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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. KR10-2024-0002678 and PCT/KR2024/000389, filed on January 8, 2024 and January 9, 2024, respectively.
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in South Korea on January 10, 2023. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the KR10-2023-003546 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because: Fig. 4a, one of the “R’’” attached to the natural oil should be corrected to “R’’’”.Figs. 8-11, in the legend, “Rapseed” should be corrected to "Rapeseed”.
Fig. 13, the rightmost “100” should be corrected to “1000” on the horizontal axis (shear rate). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: Paragraph [16] “dichlorobenznene” should be corrected to “dichlorobenzene”.
Paragraphs [21-22] the period after “C” should be removed.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 7 objected to because of the following informalities: line 3 “dichlorobenznene” should be corrected to “dichlorobenzene”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 12 objected to because of the following informalities: the period after “C” should be removed. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 13 objected to because of the following informalities: the period after “C” should be removed. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 12-15 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.
Regarding claim 12, it is unclear what viscosity attributes towards, whether the entire magnetorheological fluid wholly or specific components thereof. Additionally, it is unclear by the current wording that the viscosity is being measured under the specific shear rates conditions listed. Therefore, claim 12 is indefinite. For the purposes of examination, claim 12 will be interpreted as “… wherein a viscosity of the magnetorheological fluid is 0.2 Pa*s or less at a temperature of 40° C and at a shear rate of 800 to 1200/s.”. Claim 15 is rejected as being dependent on, and failing to cure the deficiencies of, rejected dependent claim 12.
Regarding claim 13, it is unclear what shear stress attributes towards, whether the entire magnetorheological fluid wholly or specific components thereof. Additionally, it is unclear by the current wording that the shear stress is being measured under the specific shear rate condition listed. Therefore, claim 13 is indefinite. For the purposes of examination, claim 13 will be interpreted as “… wherein a shear stress of the magnetorheological fluid is greater than 50 kPa at a temperature of 25° C and at a shear rate of 1500/s.”.
Regarding claim 14, the limitation directs towards a sedimentation rate, implying a value with regards during an elapsed time period. The formula proposed only measures a change in volume to indicate an accumulation of sediment as opposed to a rate of sedimentation. The claim directs towards a change in sedimentation (>80%) after “certain period of time” which is left indefinite as it is unclear in the measurement how much time has elapsed for such a criteria to be dictated or determined. Thus, it is unclear what the bounds of at least 80% sedimentation dictates in regards to a passing of time, and claim 14 is indefinite. For the purposes of examination, the sedimentation “rate” will be interpreted as an accumulation of sedimentation after a period of 7 days as related to the example provided in the instant specification (paragraphs [123-125] and Table 13).
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.
Claims 1-3, 8, and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al (KR101757727B1).
Regarding claim 1, Kim teaches a magnetorheological fluid including magnetic particles, a dispersion medium, and an additive. Kim discloses that a magnetorheological fluid is a “smart material capable of controlling its flow characteristics in real time through application of an external magnetic field smart material”. Therefore, the magnetorheological fluid’s flow characteristics change in response to the application of an external magnetic field, which is generally understood to be the definition of a magnetorheological fluid. Kim discloses that the dispersion medium is selected from “water, ethanol, silicone oil, mineral oil, vacuum oil, castor oil, hydraulic oil, lubricant oil, saturated hydrocarbon oil, unsaturated hydrocarbon oil, synthetic hydrocarbon oil, cycloparaffin oil, ethylene glycol, (PAO), transformer oil, transformer-sealing solution, halocarbon oil, paraffin oil, mineral oil (mineral oil), and the like” and “Olive oil, corn oil, soybean oil, vegetable oil, and a mixed oil thereof”. The disclosed natural oils such as castor, olive, corn, soybean, and vegetable oil all have a triglyceride structure composed of ester bonds between glycerol and fatty acid. Although Kim does not specifically disclose in embodiments or examples what dispersion medium(s) is/are used, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to select from any of the overlapping disclosed natural oils as known dispersion or carrier fluids for making a magnetorheological fluid to arrive at the invention as claimed. Thus, Kim teaches the claimed “A magnetorheological fluid whose flow characteristics change in response to the application of an external magnetic field, the magnetorheological fluid comprising: a dispersion medium containing oil; magnetic particles; and an additive, wherein the oil has a triglyceride structure composed of ester bonds between glycerol and fatty acid.”.
