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 .
Status of Claims
Pending: claims 1-12
Withdrawn: claims 7-12
Rejected: claims 1-6
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 12/02/2026 have been fully considered; the arguments concerning Dong’s lack of teaching of ‘scale-like particles’ are found persuasive. As such, the current office action is a Non-Final Rejection (please see updated rejection below).
The remainder of the arguments are not found persuasive. Specifically, the argument that Comparative Example 6 of the instant application is inferior (see page 10 of arguments) are not found persuasive, because as discussed by Suetsuna in the updated rejection below, this benefit is expected and predictable, as Suetsuna teaches that using flaky magnetic metal particles improves magnetic permeability. Any differences between the claimed invention and the prior art may be expected to result in some differences in properties. The issue is whether the properties differ to such an extent that the difference is really unexpected (MPEP 716.02).
The argument concerning particle size (see page 11 of arguments) is not found persuasive because they are not commensurate in scope with the claims.
The arguments concerning Example 3 of Dong (see page 11 of arguments) is not found persuasive because the disclosure of Dong is not limited only to the embodiment of Example 3 of Dong, who teaches a range of ratios of a polymer mass fraction of 5 to 15% and is composed of 85 to 95% by weight of manganese zinc ferrite, iron powder and iron silicon aluminum metal powder (claim 1 of Dong).
With regard to the arguments concerning conditions (1) and (2) in instant claim 1 (see page 12 of arguments), the limitations are merely statements of intended use, and as such, do not further limit the claim beyond the fact that the composition must be capable of being used in the manner intended; to satisfy an intended use limitation which is limiting, a prior art structure which is capable of performing the intended use meets the claim (MPEP 2111.02). In the instant case, the product of Dong is capable of being used in the manner intended.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over, Dong et al. (CN 107964239 A; made of record on 12/30/2022) in view of Suetsuna et al. (US 20170209924 A1).
Regarding claim 1, with regard to the claimed “A magnetic resin composition for injection molding comprising a thermoplastic resin (A) that has a melting point of 100° C. to 400° C. and magnetic particles (B), wherein
as the magnetic particles (B), […]particles that are formed of an Fe—Si—Al alloy are used, and a mass ratio of the thermoplastic resin (A) to the Fe—Si—Al alloy, that is, thermoplastic resin (A)/Fe—Si—Al alloy is 10/90 to 15/85” Dong teaches “a thermoplastic polymer-based soft magnetic composite material and is injected through a injection molding machine at the time of injection molding. The polymer-based soft magnetic composite material is based on a thermoplastic polymer having a mass fraction of 5 to 15% and is composed of 85 to 95% by weight of manganese zinc ferrite, iron powder and iron silicon aluminum metal powder. One or more of the mixture is used as a filler and is mixed and granulated by a twin-screw extruder to obtain a high-intensity and high magnetic permeability polymer-based soft magnetic composite material; the polymer-based soft magnetic composite material is subjected to a one-time use injection molding, you can get induction cooker heating wire tray bracket.” (see claim 1 of Dong), which meets the claimed composition. Furthermore, Dong teaches that the mixture is extruded at 245-265°C (see Example 1 on page 5 of Dong), which meets the claimed temperature range. Additionally, the injection molding is performed at 265-285°C, which is also within the claimed melting temperature range, as plastic extrusion occurs at the melting point of the plastic being extruded.
With regard to the claimed “conditions (1) and (2) described below are satisfied when, in order to form the magnetic resin composition for injection molding into a shape of a sheet, the sheet is prepared by uniformly applying a pressure of 15 MPa from above one main surface side of a sheet to be formed over 1 minute at a temperature of the melting point of the thermoplastic resin (A)+15° C., and in a cross-sectional surface in a thickness direction of the sheet, a region with a length of 0.125 mm and a thickness of 0.090 mm is subjected to image processing with a micrograph at a magnification of 2500:
(1) a total area of the magnetic particles (B) subjected to image processing is 40% to 65% of the area of the image processing region,
(2) a number of the magnetic particles (B) subjected to image processing is 200 to 500”, the limitations are merely statements of intended use, and as such, do not further limit the claim beyond the fact that the composition must be capable of being used in the manner intended; to satisfy an intended use limitation which is limiting, a prior art structure which is capable of performing the intended use meets the claim (MPEP 2111.02). In the instant case, the product of Dong is capable of being used in the manner intended.
However, Dong is silent regarding the use of “-scale-like” particles.
Suetsuna teaches flaky magnetic metal particles (Abstract) and further teaches that using flaky magnetic metal particles having an average aspect ratio of between 5 and 10000 is beneficial because magnetic permeability becomes larger as the result, as well as ferromagnetic resonance frequency, while reducing ferromagnetic resonance loss [0043].
As such, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Dong to use the flaky (meeting the claimed “scale-like”) particle shape of Suetsuna, as doing so would improve the magnetic permeability of the particles.
Regarding claims 2-6, Dong teaches using polyamide (see middle of page 4 of Dong), meeting claim 2; using a silane coupling agent (see middle of page 4 of Dong), meeting claim 3; an antioxidant (see middle of page 4 of Dong), meeting claim 4; using other antioxidants (see middle of page 4 of Dong), which meets the “metal deactivator” of claim 5 (a metal deactivator is interpreted as a substance that effectively prevents rusting of magnetic particles – see [0090] of the instant specification); using a lubricant (see middle of page 4 of Dong), meeting claim 6.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Adil Siddiqui whose telephone number is (571)272-8047. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10AM-6PM CST.
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, Keith Walker can be reached at 571-272-3458. 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.
/ADIL A. SIDDIQUI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1735
Prosecution Insights