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 .
All outstanding objections and rejections made in the previous Office Action, and not repeated below, are hereby withdrawn.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior office action.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12 September 2025 has been entered.
Claims 1-5, 7, 9-11, 13, and 16-25 as amended are pending, with claims 19 and 20 withdrawn.
Claim Objections
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: “a complexing agent” should be “the complexing agent”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1-5, 7, 9-11, 13, 16-18, and 21-25 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.
Claim 1 (from which claims 2-5, 7, 9-11, 13, 16-18, and 21-25 depend) has a first recitation that the surface treatment is selected form plasma treatment and/or coating of the magnetic filler material, and also that the surface treatment is the application of a coating. It is unclear whether the coating is actually required by the claim given the two different recitations of the surface treatment. Claim 7 is further unclear because it is unclear whether the plasma treatment is required to be in addition to coating, or in place of coating.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 1-5, 7, 9-11, 13, 16-18, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2019-182950 A (“Yoshida”) in view of US 2015/0022309 (“Marusawa”), US 4,925,886 (“Atkins”) US 2014/0018475 (“Falkner”), and JP 2009-176974 A (“Ezaki”).
JP 2009-176974 A was made of record with applicant’s IDS dated 17 February 2022. A partial machine translation is enclosed.
For the purposes of applying prior art, it is presumed that the surface treatment at least requires the coating of the magnetic filler material.
As to claims 1, 9, and 10, Yoshida teaches a method for preparing a molding including magnetic metal powder (magnetic filler) and resin (para. 0010).
Yoshida teaches providing soft magnetic filler particles (para. 0053), and subjecting the filler to a surface plasma treatment and coupling agent (coating) (paras. 0080-0081) so as to improve compatibility, thus adhesion to the resin (para. 0003). Yoshida teaches adding a non-magnetic filler (para. 0010) in addition to magnetic particles.
Yoshida teaches mixing the treated magnetic filler and nonmagnetic filler with an epoxy resin composition (para. 0162) such that the amount of magnetic filler material is present in amounts of greater than 10 volume percent as required by claim 1, and greater than 20 volume percent as required by claim 9 (para. 0107, teaching 55 to 90% by volume of the molding material). This range also overlaps the recited ranges of claim 10, and further Yoshida exemplifies 70 volume percent of magnetic particles (para. 0178).
Yoshida teaches curing the composition (para. 0197).
Yoshida does not discuss exposing to composition to vacuum during mixing. However, application of vacuum for degassing is a known technique in the formation of moldable thermosetting epoxy resin compositions, see Atkins, teaching the mixing of epoxy resin, curing agent, and fillers, under vacuum, which acts to deaerate (degas) the composition (5:17-22). In addition, Falkner teaches the utility of using vacuum in mixing resin compositions with fillers to improve mechanical performance (para. 0040). As such, the modification of the process of Yoshida performing the mixing under vacuum is an obvious modification known in the thermosetting resin composition art, including Gan and Falkner.
Yoshida teaches the use of soft magnetic particles, including Fe-Ni particles and Fe particles (paras. 0054-0057).
Yoshida teaches a wide range of particle sizes (para. 0059), but is silent as to the distribution thereof. Marusawa teaches magnetic metal containing resin compositions, and teaches iron nickel powder having the recited d90 in the recited range (para. 0046). As such, the use of soft magnetic particles in the recited range is known to be useful in forming resin magnet compositions.
Yoshida teaches a coupling agent, but does not discuss the recited compounds. However, Ezaki teaches soft magnetic particles for forming composites, and teaches the utility of preparing the particles with a coupling agent by mixing with a solution of such agent (para. 0040), and teaches that fatty acids are suitable for such purposes (para. 0039). Given that fatty acids are an organic acid, thus complexing agent, the use of such acids to surface treat soft particles is an obvious modification suggested by Ezaki.
As to claim 2, Yoshida teaches the composition is cured with heat (para. 0197) and by mixing with curing agent (hardener) (para. 0181).
As to claim 3, Yoshida teaches post curing (annealing) (para. 0195).
As to claim 4, while not exemplified, Yoshida teaches the use of press (compression) molding and injection molding (para. 0165), and as such, these molding methods are an obvious modification suggested by Yoshida.
As to claim 5, Yoshida teaches plasma treatment to activate the surface with hydroxyl groups, which are bondable (paras. 0142-0144).
As to claim 7, Yoshida teaches 1.
As to claim 11, Yoshida teaches epoxy resin, a thermosetting resin (para. 0029).
As to claim 13, Yoshida prefers the use of spherical particles (para. 0065).
As to claim 16, Yoshida exemplifies iron powder (para. 0175).
As to claim 17, table 2, which shows amounts in mass percent, shows examples of 2.9 mass percent of epoxy resin, and approximately 5 weight percent of resinous components.
As to claim 18, Yoshida teaches curing agent (hardener) (para. 0181). Table 2 shows compositions having less than 60 % of curing agent.
As to claim 21, Yoshida teaches the nonmagnetic filler includes ceramic particles preferably (paras. 0114-0116). These are presumed to be tougheners since they are the same material as recited.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2019-182950 A (“Yoshida”) in view of US 2015/0022309 (“Marusawa”), US 4,925,886 (“Atkins”) US 2014/0018475 (“Falkner”), and JP 2009-176974 A (“Ezaki”) as applied to claim 1, further in view of US 4,880,692 (“Ryoke”).
As to claim 22, while Yoshida in view of Ezaki suggests the use of fatty acid, oleic acid is not cited; however, it is known that the dispersiblity of ferromagnetic particles can be improved using oleic acid (1:57-65) as an alternative to silane coupling agents; as such, oleic acid surface treatment is an obvious treatment for magnetic particles suggested in the prior art.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 23-25 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, specifically to clarify that the surface treatment requires the application of coating.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art does not provide guidance for a method of producing a composite material in the manner of claim 1, using the required surface treatment agents set forth in claims 23-25.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-5, 7, 9-11, 13, 16-18, 21, and 22 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KREGG T BROOKS whose telephone number is (313)446-4888. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 9 am to 5:30 pm.
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, Arrie Reuther can be reached at (571)270-7026. 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.
/KREGG T BROOKS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1764