Regarding claim 2, Kim teaches the magnetorheological fluid of claim 1. Further, Kim discloses potential dispersion fluids can be any one or combination of: castor oil, olive oil, corn oil, soybean oil, and vegetable oil. Thus, Kim teaches the claimed “The magnetorheological fluid of claim 1, wherein the oil comprises at least one of the following: rapeseed oil (canola oil or colza oil), soybean oil, linseed oil, peanut oil, cottonseed oil, corn oil, olive oil, coconut oil, soya oil, palm oil, grape seed oil, sunflower seed oil, safflower oil, hazelnut oil, marula oil, macadamia oil, mongongo oil, argan oil, almond oil, pine nut oil, cashew oil, pistachio oil, pecan oil, walnut oil, rice bran oil, mustard oil, neem oil, perilla oil, hemp seed oil, watermelon seed oil, avocado oil, sesame oil, palm kernel oil, castor oil, pumpkin seed oil, lemon oil, and orange oil.”.
Regarding claim 3, Kim teaches the magnetorheological fluid of claim 1. Further, Kim describes the magnetic particles are selected from the group consisting of: “iron, nickel, cobalt, iron-cobalt alloys, iron-aluminum alloys, iron-silicon alloys, iron-nickel alloys, iron-vanadium alloys, iron-molybdenum alloys, Iron-copper alloy, carbonyl iron, chromium dioxide, stainless steel, silicon steel, manganese-zinc ferrite, chromium oxide, iron nitride, iron oxide, iron carbide, ferrite- Zinc ferrite, ferrite (Fe3O4), and mixtures thereof “. Although Kim does not specifically disclose in embodiments or examples the identity of used magnetic nanoparticles, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to select from any of the disclosed overlapping magnetic nanoparticles as known magnetic nanoparticles for making a magnetorheological fluid and arrive at the invention as claimed. Thus, Kim teaches the claimed “The magnetorheological fluid of claim 1, wherein the magnetic particles are iron, carbonyl iron, iron alloy, iron oxide, iron nitride, iron carbide, low carbon steel, nickel, cobalt, and mixtures thereof, or alloys thereof.”.
Regarding claim 8, Kim teaches the magnetorheological fluid of claim 1. As described in the rejections of claims 1-2 above, Kim discloses a wide list of available oils that can be blended together, including the natural fatty acid oil. Further, Kim also discloses saturated and unsaturated hydrocarbon oils, synthetic hydrocarbon oils and “PAO”. Poly alpha olefins are a hydrocarbon oil (synthetic) and generally understood to be recognized as “PAO”. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to choose from the overlapping mixture of oils as known dispersion media for preparing a magnetorheological fluid to arrive at the invention as claimed. Thus, Kim teaches the claimed “The magnetorheological fluid of claim 1, wherein the dispersion medium is a blend of the oil and synthetic oil containing any one of synthetic diester, polyol ester, diisodecyl adipates, diisotridecyl adipates, poly alpha olefins, and oleates.”.
Regarding claim 12, Kim teaches the magnetorheological fluid of claim 1 but is silent on viscosity values. While the reference does not disclose the claimed properties, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the exemplified magnetorheological fluids to inherently have the claimed properties absent any showing to the contrary since they fall within the claimed composition and are produced by the claimed process. See MPEP2112.01II. Thus, Kim teaches the claimed “The magnetorheological fluid of claim 1, wherein a viscosity is 0.2 Pa-s or less at a temperature of 40 °C. and a shear rate of 800 to 1200/s”.
Regarding claim 13, Kim teaches a magnetorheological fluid according to claim 1 but is silent on shear stress properties. While the reference does not disclose the claimed properties, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the exemplified magnetorheological fluids to inherently have the claimed properties absent any showing to the contrary since they fall within the claimed composition and are produced by the claimed process. See MPEP2112.01II. Thus, Kim teaches the claimed “The magnetorheological fluid of claim 1, wherein a shear stress is greater than 50 kPa at a temperature of 25 °C. and a shear rate of 1500/s”.
