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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 27-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claims are drawn to “use” claims, attempting to claim a process without setting forces any steps involved in the process and is not a proper process claim. (See MPEP 2173.05(q) and (I))
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 1-21 and 27-28 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 term “sufficient permeability” in claim1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “sufficient” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Its dependent claims are therefore also considered indefinite.
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.
Claim(s) 1-7, 16-19 and 27-28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rachui et al. (US20160379754A1) in view of Samek et al. (US20130125607A1) and alternatively in further view of Makoto et al. (JPH0533051A)
Regarding Claims 1-2 and 16-19, Rachui teaches a method of forming a ferromagnetic component comprising magnetically soft iron-silicon alloy [0010] where the sheet is unannealed before deforming into a component part (See claim 1); this product is considered to have magnetic shielding properties.
Rachui is silent regarding the forming method used, however Samek teaches a method of forming a structural part from iron manganese steel sheet and teaches it is conventional for hot forming to be used to reduce the spring back effect of the formed parts and can produce complex deep-drawn parts [0004]; therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to heat the metal sheet and form the metal sheet to a desired geometry in a hot forming tool and hold the formed sheet in the tool before allowing the formed metal sheet to cool before removing for the purpose of forming complex deep drawn parts while reducing the spring back effect;
Samek also teaches cold forming (reading on claims 18 and 19) may be used where a 3D dimensional component may be formed by cold forming, heating the part and calibrating to a final shape (See Claim 1); and where Makato teaches that in forming a magnetic shield a formed magnetic shield is subjected to magnetic annealing to enhance the magnetism of the magnetic shield (Abstract); therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the method of Rachui to cold form the metal sheet in a forming tool, heat up the formed object, calibrating the hot formed object to a final shape for the purpose of predictably forming a soft magnetic product into a desired complex shape, and to impart improved magnetic shielding to the object by magnetic annealing after forming as taught by Makato;
The product is considered capable of being used as panel or linings for different uses including housings or chambers as required by claims 27-28.
Regarding Claims 3-5, Makato teaches teaches soft annealing of 650-750 C, forming, and magnetically annealed at 850 C or higher (See Claim 1), overlapping with the claimed range of 1000-1400 C (See MPEP 2144.05(I))
Regarding Claim 6, Samek teaches hot forming at 900 C [0004]
Regarding Claim 7, Samek teaches calibration in carried out by heating to 500-700 C (See claim 1)
Claim(s) 1-5, 8-10, 15, 17-19 and 27-28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thornburg (US3597286A1) in view of Samek et al. (US20130125607A1) and alternatively in further view of Makoto et al. (JPH0533051A)
Regarding Claims 1-2, 15 and 17-19, Thornburg teaches a method of forming a soft magnetic sheet comprising cold rolling a Co-Fe alloy (Col.6 Lines 1-10) where the sheet is unannealed before deforming into a component part (See claim 1); this product is considered to have magnetic shielding properties.
Thornburg is silent regarding the forming method used, however Samek teaches a method of forming a structural part from iron manganese steel sheet and teaches it is conventional for hot forming to be used to reduce the spring back effect of the formed parts and can produce complex deep-drawn parts [0004]; therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to heat the metal sheet and form the metal sheet to a desired geometry in a hot forming tool and hold the formed sheet in the tool before allowing the formed metal sheet to cool before removing for the purpose of forming complex deep drawn parts while reducing the spring back effect;
Samek also teaches cold forming (reading on claims 18 and 19) may be used where a 3D dimensional component may be formed by cold forming, heating the part and calibrating to a final shape (See Claim 1); and where Makato teaches that in forming a magnetic shield a formed magnetic shield is subjected to magnetic annealing to enhance the magnetism of the magnetic shield (Abstract); therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the method of Rachui to cold form the metal sheet in a forming tool, heat up the formed object, calibrating the hot formed object to a final shape for the purpose of predictably forming a soft magnetic product into a desired complex shape, and to impart improved magnetic shielding to the object by magnetic annealing after forming as taught by Makato;
The product is considered capable of being used as panel or linings for different uses including housings or chambers as required by claims 27-28.
Regarding Claims 3-5 and 8, Makato teaches soft annealing of 650-750 C, forming, and magnetically annealed at 850 C or higher (See Claim 1), overlapping with the claimed range of 1000-1400 C and the claim 8 range of 700-950 (See MPEP 2144.05(I))
Regarding Claim 9, Samek teaches hot forming at 900 C [0004]
Regarding Claim 10, Samek teaches calibration in carried out by heating to 500-700 C (See claim 1)
Claim(s) 1-5, 12-16, 18-19 and 27-28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klaus (US3345219) in view of Samek et al. (US20130125607A1) and alternatively in further view of Makoto et al. (JPH0533051A)
Regarding Claims 1-2, 15-16 and 18-19, Klaus teaches a method of forming a soft magnetic sheet comprising cold rolling a Si-Fe alloy (Col.1 Lines 1-10) where the sheet is unannealed before deforming into a component part (See claim 1); this product is considered to have magnetic shielding properties.
Thornburg teaches cold or hot working may be used (Col. 3, Lines 30-45) but does not teach each and every claimed limitation, however Samek teaches a method of forming a structural part from iron manganese steel sheet and teaches it is conventional for hot forming to be used to reduce the spring back effect of the formed parts and can produce complex deep-drawn parts [0004]; therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to heat the metal sheet and form the metal sheet to a desired geometry in a hot forming tool and hold the formed sheet in the tool before allowing the formed metal sheet to cool before removing for the purpose of forming complex deep drawn parts while reducing the spring back effect;
Samek also teaches cold forming (reading on claims 18 and 19)may be used where a 3D dimensional component may be formed by cold forming, heating the part and calibrating to a final shape (See Claim 1); and where Makato teaches that in forming a magnetic shield a formed magnetic shield is subjected to magnetic annealing to enhance the magnetism of the magnetic shield (Abstract); therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the method of Rachui to cold form the metal sheet in a forming tool, heat up the formed object, calibrating the hot formed object to a final shape for the purpose of predictably forming a soft magnetic product into a desired complex shape, and to impart improved magnetic shielding to the object by magnetic annealing after forming as taught by Makato;
The product is considered capable of being used as panel or linings for different uses including housings or chambers as required by claims 27-28.
Regarding Claims 3-5 and 12, Makato teaches soft annealing of 650-750 C, forming, and magnetically annealed at 850 C or higher (See Claim 1), overlapping with the claimed range of 1000-1400 C and the claim 8 range of 700-950 (See MPEP 2144.05(I))
Regarding Claim 13, Samek teaches hot forming at 900 C [0004]
Regarding Claim 14, Samek teaches calibration in carried out by heating to 500-700 C (See claim 1)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 20-21 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The closest prior art of record is Rachui et al. (US20160379754A1) in view of Samek et al. (US20130125607A1) and alternatively in further view of Makoto et al. (JPH0533051A) as used above, however, the prior art does not teach or suggest the claimed limitations of claim 20.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICARDO D MORALES whose telephone number is (571)272-6691. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 9 am- 4 pm.
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, Sally Merkling can be reached at 5712726297. 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.
/RICARDO D MORALES/Examiner, Art Unit 1738
Prosecution Insights