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 Objections
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities: The claim has a semicolon after the period at the end of the claim. 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 5-9 and 15-20 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 broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claims 5-9 and 15-20 simultaneously recites a broad recitation and also recite narrower statement of the range/limitation as is set forth in the following chart:
claim
narrow limitation
broad limitation
5
40-80 r/min
preferably 50-70 r/min
5
25-35 h
preferably 28-32 h
6
120-160C
preferably 130-150C
6
12-20 h
preferably 14-16h
7
1-2 c/min
preferably 1.2-1.6 c/min
7
1100-1200C
preferably 1120-1180C
7
6-10 h
preferably 7-9h
7
20-40 L/min
preferably 25-35 L/min
8
60-80 r/min
preferably 65-75 r/min
8
28-32 h
preferably 29-31 h
9
100-150C
preferably 110-130C
9
12-20 h
preferably 15-18h
15
1-2 °C/min
preferably 1.2-1.8 °C/min
15
480-540°C
preferably 500- 520°
16
1.5-2.5 °C/min
preferably 1.8-2.2 °C/min
16
880-920°C
890- 910°C
17
2-3 °C/min
preferably 2.4-2.8 °C/min
17
1300-1400°C
preferably 1320- 1360°C.
18
15-30 h
preferably 18-25 h
19
2-3 °C/min
preferably 2.4-2.8 °C/min
19
560-620°C
preferably 580- 610°C
20
20-40 L/min
preferably 25-35 L/min
The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Regarding claims 5-9 and 15-17, 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 as set forth above in addition to the use of this word at the beginning of a limitation (See beginning of line 3, 5, 6, 8 of claim 5; line 3 and 4 of claim 6; line 4, 6, 7, and 9 of claim 7; line 3, 5, 6, 8 of claim 8; line 4, 5, 6, 7 of claim 9; line 3 of claim 15, line 3 of claim 16, and line 3 of claim 17). 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).
Claim 9 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 9 recites the limitation "the drying" and “the screening’ in lines 4-6. The antecedent basis for these terms is unclear and render the claims indefinite as claim 9 introduces a second drying and sieving step occurring after step 4. Claim 9 depends on instant claim 1, which has a drying and sieving process in step 2. It is unclear whether ‘the drying’ and ‘the screening’ as they are set forth in instant claim 9 refer to the drying and sieving set forth in claim 1 or the newly added drying and sieving step of claim 9. The drying and screening of claim 9 should likely be called a second drying and second screening step in order to clarify the antecedence of the term ‘the drying’.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-4, 10-13, and 21 allowed.
Claims 5-9 and 15-20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended 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.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: The closest prior art is considered to be the NPL document to Yang (IDS) and Konoike in US5458797. Yang teaches a method of making a similar composition being a YIG material for an isolator or circulator being doped with Al, In, V, Ca and Zr. Yang teaches the effect of varying the Zr content of this composition; however, Yang’s composition differs from the composition claimed in terms of the raw materials set forth in instant claim 1. Yang teaches a composition Y2.1Ca0.9Fe4.4-xZrxV0.5In0.05Al-0.05O12, where x ranges from 0 to 0.2. In such a composition the content of V and Zr are not charge balanced in the same manner as that which is claimed wherein Y3-2a-bCa2a+b. If this were the case in Yang the composition would have to be adjusted to Y2-xCa1+xFe4.4-xZrxV0.5In0.05Al0.05O12. The composition of Yang also differs in terms of the content of aluminium, which is half of the instantly claimed lower bound, and the lack of providing an iron deficiency.
Konoike also teaches a method for creating a similar compositions being a YIG material for an isolator or circulator being doped with Al, In, V, Ca and Zr. While Konoike teaches an overlapping ranges of Al, In, V, and Ca content, Konoike teaches that ZrO2 is provided as an additional component and is provided in an amount from 0.1 to 0.5 wt% on the basis of the main component (See Column 2, Lines 13-25). When converted to a molar amount this correlates to 0.02 moles of ZrO2 for every 1 mole of the main component. The claimed composition requires Zr to be present in an amount from 0.1 to 0.3 moles for every one mole of the composition, a value that is at least five times greater than the value taught by Konoike. It would not have been obvious to increase the content of ZrO2 in the composition of Konoike beyond this amount as Konoike expressly teaches away from this at column 3, lines 23-36. Konoike sets forth that content of more than 0.3 wt% of ZrO2 (correlating to 0.012 moles/mole of the main component) causes unacceptable increases in the ferromagnetic resonance absorption half-line width. As this is the case, the method of making the material as claimed, which includes charging raw materials according to the proportions set forth, is novel over the prior art.
Finally, US20090321677 is noted as it teaches an extremely broad range of ferrite materials comprising the claimed elements amongst several others but fails to specifically teach the ranges of each of the specified elements as claimed (the only requires elements in ‘677 are Y and Fe). Paragraph 27 of ‘677 is noted as the most relevant teaching, which fails to teach the charge balance claimed and fails to teach the incorporation of Zr and Al as claimed. It is the opinion of the examiner that arriving at the claimed invention from the disclosure of ‘677 would require hindsight rationale based on the lack of guidance provided in the prior art, and would require those of ordinary skill to ignore the major improvement found in ‘677, which seems to be based upon the incorporation of Cu.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW E HOBAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3585. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30am-6:00pm.
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.
/Matthew E. Hoban/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1734
Prosecution Insights