Claims 4-6 and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al (KR101757727B1) as applied to claims 1 and 8 above, and further in view of Sakamoto (US PGPub 20210398721).
Regarding claim 4, Kim teaches the magnetorheological fluid of claim 1. Kim teaches an additive (may be at least one selected from chemical additives, metal oxides, organic clays and inorganic clays for dispersion stability, thixotropy, abrasion resistance, chemical stability and oxidation resistance) can be included in the composition but is silent on pour point depressants per se. Analogously, Sakamoto teaches a magnetorheological fluid having “excellent long-term dispersion stability” comprising (see paragraphs [0028-32]) magnetic particles, a dispersion medium (oils and combinations thereof, see paragraphs [0069-73]), and optionally an additive (see paragraphs [0100-0105]). In paragraph [0101], Sakamoto teaches the additive can be a pour point depressant. Pour point is well understood in the field to be the temperature at which a composition remains fluid or liquid such that it can still flow. Thus, a depressant would be understood to lower the temperature of such transition. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to select from the overlapping portion of additives such as a pour point depressant as a known additive for preparing a magnetorheological fluid to arrive at the invention as claimed. Thus, Kim and Sakamoto the claimed “The magnetorheological fluid of claim 1, wherein the additive comprises a pour point depressant”.
Regarding claim 5, Kim and Sakamoto teach the magnetorheological fluid of claim 4. Kim is silent on wt% of included additive. Sakamoto does not provide an example of including a pour point depressant but does provide mass% for including a dispersion aid, which is one of the listed “other additives” (paragraphs [0100-104]) and could thus be considered an applicable reference range for the other additives. Sakamoto teaches inclusion of 0.5 mass% to 10 mass% of the dispersion aid or “other additive”, thus it would be reasonable to include a pour point depressant within the same mass% range. Overlapping ranges have been held to present a prima facie case of obviousness over the prior art. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to select from the overlapping portion of the range to arrive at the invention as claimed. Thus, Kim and Sakamoto teach the claimed “The magnetorheological fluid of claim 4, wherein the pour point depressant is contained in an amount of 0.1 wt% to 3.0 wt% in the magnetorheological fluid.”.
Regarding claim 6, Kim and Sakamoto teach the magnetorheological fluid of claim 4. Kim is silent on wt% of included additive. Sakamoto does not provide an example of including a pour point depressant but does provide mass% for including a dispersion aid, which is one of the listed “other additives” (paragraphs [0100-104]) and could thus be considered an applicable reference range for the other additives. Sakamoto teaches inclusion of 0.5 mass% to 10 mass% of the dispersion aid or “other additive”, thus it would be reasonable to include a pour point depressant within the same mass% range. Overlapping ranges have been held to present a prima facie case of obviousness over the prior art. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to select from the overlapping portion of the range to arrive at the invention as claimed. Thus, Kim and Sakamoto teach the claimed “The magnetorheological fluid of claim 4, wherein the pour point depressant is contained in an amount of 0.5wt% to 2.5wt% in the magnetorheological fluid.”.
Regarding claim 9, Kim teaches the magnetorheological fluid of claim 8. Kim is silent on the mass percentages of the dispersion medium containing oil (teaches vol% of particles and additive). Analogously, Sakamoto teaches a magnetorheological fluid having “excellent long-term dispersion stability” comprising (see paragraphs [0028-32]) magnetic particles, a dispersion medium (oils and combinations thereof, see paragraphs [0069-73]), and optionally an additive (see paragraphs [0100-0105]). Similar to Kim, Sakamoto discusses a blended dispersion medium containing a “base oil” which is akin to the natural oil of Kim (paragraphs [0070] and [0094] of Sakamoto). The base oil is present in a mass% of 0-50% of the total dispersion medium whereby the dispersion medium is 5-45% of the total mass% of the magneto rheological fluid (paragraph [0094]). Therefore, the base oil is present in a mass% of 0-22.5%. Overlapping ranges have been held to present a prima facie case of obviousness over the prior art. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to select from the overlapping portion of the range and include the oil in such a range as a known compositional mass% amount for preparation of a magnetorheological fluid to arrive at the invention as claimed. Thus, Kim and Sakamoto teach the claimed “The magnetorheological fluid of claim 8, wherein the oil is contained in an amount of 10 wt% to 90 wt% in the magnetorheological fluid”.
