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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 14 April 2023. These drawings are accepted.
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.
Claim 21 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 21 recites the limitation "the water-soluble cobalt salt." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In independent claim 1, no such a cobalt salt is disclosed. Such a salt is first introduced in claim 7. It is not clear whether applicant intended claim 21 to introduce this feature or not.
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.
Claim(s) 1-6, and 10-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 108274020 (A) as cited by applicant (hereinafter “He”), in view of US 2018/0304375 A1 (hereinafter “Ishii”).
Regarding claim 1, He teaches a method of making a nickel-iron alloy powder (see abstract or claim 1). He teaches that two liquids are prepared (preparation step), which are then mixed in order to conduct a reduction reaction (crystallization step; see claim 1 or Examples 1 thru 4). He teaches that the powder is recovered from the liquid (recovery step; see claim 1 or Examples 1-4).
He teaches that the salts of iron and nickel are mixed (claim 1 or Examples 1-4), meeting the requirement of a magnetic metal source. He teaches that a complexing agent is added (claim 1). He teaches that a hydrazine reducing agent is added (see claim 5 or Example 5). He teaches that a pH is adjusted by addition of NaOH (see claims 1 and 7, or Examples 1 thru 5).
He does not teach that the complexing agent is a hydroxycarboxylic acid, or a salt or derivative thereof. He teaches that the complexing agent may include a disodium edetate or ethylene diamine (claim 3 or Example 3).
He does not teach to add a nucleating agent comprising a salt of a metal that is more noble than nickel. He does not mention any nucleating agent or metal salt as such.
Ishii teaches a method of making a nickel powder (See title). Ishii teaches that the method includes a preparation of a reaction solution, a crystallizing step, and a recovery step for nickel powder (See Figs 1-7, claim 1 and [0101]-[0102]). Ishii teaches that the reaction solution includes nickel salt, a hydrazine reducing agent, a amine compound, and a metal salt of a metal more noble than nickel (See claim 1, or Figs 2-7 or SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION). Ishii teaches that the metal salt of a metal more noble than nickel functions as a nucleating agent, which makes it possible to produce finer powder (see [0063]-[0065]).
Ishii teaches to add an amine compound such as ethylene diamine (claims 1-4 or SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION). Ishii teaches that in addition to an amine compound, an acid such as a citric or tartaric acid can be employed as known in the art as a complexing agent (see [0080] and [0098]-[0099] or Example 3).
It would have been an obvious matter to the skilled artisan at time of filing to have altered the method of He by adding in a metal salt of a metal more noble than nickel, as taught by Ishii (cited above), because Ishii teaches that this acts as a nucleating agent which allows small sizes of powders (cited above). It further would have been obvious to have added in an acid as a complexing agent because Ishii teaches that these are commonly employed in the art and would have been useful in a similar magnetic powder synthesis process (as cited above). The combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results would have been an obvious matter to the skilled artisan.
Regarding claim 2, He teaches the same iron salts as claimed (see claim 2).
Regarding claim 3, He teaches the same nickel salts as claimed (see claim 2).
Regarding claim 4, Ishii teaches that the metal salt of metal more noble than nickel may be a palladium salt ([0064] or Example 1 or claim 11).
Regarding claim 5, Ishii teaches that in addition to an amine compound, an acid such as a citric or tartaric acid can be employed as known in the art as a complexing agent (see [0080] and [0098]-[0099] or Example 3).
Regarding claim 6, He teaches that a pH is adjusted by addition of NaOH (see claims 1 and 7, or Examples 1 thru 5).
Regarding claims 10-13, He teaches that the complexing agent may include a disodium edetate or ethylene diamine (claim 3 or Example 3).
Regarding claim 14, He teaches to add the complexing agent in a molar ratio of 0.05:1 to 1.0:1 (claim 1). The amount taught by He falls entirely within the claimed range, establishing a prima facie case of obviousness for the range.
