CTNF 18/236,519 CTNF 67880 Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Information Disclosure Statement JP 4113045, cited in the information disclosure statement of 13 October 2023, has been considered with respect to the discussion of this reference in the specification. JP 2012-523470 and JP 2021-503553, cited in the information disclosure statement of 13 October 2023, has been considered with respect to the relevancy given in the provided International Search report. A Third-Party Submission was filed in this application on 15 September 2025. The Examiner has considered the reference cited thereon. Specification 07-29 AIA The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: The specification teaches the powder has a residual magnetic moment of 15 emu/g or more but “emu/g” is not the units for residual magnetic moment. The unit for residual magnetic moment is emu. The unit “emu/g” is for mass or specific magnetization. Thus it unclear what property is being disclosed, residual magnetic moment of 15 emu or more or mass or specific magnetization of 15 emu/g or more. It is noted that the example teaches the powder after magnetization treatment has Mr of 20.4 emu/g and the white powder has a Mr of 21.6 emu/g. “Mr” is the symbol residual magnetization in the art . Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA 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. 07-34-01 Claims 4, 5, 12 and 13 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. These claims teach the powder has a residual magnetic moment of 15 emu/g or more but “emu/g” is not the units for residual magnetic moment. The unit for residual magnetic moment is emu. The unit “emu/g” is for mass or specific magnetization. Thus the claimed are indefinite since it unclear what property is being disclosed, residual magnetic moment of 15 emu or more or mass or specific magnetization of 15 emu/g or more. 07-30-03-h AIA Claim Interpretation In view of the teachings in the example where the powder after magnetization treatment has Mr of 20.4 emu/g and the white powder has a Mr of 21.6 emu/g and the fact “Mr” is the symbol residual magnetization in the art; the claimed magnetic property having the units of emu/g is being interpreted as representing the residual magnetization. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (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. 07-15 AIA Claim s 1, 3-5, 7, 8, 10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1 ) as being anticipated by U.S. patent application publication 2020/0391285 . This reference teaches, in example 1, a powder of AlNiCo base particles, a titanium oxide film on the base particle and a silver film on the titanium oxide film. The taught core particle of the examples has a coercivity of 392 Oe and a residual magnetization of 25.8 emu/g. These values falls within the ranges of claims 4 and 5 which means the taught AlNiCo base particles are semi-hard magnetic particles. Since the taught particles have the same structure and composition as that claimed, they must be a white powder, absent any showing to the contrary. The taught ink suggests the ink of claim 7. The powder of example 1 teaches producing the AlNiCo alloy powder by atomization, heat treating the powder, forming the titanium oxide film of the AlNiCo alloy powder and then forming a silver film of the titanium oxide film. This is the process of claims 8 and 10. Since the taught alloy powder has a residual magnetization of 25.8 emu/g, it appears the taught heat treatment step turns the alloy particles to a semi-hard powder having residual magnetization within the claimed range. The reference anticipates the claimed white powder, security ink and process . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. patent application publication 2020/0391285 . This reference teaches a powder of AlNiCo base particles, a titanium oxide film on the base particle and a silver film on the titanium oxide film and a security ink comprising this powder. The taught AlNiCo alloy has a composition of 2-12 wt% aluminum, 10-20 wt% nickel, 15-25 wt% cobalt, 1-10 wt% titanium, 0.5-5 wt% copper and the balance of Fe and inevitable impurities. This alloy composition overlaps the claimed alloy composition. Product claims with numerical ranges which overlap prior art ranges were held to have been obvious under 35 USC 103. In re Wertheim 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Malagari 182 USPQ 549 (CCPA 1974); In re Fields 134 USPQ 242 (CCPA 1962); In re Nehrenberg 126 USPQ 383 (CCPA 1960). Also see MPEP 2144.05.The taught alloy powder has a coercivity of 100-500 Oe and a preferred residual magnetization of 15-30 emu/g. These ranges falls within the ranges of claims 4 and 5 which means the taught AlNiCo base particles are semi-hard magnetic particles. Since the taught particles have the same structure and composition as that claimed, they must be a white powder having an L* value within the range of claim 6, absent any showing to the contrary. The produced alloy powder has an average particles diameter of 3-12 microns. The titanium oxide film has a thickness of 50-100 nm and the silver film has a thickness of 50-100 nm. Thus the taught powder has an average particle diameter of 4-14 microns, based on the sum of the film thicknesses and the size of the alloy particles. This size range overlaps the size range of claim 6. Since the taught alloy has an overlapping composition with that claimed, the average particles diameter overlaps the claimed range and particles are produced same method as that claimed; the specific surface are of the produced alloy particles would be expected to at least overlap the range of claims 6 and 14, absent any showing to the contrary since the specific surface area is based on the shape of the particles, the particles size of the particles and the density of the alloy. The reference teaches producing the AlNiCo alloy powder by atomization, heat treating the powder in an inert atmosphere at 700-800 o C for 30 minutes to 2 hours, forming the titanium oxide film of the AlNiCo alloy powder and then forming a silver film of the titanium oxide film. This is the process of claims 8 and 10. Since the taught alloy powder has a residual magnetization of 15-20 emu/g, it appears the taught heat treatment step turns the alloy particles to a semi-hard powder having residual magnetization within the claimed range. The heat treatment time and temperature range overlap the conditions of claim 13. The produced alloy powder has an average particles diameter of 3-12 microns. This size range falls within that of claim 11. Since the taught alloy has an overlapping composition with that claimed, the average particles diameter falls within the claimed range and particles are produced same method as that claimed; the specific surface are of the produced alloy particles would be expected to at least overlap the range of claim 11, absent any showing to the contrary since the specific surface area is based on the shape of the particles, the particles size of the particles and the density of the alloy. The reference suggests the process of claims 8-13. Conclusion U.S. patent application 2007/0184268 is cited as of interesting since it teaches powders having a structure of an magnetic base particles having an L* value of 70 or less, a titanium oxide film on the base particle and a silver film on the titanium oxide film are white powders having an L* value of 75 or more. Applicants show that AlNiCo alloy particles have an L* value of 52. Thus U.S. patent application 2007/0184268 indicates the powders of the references are white powders having an L* value of 75 or more. 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 /C. MELISSA KOSLOW/ Primary Examiner Art Unit 1734 Application/Control Number: 18/236,519 Page 2 Art Unit: 1734 Application/Control Number: 18/236,519 Page 3 Art Unit: 1734 Application/Control Number: 18/236,519 Page 4 Art Unit: 1734