Regarding claim 10, Kim and Sakamoto teach the magnetorheological fluid of claim 9. Kim is silent on wt% of additive but discloses that the vol% of the additive is 1-30% of the magnetic particles which are 20-50vol% of the fluid (therefore, additive is 0.2-15vol% of fluid). As described in the rejections of claims 4-6 above, the teachings of Sakamoto would lead one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the magnetorheological fluid such that a pour point depressant is included within a wt% of 0.5-2.5%. Overlapping ranges have been held to present a prima facie case of obviousness over the prior art. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to select from the overlapping portion of the range to arrive at the invention as claimed. Thus, Kim and Sakamoto teach the claimed “The magnetorheological fluid of claim 9, wherein the additive comprises a pour point depressant and the pour point depressant is contained in an amount of 0.1 wt% to 0.5 wt% in the magnetorheological fluid”.
Regarding claim 11, Kim teaches the magnetorheological fluid of claim 8. Kim is silent on the mass percentages of the dispersion medium containing oil (teaches vol% of particles and additive). Analogously, Sakamoto teaches a magnetorheological fluid having “excellent long-term dispersion stability” comprising (see paragraphs [0028-32]) magnetic particles, a dispersion medium (oils and combinations thereof, see paragraphs [0069-73]), and optionally an additive (see paragraphs [0100-0105]). Similar to Kim, Sakamoto discusses a blended dispersion medium containing a “base oil” which is akin to the natural oil of Kim (paragraphs [0070] and [0094] of Sakamoto). The base oil is present in a mass% of 0-50% of the total dispersion medium whereby the dispersion medium is 5-45% of the total mass% of the magneto rheological fluid (paragraph [0094]). Therefore, the base oil is present in a mass% of 0-22.5%. Overlapping ranges have been held to present a prima facie case of obviousness over the prior art. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to select from the overlapping portion of the range and include the oil in such a range as a known compositional mass% amount for preparation of a magnetorheological fluid to arrive at the invention as claimed. Thus, Kim and Sakamoto teach the claimed “The magnetorheological fluid of claim 8, wherein the oil is contained in an amount of more than 0 but less than or equal to 50 wt% in the magnetorheological fluid”.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al (KR101757727B1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kintz et al (US PGPub 20040084263).
Kim teaches the magnetorheological fluid of claim 1. Kim teaches an additive (may be at least one selected from chemical additives, metal oxides, organic clays and inorganic clays for dispersion stability, thixotropy, abrasion resistance, chemical stability and oxidation resistance) can be included in the composition but is silent on the identities of a majority of such substances. Analogously, Kintz teaches a magnetorheological fluid comprising a carrier fluid (ie, dispersion medium), magnetically responsive particles, and optionally an additive (paragraphs [0008-9] and paragraphs [0069-71] for optional additives or components). Kintz provides example synthetic viscosity modifiers as optional additives which include polymers and copolymers of olefins, methacrylates, dienes or alkylated styrenes. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to select from the disclosed overlapping optional additives to modify the viscosity of the magnetorheological fluid and arrive at the invention as claimed. Thus, Kim and Kintz teach the claimed “The magnetorheological fluid of claim 1, wherein the additive comprises poly alkyl methacrylate (poly alkyl methacrylate), or comprises any one of vinyl carboxylate- dialkyl fumarate copolymers, alpha-olefin polymers and copolymers, dichlorobenznene, toluene, ethylene glycol monoethyl ether, dichloromethane, dichloroethane, wax alkylate naphthalene, and wax alkylate phenol”.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al (KR101757727B1) in view of Sakamoto (US PGPub 20210398721) as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Chun Moon Seok et al (KR 20220054056A).
