 60-80 µm”.
Regarding claim 12, Guan (both docs), Qin, Sung Min, and Jiang teach the method of claim 4. Guan does not disclose the type of press used outside of hot isostatic pressing treatment with a pressure of 145MPa and a molding pressure of 500-1000 kg/cm2. Converting both disclosed pressure values to metric ton measurements converts to requiring over 100 tons of force per square meter, thus implying a 100T press or a machine capable of providing 100tons of force would be necessitated. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to implement a 100T press as a suitable machine for providing at least 100 tons of force in the disclosed molding/pressing steps of Guan in order to prepare a microwave ferrite material and arrive at the invention as claimed. Thus, Guan (both docs), Qin, Sung Min, and Jiang teach the claimed “The preparation method according to claim 4, wherein the molding in step (6) is performed with a 100T press”.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guan et al (CN111187067A, hereinafter Guan Doc1) in view of Guan et al (CN111004028A, hereinafter Guan Doc2), Qin (CN101591168A), Sung Min et al (KR20090081047A), and Jiang et al (CN111205075A) as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Yanagida et al (US PGPub 20120280167).
Regarding claim 7, Guan (both docs), Qin, Sung Min, and Jiang teach the method of claim 4. Qin teaches addition of a dispersant such as acetone but does not provide in a mass proportion of 1-10% in the first slurry. Yanagida also teaches preparation of a ferrite magnetic material/ferrite sintered magnet with similar processing steps as disclosed by Guan. Yanagida teaches inclusion of a wide variety of dispersants suitable in providing to slurries during milling steps (paragraphs [0087, 0090, 0107, 0110]). Yanagida teaches the dispersant can be included in an amount of 0.05 to 5.0 mass% as well as an additional amount of 0.3 to 3.0 mass% (thus 0.35-8.0 mass% total). 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 a known suitable amount of dispersant to add in preparing a wet slurry for ball milling in preparing ferrite materials to arrive at the invention as claimed. Thus, Guan (both docs), Qin, Sung Min, Jiang, and Yanagida teach the claimed “The preparation method according to claim 4, wherein the dispersant in step (2) has a mass proportion of 1-10% in the first slurry”.
Claims 11, 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guan et al (CN111187067A, hereinafter Guan Doc1) in view of Guan et al (CN111004028A, hereinafter Guan Doc2), Qin (CN101591168A), Sung Min et al (KR20090081047A), and Jiang et al (CN111205075A) as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Cruickshank et al (US PGPub 20150171501).
Regarding claim 11, Guan (both docs), Qin, Sung Min, and Jiang teach the method of claim 4. Guan teaches addition of polyvinyl alcohol as a binder/adhesive following the secondary ball milling step and during the granulation step. Guan does not disclose particle sizes during any step. Cruickshank teaches specific implementation of microwave ferrites (yttrium iron garnets) into intermodulation circulators and subsequent characterization (paragraphs [0129-134] and Table 4) thus analogous to the embodiments of Guan and the invention as claimed to one of ordinary skill in the art. Cruickshank also teaches a similar preparation method for yttrium iron garnet compositions. Cruickshank teaches in their granulation spray drying process that organic additives such as binders can be added to the slurry which is identical to the step as claimed and to the referenced step of Guan in their process. Further, Cruickshank specifies that the material is spray dried to provide granules amenable to pressing, preferably in the range of about 10 microns to 150 microns in size which overlaps with the claimed range of 60-80 microns. 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 a known particle size suitable for pressing and molding steps in preparing the final sintered ferrite composition to arrive at the invention as claimed. Thus, Guan (both docs), Qin, Sung Min, Jiang, and Cruickshank teach the claimed “The preparation method according to claim 4, wherein the binder in step (5) comprises an aqueous solution of polyvinyl alcohol; preferably, the binder in step (5) has a concentration of 9-11wt%; preferably, the binder in step (5) has an addition amount of 8-12wt%; preferably, the second powder in step (5) has a particle size X85 of 60-80 µm”.