Regarding claims 15-16, He teaches to mix the amine with the metal salts to make solution A, and the reducing agent to make solution B, which are then mixed together, and the solution of NaOH is added to adjust pH (see Example 1).
He does not teach that the metal salt nucleating agent is added to the first mixture A.
It would have been an obvious matter to the skilled artisan at time of filing to have altered the method of He by adding in a metal salt of a metal more noble than nickel to liquid A, because Ishii teaches that this acts as a nucleating agent which allows small sizes of powders (cited above). It further would have been obvious to have added in an acid as a complexing agent because Ishii teaches that these are commonly employed in the art and would have been useful in a similar magnetic powder synthesis process (as cited above). The combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results would have been an obvious matter to the skilled artisan.
Alternatively, Ishii envisions separate metal salt solutions, reducing agent solutions, and amine compound solutions (see Example 1 thru Example 5). The manufacture of individual solutions to make the reduction reaction would have been a prima facie obvious matter to a skilled artisan. The altercation of a sequence of adding the reactant ingredients together is considered an obvious variant of the known process. Ex parte Rubin, 128 USPQ 440 (Bd. App. 1959).
Regarding claim 17, He does not teach what time is required for the mixing of the liquid A and B. He is silent as to this feature. Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). In this case, He teaches that the liquids are mixed “evenly” (Example 1). The mixture time would have been adjusted as needed in order to have obtained the even mixture described by He, using no more than a routine investigation of the prior art invention. Applicant is further directed to MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claims 18-19, He teaches to mix the amine with the metal salts to make solution A, and the reducing agent to make solution B, which are then mixed together, and the solution of NaOH is added to adjust pH (see Example 1).
He does not teach that the metal salt nucleating agent is added to the first mixture A.
It would have been an obvious matter to the skilled artisan at time of filing to have altered the method of He by adding in a metal salt of a metal more noble than nickel to liquid A, because Ishii teaches that this acts as a nucleating agent which allows small sizes of powders (cited above). It further would have been obvious to have added in an acid as a complexing agent because Ishii teaches that these are commonly employed in the art and would have been useful in a similar magnetic powder synthesis process (as cited above). The combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results would have been an obvious matter to the skilled artisan.
Regarding claim 20, He does not teach what time is required for the mixing. He is silent as to this feature. Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). In this case, He teaches that the liquids are mixed “evenly” (Example 1). The mixture time would have been adjusted as needed in order to have obtained the even mixture described by He, using no more than a routine investigation of the prior art invention. Applicant is further directed to MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 28, He in view of Ishii does not teach to hold back some of the metal salts and add them during the reduction reaction. He in view of Ishii envisions adding the materials together at once. The altercation of a sequence of adding the reactant ingredients together is considered an obvious variant of the known process. Ex parte Rubin, 128 USPQ 440 (Bd. App. 1959). The addition of part of the metal salts and then another part is not considered to be a patentable distinction in this case.
Regarding claim 22, He teaches an amine is added (claim 1 or Example 1).
Regarding claim 23, He teaches to heat the mixture to 50-80 C and maintain for reaction (see claim 1).
Regarding claim 24, He does not teach a crushing step as claimed. He is silent as to the crushing.
Ishii teaches that after a recovery the metal powder is crushed (See Fig 1, [0103] and [0119]).
It would have been an obvious matter to the skilled artisan at time of filing to have crushed the powder because Ishii teaches that this breaks agglomerates (See Fig 1, [0103] and [0119]).
Regarding claims 25-26, Ishii teaches a spiral jet crushing (See Fig 1, [0103] and [0119]).
Regarding claim 27, Ishii teaches a high pressure fluid collision crushing (See Fig 1, [0103] and [0119]).
Regarding claim 28, Ishii teaches to heat to 2000-300 in order to apply a mild heat treatment to nickel powder (See [0102]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have added a drying step at 200-300 in order to apply a mold heat treatment as taught by Ishii ([0102]).
