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 .
Response to Amendment
This action is in response to applicant’s amendment of 18 February 2026. The amendments to the claimed have overcome the objections to the disclosure and all the rejections over the claims. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However a new grounds of rejection is made in view of the amendments to claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by both WO 2012/106752 and U.S. patent application 2022/0392676.
U.S. patent application 2022/0392676 is the national stage application for WO 2012/106752 and thus acts as the English translation for WO 2012/106752
These reference teach silica coated soft magnetic metal particles. Thes coated particles read upon the claimed beads. Paragraph [0035] teaches the soft magnetic metal particles, which are to be coated, has a saturation magnetization of 100 emu/g or more, which falls within the range of claim 3. Examples 7-13 teaches silica coated Fe-6.2%Si alloy particles, silica coated Fe-49.5%Ni alloy particles and silica coated carbonyl iron particles. Fe-6.2%Si alloy, Fe-49.5%Ni alloy and carbonyl iron all have a Vickers hardness greater than 100 and the taught Fe-6.2%Si alloy reads upon that of claim 2. Tables 1-1 and 1-2 teach the powders of examples 7-13 have D50 values, based a volume basis, that fall within the range of claim 1. Based on the taught silica layer thicknesses and D90 values, based on volume basis, of examples 7-13 taught in tables 1-1 and 1-2, the calculated ratios of coating thickness to D50 are about 0.001-0.12, and the calculated D90/D50 ratios are about 1.73-2.56. Both of these ranges fall within those of claim 1. Thus the references anticipated the claimed magnetic beads.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-8 are allowed.
Claim 4 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 7 is allowable for the reasons given in the previous action.
There is no teaching or suggestion in the art to form a magnetic bead dispersion liquid using the magnetic particles, or beads, of WO 2012/106752 or U.S. patent application 2022/0392676. Thus the magnetic bead dispersion liquid of claim 6 and the method for making a magnetic bead dispersion liquid of claim 7 are not teaching or suggestion by the art of record.
There is no teaching or suggestion in the art to produce the soft magnetic powder of WO 2012/106752 or U.S. patent application 2022/0392676 by an atomization method.
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 C. MELISSA KOSLOW whose telephone number is (571)272-1371. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Tues:7:45-3:45 EST;Thurs-Fri:6:30-2:00EST; and Wed:7:45-2:00EST.
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.
/C Melissa Koslow/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1734
cmk
3/12/26