Regarding claim 16, Guan (both docs), Qin, Sung Min, and Jiang teach the method of claim 4. Guan does not disclose particle sizes of the first slurry step. Cruickshank teaches specific implementation of microwave ferrites (yttrium iron garnets) into intermodulation circulators and subsequent characterization (paragraphs [0129-134] and Table 4) thus analogous to the embodiments of Guan and the invention as claimed to one of ordinary skill in the art. Cruickshank also teaches a similar preparation method for yttrium iron garnet compositions. Cruickshank teaches in paragraph [0077] that materials throughout are milled in any standard comminution technique (thus could be applied to wet ball mill) to reduce median particle sizes into range of about 0.5 microns to 10 microns (thus overlapping with X50 of 0.5-1.0 micron) and preferably done in water based slurry. Although Cruickshank teaches such comminution after calcination, this particle comminution step could be applied at various points as taught by Guan in an effort to uniformly obtain particles of a desired size through repeated effort. Cruickshank (paragraph [0075]) also teaches sieving steps similar to Guan which also aid in such efforts of limiting particle sizes, homogenizing the powder, and breaking up soft agglomerates that may lead to dense particles after calcining throughout various steps such as during wet slurry further supporting the idea that such efforts can be applied at various points in the process. 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 for obtaining size-limited homogenized powder whereby soft agglomerates are broken up such that no dense particles are obtained after calcining to arrive at the invention as claimed. Thus, Guan (both docs), Qin, Sung Min, Jiang, and Cruickshank teach the claimed “The preparation method according to claim 4, wherein the first slurry in step (2) has a particle size X50 of 0.5-1.0 µm.”.
Regarding claim 17, Guan (both docs), Qin, Sung Min, and Jiang teach the method of claim 4. Guan does not disclose particle sizes of the second slurry step. Cruickshank teaches specific implementation of microwave ferrites (yttrium iron garnets) into intermodulation circulators and subsequent characterization (paragraphs [0129-134] and Table 4) thus analogous to the embodiments of Guan and the invention as claimed to one of ordinary skill in the art. Cruickshank also teaches a similar preparation method for yttrium iron garnet compositions. Cruickshank teaches in paragraph [0077] that materials throughout are milled in any standard comminution technique (thus could be applied to wet ball mill) to reduce median particle sizes into range of about 0.5 microns to 10 microns (thus overlapping with X50 of 0.4-0.9 micron) and preferably done in water based slurry. Although Cruickshank teaches such comminution after calcination, this particle comminution step could be applied at various points as taught by Guan in an effort to uniformly obtain particles of a desired size through repeated effort. Cruickshank (paragraph [0075]) also teaches sieving steps similar to Guan which also aid in such efforts of limiting particle sizes, homogenizing the powder, and breaking up soft agglomerates that may lead to dense particles after calcining throughout various steps such as during wet slurry further supporting the idea that such efforts can be applied at various points in the process. 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 for obtaining size-limited homogenized powder whereby soft agglomerates are broken up such that no dense particles are obtained after calcining to arrive at the invention as claimed. Thus, Guan (both docs), Qin, Sung Min, Jiang, and Cruickshank teach the claimed “The preparation method according to claim 4, wherein the second slurry in step (4) has a particle size X50 of 0.4-0.9 µm”.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 13, 14, and 18-20 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Claims 18-20 are indicated as would be allowable based on being rewritten to overcome the rejections and include the limitations following “preferably.”
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the art of record relies on sintering in oxygen environments but parameters such as when to introduce oxygen, the rate of introducing oxygen, cooling temperature rates to specific temperatures thereafter, in addition to multiple sintering treatments as "after-treatment" in the molding, sintering and grinding steps are not well reported in the art to the specific degree as necessitated in the invention as claimed.
Conclusion
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