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 § 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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-4 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Shield in US20230209839.
Regarding Claim 1: Shield teaches the creation of a composite metal magnetic powder comprising Co as a main component in terms of a core. The composite of Shield has a Co/Zn structure comprises metal nanoparticles of Co having an average (mean) particle size of 8.1 + 3.1 nm. The metal magnetic powder of Shield comprises an hcp-Co structure as the main phase of each nanoparticle and an fcc structure as a sub-phase (See Paragraph 68). Shield notes the nanoparticles that make up said core may be magnetic (See paragraph 40,73)
Regarding Claim 2: Shield teaches that the Co has a proportion having an fcc structures of 20% and the balance is a proportion of Co having an hcp structure. The claimed inequality is thus, (Whcp/(Whcp+ Wfcc + Wε)= 0.80/(0.8+0.2+0.0)=0.8*100=80%, falling within the claimed range (See Paragraph 68).
Regarding Claim 3: Shield teaches that the nanoparticle may have an average size (d50) of 8.1 + 3.1 nm falling within the claimed range (See Paragraph 68).
Regarding Claim 4: Shield teaches that the nanoparticles have a Zn surface coating that may later be oxidized to form a ZnO layer (See Paragraph 68-70).
Regarding Claim 7: Shield teaches that the magnetic powder discussed above in terms of claim 1 may be used in various electronic components such as resistive switching devices, artificial synapses, artificial neural networks, non-transitory computer-readable media, and sensors (See Paragraph 5). An electronic component containing the claimed powders is shown in Figure 2A-2B.
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) 5-6 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shield in US20230209839 in view of Xu in “Co nanoparticles induced resistive switching of the polypyrrole composite films”.
Regarding Claim 5-6 and 8: Shield teaches the creation of a composite metal magnetic powder comprising Co as a main component in terms of a core. The composite of Shield has a Co/Zn or Co/ZnO structure, wherein the magnetic metal nanoparticles have an average (mean) particle size of 8.1 + 3.1 nm. The metal magnetic powder of Shield comprises an hcp-Co structure in each of the particles as a main phase and an fcc structure as a sub-phase (See Paragraph 68). Shield notes the nanoparticles making up said core may be magnetic (See paragraph 40,73).
Shield teaches that the powders as set forth may be used in the creation of electronic components such as resistive switching devices (See Paragraph 5). Shield is silent in terms of creating a composite magnetic body by providing the powder in a resin or the creation of a device containing this composite.
However, Xu teaches that Cobalt nanoparticles may be used in the creation of resistive switching devices. Xu teaches that in the creation of such a device, magnetic Co nanoparticles are provided in a polypyrrole resin and disposed between two electrodes (See Figure 1 and 2). Those of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to provide the magnetic powders of Shield, which meet the limitations of claim 1 and contain Zn, within a resin to create a composite magnetic body and a resistive switching device (electronic component) containing said composite magnetic body. Those of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to create the various devices taught by Shield and would have looked to similar devices in the prior art to determine the necessary components and architecture necessary in the creation such a device. Xu shows the creation of such a device and obviates provisioning the powder in a resin in terms of a magnetic composite body (See abstract). Thus the creation of the claimed composite magnetic body containing the powder discussed above and a resin would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim(s) 5-6 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shield in US20230209839 in view of Jung in their publication titled “Multistate resistive switching characteristics of ZnO nanoparticles embedded polyvinylphenol device”.
Regarding Claim 5-6 and 8: Shield teaches the creation of a composite metal magnetic powder comprising Co as a main component in terms of a core. The composite of Shield has a Co/Zn or Co/ZnO structure, an average (mean) particle size of 8.1 + 3.1 nm. The metal magnetic powder of Shield comprises an hcp-Co structure in each of the nanoparticles as a main phase and an fcc structure as a sub-phase (See Paragraph 68). Shield notes the particles may be magnetic (See paragraph 40,73).
Shield teaches that the powders as set forth may be used in the creation of electronic components such as resistive switching devices (See Paragraph 5). Shield is silent in terms of creating a composite magnetic body by providing the powder in a resin or the creation of a device containing this composite.
However, Jung teaches that powders having a ZnO surface may be used in the creation of resistive switching devices. Jung teaches that in the creation of such a device, nanoparticles comprising ZnO are provided in a polyvinylphenol resin and disposed between two electrodes (See Figure 1). Those of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to provide the powders of Shield, which meet the limitations of claim 1 and contain Zn, within a resin to create a composite magnetic body and a resistive switching device (electronic component) containing said composite magnetic body. Those of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to create the various devices taught by Shield and would have looked to similar devices in the prior art to determine the necessary components and architecture necessary in the creation such a device. Jung shows the creation of such a device and obviates provisioning the powder in a resin in terms of a composite body. Thus the creation of the claimed composite magnetic body containing the powder discussed above and a resin would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art.
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