Response to Amendment
This action is in response to applicants’ amendment of 29 May 2026. The amendments to the specification have overcome the objections to the disclosure. The amendments to the claims have overcome, the 35 USC 112(b) rejections and the 35 USC 102(a)(1) rejection and the 35 USC 103 rejection over claims 2, 4, 5, 9, 12 and 13. The 35 USC 103 art rejection over claims 1, 3, 6-8, 10, 11 and 14 has been modified in view of the amendment to the composition of the Alnico alloy powder.
Claim Interpretation
Since claims 2and 9 teaches the alloy contain 0% Cu, this teaching is being interrupted as meaning the alloy of these claims does not contain any copper impurities.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 3-8 and 10-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 8 have been amended to now teach the AlNiCo alloy does not include Cu apart from inevitable impurities thereof. While the originally filed disclosure supports the newly added limitation that the AlNiCo alloy does not include Cu, there is no teaching in the originally filed specification that copper is an inevitable impurity in the taught alloy. Thus the newly added limitation to these claims that the alloy contains inevitable copper impurities is new matter. Dependent claims 3-7 and 10-14 implicitly include this limitation and thus also include new matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 3-8, and 10-14 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. Paragraphs [0028] and [0059]-[0061] teach the taught AlNiCo alloy contains Al, Ni, Co, Fe, at least one of Cu, Ti and Si and inevitable impurities. Given this teaching that copper is an optional component, the reference suggests a AlNiCo alloy that does not contain copper. 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 can have the claimed composition, 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 700-800oC 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 and 10-13.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments have been considered but are not convincing. As discussed above, the reference teaches that the presence of copper in the taught AlNiCo alloy is optional and the argued copper containing alloy is a preferred embodiment. Since refences are not limited to the preferred embodiments, but are good for all they teach, the rejection, as modified above, is maintained.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2 and 9 are 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.
There is no teaching or suggestion in the art of record of a white powder comprising base particles made of AlNiCo alloy having the composition of claim 2, a titanium oxide film and a metallic silver film that is disposed in that order on the surfaces of the base particles outwardly from the surfaces and the method for making the powder, as set forth in claim 8, wherein the base particles used in the claimed method are made of AlNiCo alloy having the composition of claim 9.
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
6/15/26
Prosecution Insights