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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of claims 1-11 in the reply filed on 07/18/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the inventions of Groups I, II and II are substantially identical and are inexorably linked. This is not found persuasive because as set forth in the restriction requirement mailed on 06/18/2025, the groups are separately classified and are distinct under 35 U.S.C. §121 and §372.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 12-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
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.
Claim 10 is 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.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance: Claim 10 recites the broad recitation “transition metals”, and the claim also recites copper, iron and aluminum which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. Furthermore, the claim contains the broad recitation “aluminum” and the narrow recitation “pretreated aluminum”. Furthermore, the claim contains the broad recitation “porous materials” and the narrow recitation “wood”, “carboard” and “concrete”. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 1-4 and 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Stark et al. (EP 1326741).
Regarding claim 1, Stark et al. teaches a polymeric material (i.e. a resin) used in a temperature controlled induction heating process which contains magnetic particles therein. (Abstract, par. [0010], claim 1). The magnetic particle may be magnetite (par. [0052]) and that they may be less than 1 microns in size (i.e. nanoparticles), thereby resulting in the claimed nanocomposite. (par. [0017]).
Regarding claims 2-3, the magnetic particles may be uniformly distributed or concentrated in a section of the polymer material. (par. [0075]) (i.e. uniformly or not uniformly distributed).
Regarding claim 4, the polymeric material containing the magnetic particles includes thermoplastic materials such as polycarbonate. (par. [0054]).
Regarding claims 6-7, the limitations are directed to optional features of claim 1 and are therefore also optional.
Regarding claim 8, the composite structure disclosed in Stark et al. would meet the structural features of products as claimed including bumpers, facades, coverings, screens and optical systems.
Regarding claim 9, Stark et al. discloses applying the composite onto a substrate surface (collapsible tank) and are bonded to the surface thereof. (Example 7, par. [0116]-[0117] and Fig. 1).
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.
Claims 5 and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stark et al. (EP 1326741) in view of Haq et al. (U.S. App. Pub. No. 2016/0284449).
Stark et al. is relied upon as described in the rejection of claim 1, above.
Stark et al. does not disclose a particle size of less than about 50 nm.
Haq et al. teaches a reversible bonded joint structure including an active adhesive material which including a resin composition containing magnetic nanoparticles therein which are excitable for localized heating. (Abstract and par. [0011], [0042] and [0051]. Haq et al. teaches that the size of the particles may be in the range of in the range of 1-1000 nm and that the size may be selected depending on the processing/mechanical properties of the final product. (par. [0052]-[0053]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select magnetic nanoparticles having diameters of 1 to 1000nm as disclosed in Haq et al. for the magnetic particles in Stark et al., overlapping with the presently claimed range.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to select a particle size in the range of 1-1000 nm in view of the disclosure in Haq et al. that the size is suitable for use as radiation absorption materials for localized heating, similar to the use of the magnetic composite in Stark et al. One of ordinary skill in the art would therefore have a reasonable expectation of success in using magnetic particles in the range taught in the secondary reference. Furthermore, Haq et al. teaches a link between particle size and processing/mechanical properties of the composite and therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to optimize the particle sizes for the purpose of adjusting these parameters.
Regarding claim 10, Stark et al. does not teach a substrate material selected from the materials presently claimed.
Haq et al. teaches bonding substrate materials including metal materials such as aluminum and steel. (par. [0010]). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use the nanocomposite of Stark et al. to bond to metal substrates such as aluminum in steel in view of the disclosure in Haq et al. that such substrates may be bonded together using the same process. One of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in selecting metal substrates as taught in Haq et al.
Regarding claim 11, the magnetic composite is directed bonded to the substrate without the use of a bonding agent. (see Fig. 1).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDRE F FERRE whose telephone number is (571)270-5763. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8 am to 4 pm ET.
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, Alicia Chevalier can be reached at 5712721490. 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.
/ALEXANDRE F FERRE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1788 09/06/2025