DETAILED ACTION
This communication is in response to the Applicant filing on 7.6.26. Claims 1,3-4, 21-25,30 are pending and have been examined.
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 .
Response to Arguments and Amendments
The Applicant has made amendments to the independent claim 1 and dependents 3,30 which will be examined below.
Claim objection related to claim 30 is withdrawn in light of amendment “of”.
35 USC 112(b) and 35 USC 112(d) rejection of claims 2-3 are withdrawn in light of cancelation of claim 2.
With respect to 35 U.S.C 102 and 103 rejections, the Applicant provides arguments to which the
Examiner will respond accordingly:
Applicant Argument 1: Aldissi does not show, teach, or suggest the addition of ferromagnetic particles into a ferromagnetic polymer material. As amended, Applicant's claim 1 incorporates the subject matter of claim 2. Aldissi does not teach the incorporation of ferromagnetic particles as discussed above. Claim 2 was only objected to because of the term "alone." No prior art rejection is presented for claim 2.
Examiner Response 1: Examiner had used Aldissi to read on the limitation “ferromagnetic polymers alone”. However now Applicant has reverted back to previous claim recitation without limitation “alone” in which case previous reference Tew will read on amended claim limitation. With respect to argument “Claim 2 was only objected…”, Examiner, in previous Office action dated 3.13.26, had rejected previous claim 2 recitation under 35 USC 112(b) due to conflict between previous claim 1 and claim 2 recitation.
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.
(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.
Claims 1,3, 21-23, 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Tew et al (US20110064944A1), hereinafter Tew.
Regarding Claim 1, Tew discloses a shaped structure (Fig 11 discloses block copolymer which is a shape) comprising a ferromagnetic polymer material [0006 discloses “ polymeric material providing a distinct ferromagnetic phase, whether ordered or disordered”] comprised of ferromagnetic polymers and
ferromagnetic particles (Fig 11)[0050,0051] (Co is ferromagnetic) suspended in the ferromagnetic polymer material ,
wherein the ferromagnetic polymer material and ferromagnetic particles are aligned in a unified alignment direction (Fig 11 shows ordered ferromagnetic polymer material with Co and Para 0020 discloses Fig 11 with “highly-ordered cylindrical ferromagnetic phase”).
PNG
media_image1.png
496
686
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 3, Tew discloses the shaped structure as claimed in claim 1. Tew further discloses wherein the ferromagnetic particles comprise at least one of iron, iron silicide, and iron silicon aluminum Claim 3 discloses “The copolymer of claim 2 wherein said metal is selected from Fe, Co and Ni”.
Regarding Claim 21, Tew discloses the shaped structure as claimed in claim 1. Tew further discloses in which the shaped structure is formed by polymerizing ferromagnetic polymer precursors in the desired shape [0014 discloses “ providing a first monomeric component comprising a phase-separating hydrophobic or hydrophilic group pendent thereto, and a second monomeric component comprising a ferromagnetic metal complex pendent thereto, such a complex as can comprise one or more labile ligands; block copolymerizing the monomeric components to provide such a copolymer phase comprising such a ferromagnetic metal complex;”].
Regarding Claim 22, Tew discloses the shaped structure as claimed in claim 21. Tew further discloses wherein polymerizing the ferromagnetic polymer precursors comprises polymerizing a precursor having ferromagnetic functional monomer groups [0014 discloses “ providing a first monomeric component comprising a phase-separating hydrophobic or hydrophilic group pendent thereto, and a second monomeric component comprising a ferromagnetic metal complex pendent thereto, such a complex as can comprise one or more labile ligands; block copolymerizing the monomeric components to provide such a copolymer phase comprising such a ferromagnetic metal complex;”].(See 35 U.S.C 112(b) rejection above).
Regarding Claim 23, Tew discloses the shaped structure as claimed in claim 22. Tew further discloses wherein polymerizing the ferromagnetic functional monomer groups [0014] comprises one of radical polymerization, radical polymerization with epoxide cross-linking, and anionic polymerization [0028 and 0029 discloses polymerization as “living” which as per literature search such as Wikipedia is associated with anionic polymerization. Further Specification does not provide much detail on “anionic polymerization”] .
Regarding Claim 25, Tew discloses the shaped structure as claimed in claim 21. Tew further discloses in which polymerizing ferromagnetic polymer precursors in the desired shape comprises one of printing, extruding, and die casting [Para0021 discloses “film deposition, casting”].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
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.
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 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tew in view of Sridhar (US20200395162A1).
Regarding Claim 4, Tew discloses the shaped structure as claimed in claim 1. Tew does not explicitly disclose wherein the shaped structure comprises at least part of a core of one of a stator, a rotor, motor, or transformer.
Sridhar further discloses the shaped structure comprises at least part of a core of one of a stator, a rotor, motor, or transformer [Para 0033 discloses use cases including motors].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed ferromagnetic polymer of Tew with use in electric devices such as motors as taught by Sridhar in order to have magnetic parts with desired magnetism as is required by electric devices using motors.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 24,30 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include 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:
Claim 24 recites “The shaped structure of claim 22, wherein polymerizing ferromagnetic functional monomer groups comprises polymerizing TEMPO-methacrylate with one of divinylbenzene or an acrylic monomer with a pendant epoxy group”. Tew does not explicitly disclose TEMPO-methacrylate as being the ferromagnetic functional precursor. In Tew there are references to monomers 1a, 2a, 2b for e.g., in Para 0026 but there is no explicit disclosure of above limitation. Therefore claim 24 is allowable. Claim 30 is a combination of allowable claim 24 with claim 1 and intervening claims 21,22 and is therefore allowable.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 VISWANATHAN SUBRAMANIAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4814. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 am - 5:00 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, Christopher M Koehler can be reached at 5712723560. 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.
/VISWANATHAN SUBRAMANIAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2834
Prosecution Insights