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 § 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. Claim 8 is 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. This claim teaches the magnetorheological fluid comprises an additive that is solid particles having a constituent material different from that of the magnetic metal particles. This means the additive can be any organic or inorganic solid particles, such as pigments, lubricants, abrasives, thickeners, thixotropic agents, etc. The only teaching in the specification of an additive that is solid particles having a constituent material different from that of the magnetic metal particles is in paragraph [0081]. That paragraph teaches these solid particles are precipitation inhibitors that prevent the precipitation of the magnetic particles. This teaching does not support the scope of the claimed subject matter, since this single species is not a representative number of species to show applicants had possession of the entire scope of the claimed additive. Accordingly, claim 8 is 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. 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)(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. Claim s 1-5 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by JP 2013-197394 . This reference teaches a magnetic fluid comprising magnetic particles dispersed in a dispersion liquid , which is a dispersion medium, and a damper comprising the fluid. The taught damper acts to dampen vibrations, and can be a shock absorber. This damper has the structure of the device of claim 9, as shown by Fig 1. From the description of the properties of the disclosed magnetic liquid in the Background Art section of the references and its use in a damper; it is clear that the taught magnetic fluid is a magnetorheological fluid. Thus the reference teaches a magnetorheological fluid and a vibration damping device having the structure of the device of claim 9 and which contains the taught magnetorheological fluid . The magnetic particles in the taught fluid are composed of the Fe-based alloy, Fe-Cr-M where M is Si and/or Al , and the taught particles have a Cr or M oxide film covering the surface of the particles (pg 7 of translation). The particles have an average particle size of about 1-20 microns (pg 9), which falls within the range of claim 3. The taught alloy particles have a preferred coercive force of 5 Oe or less (pg 10), which is the range taught in claim 1. Thus the reference teaches a magnetorheological fluid comprising magnetic particles dispersed in a dispersion liquid wherein the particles are Fe-based metal material particles hav ing a coercive force of 5 Oe or les s, an average particle size of about 1-20 microns and an oxide film covering the surface. This fluid has the same particles as those in claims 1 and 3-5. Since the taught fluid has the same composition and particles has that set forth in claim 1, one of ordinary skill in the art in the article would expect the taught magnetic fluid to inherently have the properties set forth in claims 1 and 2, absent any showing to the contrary. "Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. Id. See MPEP 2112.01(II). Since the taught fluid is that of claim 1, the taught damper containing the taught fluid anticipates the device of claim 9. The reference anticipates the claimed fluid and device. Claim s 1, 2, 4-6, 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. patent application 2005/0112375 . This reference teaches a magnetorheological fluid of magnetic metal particles that have a metal oxide film covering the surface thereof dispersed in a dispersion liquid, which is a dispersion medium . Paragraph [0031] teaches the fluid can also contain silica or fibrous carbon, which are additives that are solid particles having a constituent material different from the magnetic metal particles. The reference teaches dampeners, that have the structure of the device of claim 9, containing the taught fluid (para 12 and 21, figs 3-5). Thus the reference teaches vibration damping devices, having the structure of claim 9 and which comprising the taught fluid. The magnetic particles are iron based metal particles, such as that taught in pargraph [0037] which has a coercive force of 4.7 Oe . This oxide coated iron based magnetic particle meets the requirements of the particles of claim 1 since the coercive force falls within the claimed range. Paragraph [0039] teaches the metal oxide coating has a preferred thickness of 20-50 angstroms, or 2-5 nm. This range falls within that of claim 6. Since the taught fluid has the same composition and particles has that set forth in claim 1, one of ordinary skill in the art in the article would expect the taught magnetic fluid to inherently have the properties set forth in claims 1 and 2, absent any showing to the contrary. "Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. Id. See MPEP 2112.01(II). Since the taught fluid is that of claim 1, the taught damper containing the taught fluid anticipates the device of claim 9. The reference anticipates the claimed fluid and device. 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. Claim s 3 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. patent application 2005/0112375 . As discussed above, this reference teaches the claimed magnetorheological fluid of magnetic particles, which meet the claimed requirements, dispersed in a dispersion liquid, which is a dispersion medium. Paragraph [0030] teaches the taught particles have an average particle size of 10-500 microns, which overlaps the claimed range. Paragraph [0039] teaches the metal oxide coating has a preferred thickness of less than 700 angstroms, or less than 70 nm. This range overlaps that of claim 6. 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 reference suggests the claimed fluid. Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2013-197394 in view of U.S. patent application 2003/029687 and 2003/0111634. As discussed above, JP 2013-197394 teaches the claimed magnetorheological fluid of magnetic particles , which meet the claimed requirements, dispersed in a dispersion liquid , which is a dispersion medium . JP 2013-197394 does not teach the presence of any other additive besides a surfactant that covers the magnetic particles so as to disperse the particles in the dispersion liquid. U.S. patent application 2003/029687 and 2003/0111634 both teach the addition of silica or clay thixotropic agents to improve the stability of magnetorheological fluid. These thixotropic additive are solid particles having a constituent material different from that of the magnetic metal particles . In view of the teachings in U.S. patent application 2003/029687 and 2003/0111634 , one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to add silica or clay thixotropic agents to the magnetorheological fluid of JP 2013-197394 to improve the stability of taught fluid . The resulting composition is that of claim 8. Allowable Subject Matter Claim 7 is 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 magnetorheological fluid comprising a dispersion medium and magnetic particles dispersed in the dispersion medium wherein the particles have a coercive force of 398 A/m or less and a D90/D50 ratio of 3.0 or less, where D90 and D50 are defined in claim 7; and wherein the fluid has a shear yield stress τ A measured at a shear rate of 0.01/s after a magnetic field of 0.5 T is continuously applied for 480 second and the magnetic field is removed is less than 2.0 time a shear yield stress τ B measured at a shear rate of 0.01/s before the magnetic field is applied. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT C. MELISSA KOSLOW whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-1371 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Jonathan Johnson can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 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 FILLIN "Examiner Stamp" \* MERGEFORMAT cmk 3/23/26