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
Claims 11-13 are objected to because of the following informalities: The instant claims lack articles (‘a’ ‘an’ ‘the’) in terms of the intended use. It seems as though the claims should be drawn to a ‘a rubber magnet for a sensor’. 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 2-5 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.
The claims are drawn to several sub-ranges presumably within the scope of claim 1, wherein the claims set forth particular content of alkoxyalkylsilane based on particular parts by weight of magnetic powder. It is unclear whether the weight basis in these claims is in terms of the nitrile rubber as is set forth in claim 1 or the magnetic powder as it is set forth individually in claims 2-5. It is unclear that the claims only require selection of a content of alkoxyalkylsilane relative to magnetic powders or if the claims also require the parts by weight of magnetic powders relative to 100 parts of nitrile rubber. Furthermore, it is noted that these claims set forth that the silane ‘is used’ in the claimed amount. It is thought that this implies that it is present in the composition in the amount that is ‘used’; however, as there is a gap between the language used in the independent claim compared to the dependent claims, this is unclear. Appropriate explanation or correction is required.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-6, 8-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kasamoto in US2006/0186369 in view of Yamaguchi in US2005/0004286.
Regarding Claim 1: Kasamoto teaches a nitrile rubber based composition (See Paragraph 32) comprising 74-94 wt% of an anisotropic magnetic powder (See Paragraph 20), 5-22 wt% of a rubber binder, which may be a hydrogenated nitrile rubber (See Paragraph 21 and 32). The range of the magnetic powder and binder fall within the claimed range as is shown in the examples, which shows 100 parts of the binder in conjunction with 1100 parts of the magnetic powder. The wt% ranges of Kasamoto convert to an upper bound of 94*(100/5)= 1880 parts of the magnetic powder per 100 parts of the nitrile rubber. Kasamoto teaches that the magnetic powder has a compressed density of greater than 3.2 g/cc (See Paragraph 6). Kasamoto thus teaches an overlapping range of compositions in terms of the content of binder, magnetic powder and the properties of the magnetic powder. Overlapping ranges have been held to establish a prima facie case of obviousness over the prior art. Those of ordinary skill in the art would only need to select from the overlapping portion of the range to arrive at the invention as claimed.
The composition may include 0.05 to 20 based on 100 parts by weight of the rubber of an alkoxysilane (See Paragraph 22) of formula RaSiX4-a, wherein R is an alkyl group and X is a hydrolysable group such as a methoxy group (See Paragraph 10). The alkoxysilane may be an alkoxyalkylsilane such as methyltriethoxysilane amongst others (See Paragraph 13). Kasamoto thus teaches an overlapping range of alkoxyalkylsilane content and composition.
Kasamoto teaches that compounding agents such as plasticizers may be added but is silent in terms of their content (See Paragraph 19).
However, Yamaguchi also teaches the creation of nitrile rubber-based compositions comprising large amounts of magnetic powder (See Abstract). Yamaguchi teaches that the nitrile rubber-based composition may include many of the same compounding agents as that of Kasamoto, including the use of plasticizers. Yamaguchi teaches that when plasticizers are mixed with the composition, they are provided in an amount from 1 to 20 parts per 100 parts of the nitrile rubber (See Paragraph 32). Those of ordinary skill would have found it obvious to use this range of plasticizers in the composition of Kasamoto as it is a similar composition and would benefit from the same range of plasticizing components. In the silence of Kasamoto those of ordinary skill in the art would look to similar teachings to determine conventional amounts of plasticizers to be used in such a composition. Those of ordinary skill would have been motivated to use amounts from 1 to 20 parts per 100 parts of nitrile rubber as this is taught by Yamaguchi to be a suitable amount. Thus, Kasamoto in view of Yamaguchi teach an overlapping range of plasticizer.