Kim and Sakamoto teach the magnetorheological fluid of claim 9. Kim is silent on wt% of additives. As described in the rejections of claims 4-6 and 10 above, the teachings of Sakamoto would lead one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the magnetorheological fluid such that a pour point depressant is included within a wt% of 0.5-2.5%. Further, Chun Moon Seok provides an analogous magnetic viscous fluid (understood to be a magnetorheological fluid) comprising vegetable oil, magnetic particles, and an optional additive. Chun Moon Seok discloses the additive may be included in a weight% of 0.01-10% or 0.05-5% which, when included in such a range, improves dispersibility to improve flow characteristics without worrying about reducing long-term stability, a shared feature of pour point depressants. Overlapping ranges have been held to present a prima facie case of obviousness over the prior art. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to include the additive of Sakamoto in the magnetorheological fluid composition of Kim within the overlapping portion of the range informed by Chun Moon Seok to improve flow characteristics of the magnetorheological fluid and arrive at the invention as claimed. Thus, Kim, Sakamoto, and Chun Moon Seok teach the claimed “The magnetorheological fluid of claim 9, wherein the additive comprises a pour point depressant and the pour point depressant is contained in an amount of 0.1 wt% to 0.5 wt% in the magnetorheological fluid.”.
Claims 12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al (KR101757727B1) as applied to claim 1 above, and alternatively further in view of Chen (CN113444564A).
Regarding claim 12, Kim teaches the magnetorheological fluid of claim 1 but is silent on viscosity values. While the reference does not disclose the claimed properties, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the exemplified magnetorheological fluids to inherently have the claimed properties absent any showing to the contrary since they fall within the claimed composition and are produced by the claimed process. See MPEP2112.01II. Regardless, Chen provides an analogous magnetorheological fluid composition having good fluidity, low zero field viscosity, excellent friction performance and low sedimentation. Chen discloses shared “base oil” compositions to that of Kim (equivalent to dispersion medium) which can include any one of or combinations of natural fatty oils, castor oil, and poly-alpha-olefins whereby the viscosity of such oil at 25°C is under 100mPa*s (or less than 0.1 Pa*s). The disclosed magnetorheological fluid of Chen has preferred properties whereby the zero field viscosity is 54.8-64.8 mPa*s (or 0.0548-0.0648 Pa*s), thus obvious known benchmarks to aim for in the composition of Kim. In Table 1, Chen disclosed measured viscosity values at 40°C and 800 to 1200/s shear rates whereby the preferred embodiments all have viscosities under 74 mPa*s. Therefore, as evidenced by Chen, it would be expected for the composition of Kim to achieve similar benchmarks. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to aim for low zero-field viscosity as evidenced by Chen when preparing the composition of Kim such that a magnetorheological fluid maintains good fluidity. Therefore, Kim and Chen teach the claimed “The magnetorheological fluid of claim 1, wherein a viscosity is 0.2 Pa-s or less at a temperature of 40 °C. and a shear rate of 800 to 1200/s”.
