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 § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-8, 10-11, 13-15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsui (US 4133677) in view of Ehrreich (US 3843349) and Enomura (US 20100155310).
Regarding Claim 1, Matsui teaches a method of participating precursor particles containing a precursor of the metal particles by mixing a precursor raw material liquid and a precursor precipitation solvent (Examples 1-13) and coating at least a part of a surface of the precursor particles with a silicon compound (Examples 18-50) and a step of subjecting the obtained silicon compound coated precursor particles to a reduction treatment up to silicon compound coated metal particles (Examples 51-88). Matsui teaches particles being particles (Examples 1-17). Matsui teaches the precursor particles are fully dispersed during the coating, i.e. not aggregated (col. 7 ln. 1-7). Matsui teaches precursor particles with a long axis of 0.8-1 micron and a 15:1 axial ratio of the long axis to the short axis. Matsui teaches coated product particles having a primary particle diameter as low as 60nm (Example 64, i.e. diameter of 60nm).
Matsui does not explicitly teach wherein a primary particle diameter of the silicon compound coated precursor particles is 100 nm or less, and the primary particle diameter is the distance between the two points with the longest distance therebetween on the outer periphery of the microparticle; however, Ehrreich teaches a similar method of making magnetic metallic particles by a protective coating during reduction of a precursor (abstract). Ehrreich teaches the particles of the invention have advantageous diameters of 0.02 to 0.5 microns and a typical length of 0.02 to 2.0 microns (col. 3 ln. 44-53). While Ehrreich is silent as to the primary particle diameter of the coated precursor particle, it is expected to be smaller than the diameter of the coated product particle because Matsui teaches that growth occurs in the heating process (col. 2 ln. 9-15). 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). MPEP 214.05 I. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to apply the process of Matsui to particles having sizes, such as those of Ehrreich and including those sizes within the claimed range, because Ehrreich recognizes these are all advantageous particle sizes for magnetic metallic particle powders in the art and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in achieving Matsui’s goal of protecting the particles from heat damage during reduction with particles having sizes as suggested in Ehrreich.
Matsui does not explicitly teach continuously coating in a thin film fluid between two processing surfaces being capable of approaching to and separating from each other and rotating relative to each other; however, Enomura teaches a continuous coating process for nanoparticles wherein the nanoparticles are coated in a thin film fluid between two processing surfaces being capable of approaching to and separating from each other and rotating relative to each other (abstract, [0825]). Enomura teaches the process allows for a uniform product and controlled size ([0109]). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the coating process of the method of the combined references to include a continuous coating process, as suggested by Enomura, for the benefit of controlled size and a continuously produced uniform product.
Regarding Claim 2, Matsui teaches the surface layer of the silicon coated metal microparticles obtained by the reduction treatment is subjected to an oxidation treatment (Examples 51).
Regarding Claim 4, Matsui teaches wherein the reduction treatment is a heat treatment of powders of the silicon compound coated precursor particles under a reduction atmosphere (Examples 18-50). Matsui teaches a particle diameter controlled by a heat treatment temperature and treatment time under the reduction atmosphere (Table III, Examples 51-88).
Regarding Claims 5, Matsui teaches embodiments of a diameter after reduction treatment being increased (Example 56, i.e. diameter of 81).
Regarding Claims 6 and 13, Matsui teaches the precursor microparticles having a long axis of 0.8-1 microns and 15:1 axial ratio of long axis to short axis (Example 1, i.e. diameter of 53-67nm). Matsui teaches coated product particles having a diameter as low as 60nm (Example 64, i.e. diameter of 60nm). While Matsui is silent as to the thickness of the coating on the precursor particle, Matsui teaches that growth occurs in the heating process (col. 2 ln. 9-15). Therefore, Matsui includes embodiments of coatings which are less than 7nm thick, i.e. 113% or less. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to select the coating thickness of Matsui to be any thickness suggested by the reference, including those within the claimed range, because Matsui suggests they are suitable for use with the invention.
Regarding Claim 7, Matsui teaches the coating is homogeneous, i.e. entire surface coated. Matsui does not teach multiple core particles. Matsui teaches the precursor microparticles having a long axis of 0.8-1 microns and 15:1 axial ratio of long axis to short axis (Example 1, i.e. diameter of 53-67nm). Matsui teaches coated product particles having a diameter as low as 60nm (Example 64, i.e. diameter of 60nm). These sizes indicate that product particles include a single core precursor particle.