Regarding Claim 2-4: Kasamoto in view of Yamaguchi teach that the content of alkoxyalkylsilane may be in the range 0.05 to 20 parts by weight based on 100 parts of nitrile rubber (See Paragraph 22). Kasamoto teaches that the content of magnetic particles may be from at least 1100 (See Examples) to 1880 (94*(100/5)= 1880; see above) parts relative to 100 parts of the nitrile rubber. Thus Kasamoto in view of Yamaguchi teaches an overlapping range of both alkoxyalkylsilane and magnetic particles with all of the ranges as set forth in claims 2-4. Those of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to select from the overlapping portion of each of the ranges as set forth in each individual claim.
Regarding Claim 5: Kasamoto in view of Yamaguchi teach that the content of alkoxyalkylsilane may be in the range 0.05 to 20 parts by weight based on 100 parts of nitrile rubber (See Paragraph 22). Kasamoto thus teaches an overlapping range of alkoxyalkylsilane content with the amount that is instantly claimed. Overlapping ranges have been held to present a prima facie case of obviousness over the prior art. Those of ordinary skill would only need to select from the overlapping portion of the range to arrive at the invention as claimed.
Kasamoto teaches that the content of magnetic particles may be up to 94 wt% when 5 wt% of nitrile rubber is used, which corresponds to 1880 parts of magnetic powder relative to 100 parts of nitrile rubber. The MPEP sets forth at 2144.05 that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. The proportions of Kasamoto in view of Yamaguchi are so close that prima facie, those of ordinary skill in the art would have expected the materials of the prior art to have the same properties and same effect as that which is claimed. The upper bound of Kasamoto is 1880; however, adjusting to 4.7 wts of nitrile renders a composition that contains 2000 parts of magnetic particles relative to 100 parts of rubber. Those of ordinary skill would have found it obvious to provide such a composition and would have expected such a composition to be the same as that which is claimed, particularly in view of Yamaguchi’s inclusion of up to 20 pbw of a plasticizer, which would be expected to improve processability.
Regarding Claim 6: Kasamoto teaches that the rubber may be a nitrile rubber, a hydrogenated nitrile rubber, or a blend thereof (See Paragraph 18). Kasamoto thus teaches the same nitrile rubber compositions. Those of ordinary skill in the art would expect the materials of Kasamoto to have the same Mooney viscosity ML1+4(100C) of 20 to 50 as claimed as the material is of the same composition as that which is claimed. The rubber of Kasamoto is combined and kneaded in an open roll and is thus a millable type composition as claimed.
Regarding Claim 8: Kasamoto teaches that the magnetic powder has a compressed density of greater than 3.2 g/cc (See Paragraph 6 and 17), which represents an overlapping range with the claimed range. Kasamoto teaches that the magnetic powder may be a rare earth magnet or a ferrite magnet (See Paragraph 15).
Regarding Claim 9: Kasamoto teaches that the ferrite magnet may be a strontium ferrite magnet (See Paragraph 15).
Regarding Claim 10: Kasamoto teaches that the alkoxyalkylsilane has a formula RaSiX4-a, wherein R is an alkyl group add X is a hydrolysable group as methoxy (alkoxy). ‘A’ may have a value from 0 to 3. Kasamoto teaches that the R group has a formula CnH2n+1, but is silent in terms of the range of n; however, the examples set forth inn paragraph 13 show that n may range from 1 to at least 10 (decyltrimethoxy). Those of ordinary skill in the art would have found the use of an 'a' value of 1 and an n value of 8 (as claimed ) within the teachings of Kasamoto and obviated thereby.
Regarding Claim 11: The instant claim is set forth in terms of the intended use of the composition. Intended use limitations are examined on the basis of the material of the prior art’s capability of being used for the intended purpose and not the actual use thereof. The material of Kasamoto is also capable of being molded and vulcanized (sulfurized) as is taught at paragraphs 24-27. The material of Kasamoto is thus capable of the same use as the material claimed and meets the claim limitation in terms of said intended use.