Claim(s) 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 108274020 (A) as cited by applicant (hereinafter “He”), in view of US 2018/0304375 A1 (hereinafter “Ishii”) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of JP 2010-242143 as cited by applicant (hereinafter “Okada”).
Regarding claim 7, He in view of Ishii do not teach wherein the magnetic material further includes cobalt, and the source of magnetic material includers cobalt salt, as claimed.
Okada teaches Okada teaches a manufacturing method for a metallic powder including adding a metal salt with a reducing agent, complexing agent, and dispersant, and then adjusting the pH to deposit the metal powder (see claim 1). Okada teaches that the metals may include nickel, iron and cobalt (see [0012]-[0014] and [0028]).
It would have been an obvious matter to the skilled artisan at time of filing to have altered the method of He by adding in a metal salt of a metal more noble than nickel, as taught by Ishii (cited above), because Ishii teaches that this acts as a nucleating agent which allows small sizes of powders (cited above). It further would have been obvious to have added in an acid as a complexing agent because Ishii teaches that these are commonly employed in the art and would have been useful in a similar magnetic powder synthesis process (as cited above), and to have used a cobalt material as a part of the metal, because Okada teaches that cobalt is a suitable metal for magnetic materials (see [0012]-[0014] and [0028]). The combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results would have been an obvious matter to the skilled artisan.
Regarding claim 8, He teaches a ratio of nickel and iron is 1:9 to 19:1. The selection of the various magnetic metal components used for the same purpose would have been optimized by the skilled artisan through a routine investigation of the teachings of the prior art.
Regarding claim 9, Okada teaches cobalt chloride (see Example 7).
Claim(s) 29-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 108274020 (A) as cited by applicant (hereinafter “He”), in view of US 2018/0304375 A1 (hereinafter “Ishii”) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of JP H10-259401 as cited by applicant (hereinafter “Nakatsuka”).
Regarding claim 29, He in view of Ishii do not teach an oxide coating scheme as claimed. He in view of Ishii are silent as to providing insulative oxide coatings of the type claimed.
Nakatsuka teaches a means of coating a metallic magnetic powder (See [0001]). Nakatsuka teaches that the coating protects the powder and facilitates its mixing with other materials (see [0002]-[0003]). Nakatsuka teaches that a powder is mixed with silicon ethoxide and ammonia water, and the mixture stirred during the coating reaction (see Example 1). Nakatsuka teaches that the silica layer is controllably formed on the powder surface (Example 1).
It would have been an obvious matter to the skilled artisan at time of filing to have altered the method of He by adding in a metal salt of a metal more noble than nickel, as taught by Ishii (cited above), because Ishii teaches that this acts as a nucleating agent which allows small sizes of powders (cited above). It further would have been obvious to have added in an acid as a complexing agent because Ishii teaches that these are commonly employed in the art and would have been useful in a similar magnetic powder synthesis process (as cited above), and to have practiced the coating method as detailed by Nakatsuka (cited above), because Nakatsuka teaches that the coating protects the powder and facilitates its mixing with other materials (see [0002]-[0003]). The combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results would have been an obvious matter to the skilled artisan.
Regarding claim 30, Nakatsuka teaches a hydrolysis reaction and neutralization reaction, using solvents, catalysts, and silica alkoxide to deposit the coating (See [0039]-[0045] and Example 1). Nakatsuka teaches recovering the powder thus coated ([0039]-[0045] and Example 1). Nakatsuka teaches the same materials are added in the same way to create the same coating on the metal powder.
Regarding claim 31, Nakatsuka teaches silicon ethoxide to deposit silica coating (Example 1).
Regarding claim 32, Nakatsuka teaches that catalysts maybe used (see [0039]-[0045]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 11,389,875, US 11,376,658, and US 7,520,915 each teach methods of synthesizing nickel powders via reduction reactions.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER S KESSLER whose telephone number is (571)272-6510. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5:30.
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, Curt 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.
CHRISTOPHER S. KESSLER
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1734
/CHRISTOPHER S KESSLER/ Examiner, Art Unit 1759