Regarding claim 14, Kim teaches the magnetorheological fluid of claim 1 but is silent on sedimentation. While the reference does not disclose the claimed properties, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the exemplified magnetorheological fluids to inherently have the claimed properties absent any showing to the contrary since they fall within the claimed composition and are produced by the claimed process. See MPEP2112.01II. Regardless, Chen provides an analogous magnetorheological fluid composition having good fluidity, low zero field viscosity, excellent friction performance and low sedimentation. Chen discloses shared “base oil” compositions to that of Kim (equivalent to dispersion medium) which can include any one of or combinations of natural fatty oils, castor oil, and poly-alpha-olefins whereby the fluid has low sedimentation rate. The settling or sedimentation rate is calculated after allowing a 25mL measuring cylinder containing 25mL magnetorheological fluid to stand for 30 days and subsequently: “calculating the volume of the supernatant; the settling rate is equal to the volume of the supernatant of the upper layer /25mL * 100 %” which is understood to be equivalent to the equation as claimed since 25mL is the original height of the fluid and the volume of the supernatant liquid is equivalent to ΔS without subtracting from 100. Thus, Chen aims for a lower value in their equation as opposed to achieving a higher value of the formula as claimed in the instant application because more sedimentation enables poor flow and abrasion resistance. The fluids disclosed by Chen in Table 1 display a settling rate after 30 days of 10.4% - 12.1% (equivalent to 87.9%-89.6% according to formula as claimed). Therefore, as evidenced by Chen, it would be expected for the composition of Kim to achieve similar benchmarks. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to aim for low sedimentation and settling rate as informed by Chen when preparing a magnetorheological fluid composition disclosed by Kim to avoid poor flow and abrasion resistance and arrive at the invention as claimed. Thus, Kim and Chen teach the claimed “The magnetorheological fluid of claim 1, wherein a sedimentation rate S of the magnetorheological fluid is greater than at least 80%, where S(vol%)=100-[(ΔS)/(h)]X100 [ΔS represents the height of a supernatant liquid after a certain period of time after a cylinder is filled with the magnetorheological fluid, and h represents the initial height of the magnetorheological fluid filled in the cylinder]”.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al (KR101757727B1) as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Chen (CN113444564A).
Regarding claim 15, Kim and Chen teach the magnetorheological fluid of claim 12. Chen provides weight parts of the base oil ranging from 10-50 parts by weight (or 10-50% by weight). Thus, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to provide the oil within the composition of Kim in the weight range informed by Chen as a known weight amount for preparing a magnetorheological fluid having desired viscosity, sedimentation rates, and abrasion resistance. Therefore, Kim and Chen teach the claimed “The magnetorheological fluid of claim 12, wherein the oil is contained in an amount of 10 wt% to 70 wt% in the magnetorheological fluid”.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al (KR101757727B1, hereinafter doc#1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kim et al (KR102308007B1, hereinafter doc#2).
In doc#1, Kim teaches a magnetorheological fluid according to claim 1 but is silent on shear stress properties. While the reference does not disclose the claimed properties, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the exemplified magnetorheological fluids to inherently have the claimed properties absent any showing to the contrary since they fall within the claimed composition and are produced by the claimed process. See MPEP2112.01II. Regardless, in doc#2, Kim provides an analogous magnetorheological fluid composition whereby shear stress is reported at a shear rate of 1500/s and temperature of 25°C (Figs. 4 and 7b) of preferred embodiments matching the analogous invention. Across the presented samples 5-7, each demonstrate a shear stress >50kPa (>68kPa) and thus known desirable values in preparing a magnetorheological composition and reference point for similar compositional magnetorheological fluids. In doc#2, Kim also states that when preparing the fluid, that having magnetic particles present lower than a preferred range, then “a problem of lowering the shear stress may appear” suggesting motivation for improving the shear stress. Additionally, the shear stress is related to the damping force that the fluid may exert. Therefore, as evidenced by doc#2, it would be expected for the composition of Kim in doc#1 to achieve similar benchmarks. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to aim for high shear stress as informed by Kim in doc#2 when preparing a magnetorheological fluid composition disclosed by Kim in doc#1 as a known desirable property and achieve a higher damping force and arrive at the invention as claimed. Thus, Kim teaches the claimed “The magnetorheological fluid of claim 1, wherein a shear stress is greater than 50 kPa at a temperature of 25 °C. and a shear rate of 1500/s”.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Abbey et al (US PGPub 20120202723) and Ulicny et al (US PGPub 20110121223) both disclose magnetorheological fluids analagous to the invention claimed in the instant application and discuss viscosity-based and shear stress measurements under relevant conditions. Ulicny et al provide evidence to why application of magnetorheological fluids provide basis for certain shearing conditions and to inherency of such viscosity-based measurements to properties of the fluid.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Noa W. F. Grooms whose telephone number is (571)272-9981. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-3:30PM EST.
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, Curtis Mayes can be reached at (571) 272-1234. 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.
/NWFG/Examiner, Art Unit 1759
/MELVIN C. MAYES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1759
Prosecution Insights