Regarding Claim 8 and 15, Matsui teaches the coating is homogeneous, i.e. entire surface coated. Matsui teaches the precursor microparticles having a long axis of 0.8-1 microns and 15:1 axial ratio of long axis to short axis (Example 1, i.e. diameter of 53-67nm). Matsui teaches coated product particles having a diameter as low as 60nm (Example 64, i.e. diameter of 60nm). While Matsui is silent as to the thickness of the coating on the precursor particle, Matsui teaches that growth occurs in the heating process (col. 2 ln. 9-15). Therefore, Matsui includes embodiments of coatings which are less than 7nm thick, i.e. 113% or less. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to select the coating thickness of Matsui to be any thickness suggested by the reference, including those within the claimed range, because Matsui suggests they are suitable for use with the invention.
Matsui does not explicitly teach the core is an aggregate of a plurality of precursor microparticles; however, Ehrreich teaches the particles are chain-like segments consisting of more spherical elemental particles (col. 3 ln. 44-54). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the precursor particles of Matsui to include granular particles, as taught in Ehrreich, because Ehrreich teaches granular particles are a known equivalent in the art and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of predictably applying the heat protection coating methods of Matsui to granular particles as in Ehrreich.
Regarding Claim 10, Matsui teaches an amorphous silicon compound (col. 3 ln. 50-54).
Regarding Claims 11 and 16, Matsui teaches a hydroxide oxide of iron (Example 18-50).
Regarding Claim 14, Matsui teaches the coating is homogeneous, i.e. entire surface coated. Matsui does not teach multiple core particles. Matsui teaches the precursor microparticles having a long axis of 0.8-1 microns and 15:1 axial ratio of long axis to short axis (Example 1, i.e. diameter of 53-67nm). Matsui teaches coated product particles having a diameter as low as 60nm (Example 64, i.e. diameter of 60nm). These sizes indicate that product particles include a single core precursor particle.
Claim(s) 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsui (US 4133677), Ehrreich (US 3843349), and Enomura (US 20100155310) as applied to claims 1-2, 4-8, 10-11, 13-15 and 16 above, and further in view of Okuda (US 4136158).
Regarding Claim 9, Matsui does not explicitly teach silicon inside the precursor microparticles before heat treatment; however, Okuda teaches acircular iron oxide hydroxide needles in the art wherein silica is included in the needles wherein particle size is homogenized, axial ratio is improved, and superior properties are produced (col. 8 ln. 38-65, col. 10 ln. 46-55). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the needles of Matsui to include silica, as taught in Okuda, in order to achieve the benefit of homogenized particle size, improved axial ratio, and superior properties.
Okuda does not explicitly teach a part of the silicon is transferred from the inside of the precursor microparticles in the outer peripheral direction, as compared with the state before the heat treatment under a reduction atmosphere; however, 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 obviousness has been established, In re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). With regard to the “transferred” limitation, when the structure recited in the prior art is substantially identical to that of the claims, the claimed properties or function are presumed inherent. MPEP 2112. In this situation, the prior art exemplifies the applicant's claimed method, so the claimed transfer relating to the method are present in the prior art. Absent an objective evidentiary showing to the contrary, the addition of the physical properties to the claim language fail to provide patentable distinction over the prior art of record.
Claim(s) 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsui (US 4133677), Ehrreich (US 3843349), and Enomura (US 20100155310) as applied to claims 1-2, 4-8, 10-11, 13-15 and 16 above, and further in view of Franz (US 4404254).
Regarding Claim 12, Matsui teaches alpha, beta, or gamma iron (III) oxide hydroxide particles (col. 12 ln. 57-61). Matsui does not explicitly teach amorphous particles; however, Franz teaches amorphous iron (III) hydroxides as known equivalent precursors in the art (col. 2 ln. 46-60). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the precursor particles of Matsui to include amorphous particles, as taught in Franz, because Franz teaches amorphous iron (III) hydroxide is a known equivalent in the art and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of predictably achieving the particles of Matsui with an amorphous precursor as in Franz.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see amendment and remarks, filed 8/11/2025, with respect to the previous Section 112 and prior art rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejections have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration and as necessitated by the amendment, a new ground(s) of rejection is made as discussed above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TABATHA L PENNY whose telephone number is (571)270-5512. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:00.
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, Michael Cleveland can be reached at 5712721418. 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.
/TABATHA L PENNY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712