Regarding Claim 12: Kasamoto teaches the creation of a rubber magnet and teaches that the material may be vulcanized (sulfurization) and molded (See Paragraph 24-27). The instant claim is set forth in terms of the intended use of the composition for a sensor. Intended use limitations are examined on the basis of the material of the prior art’s capability of being used for the intended purpose and not the actual use thereof. The material of Kasamoto may be provided as an aligned magnet (See Paragraph 27) and may be used as a sensor as claimed. The material of Kasamoto is thus capable of the same intended use and meets the claim limitations as set forth.
Regarding Claim 13-15: Kasamoto teaches a rubber magnet that may be polarized, but is silent in terms of the applications of such a magnet.
However, Yamaguchi teaches that nitrile rubber based magnetic compositions for sensors may be used as a magnetic encoder, which is used as a rotation speed sensor in a wheel shaft of an automobile (See Paragraph 1; Re: Claim 13-14). Yamaguchi teaches that the sensor may be provided as a molded ring (annular; See Examples such as paragraph 43) and is attached to a metal ring (support member; See Paragraph 67). The encoder is polarized such that it has 48 N and S poles (67). As the molded body is in the form of a ring, the magnetization and poles must be oriented in a circumferential direction.
Those of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use the composition of Kasamoto in view of Yamaguchi for the creation of a magnetic wheel speed encoder (as is taught by Yamaguchi) as the material of Kasamoto in view of Yamaguchi is of a similar composition and would be capable of the same use. Those of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to use the material of Kasamoto in view of Yamaguchi in known applications.
It is noted that many of the limitations set forth in the claim are in terms of intended use (‘which is used in an encoder part of a wheel speed sensor’; ‘capable of being attached to a rotating body’). The material of Kasamoto in view of Yamaguchi is of the same composition and structure as that which is claimed and is capable of the same use. Yamaguchi explicitly sets forth the as-created material is capable of use as an encoder used as a wheel sensor, which is the same use claimed.
Regarding Claim 16: Kasamoto teaches a means for producing a rubber magnet that is capable of being used as a sensor. Kasamoto in view of Yamaguchi teaches an overlapping range of components in terms of magnetic powder, in terms of its content and density, alkoxyalkylsilane, plasticizer and nitrile rubber (See Discussion of Claim 1 above). Kasamoto teaches that these components are blended, disposed in a mold and sulfurized (vulcanized) under an applied magnetic field (See Paragraph 24).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kasamoto in view of Yamaguchi as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Shinichi in JP2010263201 (citations to the machine translation provided.
Kasamoto in view of Yamaguchi teaches an overlapping range of components in terms of magnetic powder, both content and density, alkoxyalkylsilane, plasticizer and nitrile rubber (See Discussion of Claim 1 above).
Kasamoto in view of Yamaguchi is silent in terms of the use of a magnetic powder having two particle size distribution peaks at 1-2 microns and 2-4 microns.
However, Shinichi teaches the creation of bonded magnets containing magnetic particles (See Abstract, Example 12). Shinichi teaches that when making such a magnet, a powder having a higher and lower specific surface area may be used (See Description Paragraph 5 and 16). Shinichi teaches the use of such a powder, having two different surface areas (and particle sizes) allows for the powder to have high fluidity, density and dispersibility leading to improved residual magnetic flux density in the as-created bonded magnet (See Paragraph 6). Shinichi shows the creation of suitable powders in the Examples, wherein Examples 1-28 show the use of a first powder having a first peak in particle size distribution between 1.1 and 1.4 microns and a second peak in particle size distribution between 3.2 and 6.9 microns. The powder of Shinichi overlaps with the claimed powders in terms of having two peaks, the first being between 1 and 2 microns and the second being 2-4 microns. Particularly, the powder of Shinichi has a first peak within the claimed range and a second peak overlapping the claimed range. Those of ordinary skill would have found it obvious to provide any of the powders within the overlapping range as taught by Shinichi in the composition according to Kasamoto in view of Yamaguchi. Those of ordinary skill would have been motivated to use such a powder in order to increase the density of the as-created body and improve the residual magnetic flux density of the magnet, as is taught by Shinichi.
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