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
Claims 1-5 are objected to because of the following informalities: The preamble of Claim 1 recites “ferromagnetic nanoparticles” (i.e. plural form), but the body of each of Claims 1 and 3 refer the ferromagnetic nanoparticles in singular form. Please amend the claims to ensure that the nomenclature for all claim element(s) is consistent throughout the entire claim set. 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 1-5 are 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.
The term “thin” in Claims 1-5’s preamble is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “thin” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
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 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2017098423 (“Kobayashi et al.”).
With regards to Claims 1-3, Kobayashi et al. teaches an isotropic granular thin film of L-M-F in which ferromagnetic nanoparticles (L) are uniformly dispersed in a dielectric matrix composed of a fluoride of M (MF). Kobayashi et al. teaches the ferromagnetic nanoparticle consists of Co (e.g. Sample 8 in Table 1), and an average particle diameter of the ferromagnetic nanoparticle is 50 nm less. Kobayashi et al. teaches M is at least one element selected from Li, Be, Mg, Al, Si, Ca, Sr, Ba, Bi, and rare earth elements. Therefore, it is within the purview of Kobayashi et al.’s that the ferromagnetic nanoparticle consist of Co and the dielectric matrix consists of MgF2 in order to achieve a thin film with excellent optical transparency and light-transmitting magnetic material ([0008], [0019], [0020], [0021], [0023], [0025], [0027], [0029], and Table 1).
Kobayashi et al. teaches the atomic ratio of M is 10-40%, the atomic ratio of F is 20-70%, and the atomic ratio of the total of M and F is 60% or more [0019]. Therefore it naturally follows that the atomic ratio of L is 40% or less, which overlaps with Applicant’s particle volume density of 1-20 vol%. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness, In re Malagari, 182 USPQ 549.
Kobayashi et al.’s does not explicitly teach a magnetic dipole interaction energy of the ferromagnetic nanoparticle is 4.6E-28 J to 2.0E-26 J.
According to Applicant’s Specification, the dipole-dipole interaction is intrinsically obtained by the ferromagnetic nanoparticle material, particle size, and spacings in-between (please see paragraphs [0045]-[0050]) (i.e. correlates with the average particle diameter and particle volume density of the Co ferromagnetic nanoparticle). In that regard, Kobayashi et al. teaches the claimed ferromagnetic nanoparticle material, average particle diameter, particle volume density of the ferromagnetic nanoparticle, and recognizes that the magnetic dipole interaction between the ferromagnetic nanoparticles influences the light transmittance (for example, if ferromagnetic nanoparticles come in contact with each other, the light transmittance is lost [0021]). In light of the instant teachings of Kobayashi et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine the optimum value of a results effective variable such as the magnetic dipole interaction energy of the ferromagnetic nanoparticle through routine experimentation, especially given the knowledge in the art that the interaction between nanoparticles can impact the overall properties of the thin film. In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980); In re Geisler, 116 F. 3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re After, 220 F.2d, 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a magnetic dipole interaction energy of the ferromagnetic nanoparticle in Kobayashi et al. be 4.6E-28 J to 2.0E-26 J in order to achieve excellent light transmittance [0021].
With regards to Claim 4, Kobayashi et al. teaches the ferromagnetic nanoparticles are uniformly distributed in the dielectric matrix ([0008] and [0020]). Therefore, a saturation magnetization in an in-plane direction and normal direction would be substantially the same, and thus a difference between the two would be less than or equal to 1kOe.
With regards to Claim 5, Kobayashi et al. teaches a Faraday rotation angle per unit length is 0.1 °/μm ([0011] and [0026]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LISA CHAU whose telephone number is (571)270-5496. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 11 AM-730 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, Mark Ruthkosky can be reached at (571) 272-1291. 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.
/LC/
Lisa Chau
Art Unit 1785
/Holly Rickman/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1785
Prosecution Insights