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 Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: The claim recites the term “HSP” in ln 6 and 7. This appears to be an abbreviation for Hansen Solubility Parameter. The claim should set forth the meaning of the abbreviation at its first instance, e.g. Hansen Solubility Parameter (HSP).
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
(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.
The instant claims contain the transitional phrase “comprising”. Per MPEP 2111.03 ‘The transitional term “comprising”, which is synonymous with “including,” “containing,” or “characterized by,” is inclusive or open-ended and does not exclude additional, unrecited elements or method steps'. This open-ended definition has been taken into consideration in the following rejections.
Claims 1, 3, and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by JP 2006-303182 A to Hakata et al. (hereinafter Hakata), provided in the IDS filed 4/17/24, using a machine translation.
Regarding claims 1 and 4, Hakata discloses a magnetorheological fluid (para [0002]) comprising:
a dispersoid containing magnetic metal particles (para [0016]); and
a liquid dispersion medium, wherein the main component of said medium is a diethylene glycol monoethylene ethyl ether polar solvent (para [0040]), wherein
a boiling point of a main component of the dispersion medium is 202 C (see Brenntag Mexico data sheet, cited below), which falls within the instantly claimed range of 100°C or higher and 235°C or lower, and
an inter-coordinate distance between HSP coordinates of the magnetic metal particles and HSP coordinates of the main component of the dispersion medium is 13 or less. The magnetic particles are coated with an oxide, such as alumina (para [0019]).
Alumina HSP δd of 11.84 δp of 5.75 δh of 9.06 δ of 15.98
Glycol HSP δd of 16.1 δp of 9.2 δh of 12.2 δ of 23.5
All inter-coordinate distances are δd of 4.26, δp of 3.45, δh of 3.14 and δ of 7.52.
All fall completely within the instantly claimed range of 13 or less.
All HSP values are MPa1/2 and were retrieved from a Google Web Search.
Regarding claim 3, Hakata discloses the magnetorheological fluid according to claim 1, wherein
the boiling point of the main component of the dispersion medium (diethylene glycol monoethylene ethyl ether solvent, para [0040]) is 202 C, as discussed above, which falls within the instantly claimed range of 160°C or higher and 230°C or lower, and
the inter-coordinate distances are 3.14 to 7.52 as discussed above, which fall within the instantly claimed range of 2 or more and 12 or less.
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 (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 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 instant claims contain the transitional phrase “comprising”. See MPEP 2111.03, cited above. This open-ended definition has been taken into consideration in the following rejections.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2021/0398721 A1 to Sakamoto.
Regarding claim 1, Sakamoto discloses a magnetorheological fluid (para [0011]) comprising:
a dispersoid containing magnetic metal particles (para [0012]); and
a liquid dispersion medium (para [0014]), wherein
a boiling point of a main component of the dispersion medium, silicone oil (para [0070]), is >140 C (from Google Web Search), which overlaps the instantly claimed range of 100°C or higher and 235°C or lower. See MPEP 2144.05(I), which states that ‘In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists’.
Sakamoto also teaches that an inter-coordinate distance between HSP coordinates of the magnetic metal particles and HSP coordinates of the main component of the dispersion medium is 13 or less. The magnetic particles may be coated with a silane coupling agent (para [0048]), such as 2-(3,4-epoxycyclohexyl)ethyltrimethoxysilane (para [0059])
Silane HSP δd of 16.5-17.5 δp of 6-8.5 δh of 6-9 δ of 18.5-19.5
Silicone HSP δd of 15-15.5 δp of 0-2 δh of 0-4 δ of 15.0-15.5
All inter-coordinate distances are δd of 1-2.5, δp of 4-8.5, δh of 2-9, and δ of 3-4.5.
All fall completely within the instantly claimed range of 13 or less.
All HSP values are MPa1/2 and were retrieved from a Google Web Search.
Regarding claim 2, Sakamoto discloses the magnetorheological fluid according to claim 1, wherein
the magnetic metal particles have an average particle diameter of 1 to 50 µm (para [0041], which overlaps the instantly claimed range of 0.5 µm or more and 15.0 µm or less. See MPEP 2144.05(I), cited above.
Regarding claim 3, Sakamoto discloses the magnetorheological fluid according to claim 1, wherein
the boiling point of the main component of the dispersion medium is >140 C, as discussed above, which overlaps the instantly claimed range of 160°C or higher and 230°C or lower, and
the inter-coordinate distances are 1-9, as discussed above, which overlaps the instantly claimed range of 2 or more and 12 or less. See MPEP 2144.05(I), cited above.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hakata.
Regarding claim 2, Hakata discloses the magnetorheological fluid according to claim 1, wherein the magnetic metal particles have an average particle diameter 0.3 to 10 µm (para [0024]), which overlaps the instantly claimed range of 0.5 µm or more and 15.0 µm or less. See MPEP 2144.05(I), cited above.
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Sakamoto in view of US 2009/0134354 A1 to Dubois et al. (hereinafter Dubois).
Regarding claim 5, Sakamoto discloses the magnetorheological fluid according to claim 1, wherein
the magnetic metal particles are selected from a group that includes silicon containing iron alloys (para [0039]), which are made of an Fe-based metal material,
wherein a content of Fe is highest but is silent regarding Si content, particularly wherein a content of Si is 1.0 at% or more and 20.0 at% or less.
However, Dubois does teach a magnetorheological fluid comprising silicon containing iron alloys wherein the alloys contain up to about 20% Si (para [0018]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to employ the known Si containing Fe alloy of Dubois as the Si containing Fe alloy of Sakamoto to provide a magnetic particle with the desired magnetic properties and ultimately provide the magnetorheological fluid with the desired change of yield stress under magnetic field application for long term stability and reliability (Sakamoto, para [0009]-[0010]).
Regarding claim 6, Sakamoto in view of Dubois discloses the magnetorheological fluid according to claim 5.
Dubois further teaches wherein the Fe-based metal material, the Si containing Fe alloy, is an amorphous metal material (para [0018]).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Sakamoto in view of US 5,593,518 A to Ramanan.
Regarding claim 7, Sakamoto discloses a magnetorheological fluid according to claim 1, and further discloses that the magnetic metal particles may be a Si containing Fe alloy (para [0039]) but is silent regarding the magnetic metal particles having a saturation magnetization of 50 emu/g or more and 250 emu/g or less.
However, Ramanan teaches a Si containing Fe alloy with a saturation magnetization of at least about 165 emu/g (col 6, ln 1-6 and ln 39-45) which overlaps the instantly claimed range of 50 emu/g or more and 250 emu/g or less.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that similar magnetic alloys comprising similar elements are expected to have similar properties, including but not limited to overlapping saturation magnetization, absent evidence to the contrary.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Brenntag Mexico (https://www.brenntag.com/en-mx/products/diethylene-glycol-monoethyl-ether.html), glycol boiling point.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LYNNE EDMONDSON whose telephone number is (571)272-2678. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-6:30.
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.
/L.E./ Examiner, Art Unit 1734
/Matthew E. Hoban/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1734
Prosecution Insights