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 14 is objected to because of the following informalities: “according to any one of claims 1” should instead be –according to claim 1--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
Claim 13 is 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 13, the claim appears to be an incomplete recitation and it is not clear if “the composition according to claim 1, for injection molding” is intended to refer to an intended use or a positive recitation of injection molding.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4, 6 and 11-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kawano et al. (EP 1049111 A2).
Regarding claims 1-2 and 4, Kawano teaches magnetic resin compositions comprising a thermoplastic binder resin, an aromatic polyamine compound, and magnetic powder (abstract; [0007]-[0009]). Kawano teaches the thermoplastic binder resin is preferably a polyamide resin ([0011]; [0016]). Kawano teaches the magnetic powder is selected from known magnetic powders including ferrite-type, Sr-Ferrite, Br-ferrite, Sm-Co alloys, Nd-F-B alloys, Ce-Co alloys, and Sm-Fe-N alloys, and further teaches the magnetic powder can be surface treated with a coupling agent ([0017])(instant coating layer; instant coupling agent).
Regarding claim 6, Kawano teaches the magnetic resin compositions as set forth above and further teaches ferrite-type, Sr-Ferrite, Br-ferrite, and Sm-Fe-N alloys ([0017]) and teaches the particle sizes of the powder is from 0.1 to 50 µm ([0020]).
Regarding claim 11, Kawano teaches the magnetic resin compositions as set forth above and as noted teaches surface treating with a coupling agent. As the instant claim is further limiting to a non-positively recited, unselected optional alternative of ‘glass’, the claim is deemed met by the selected optional alternative coupling agent of Kawano.
Regarding claim 12, Kawano teaches the magnetic resin compositions as set forth above and teaches the MFR of the composition is from about 50-150 g/10min, per ASTM-D1238 ([0021]) (see also MPEP 2112.01).
Regarding claims 13-19, Kawano teaches the magnetic resin compositions as set forth above and further teaches molded products ([0028]), obtained by injection molding ([0029]).
Kawano is silent as to the injection molded product having the properties of a core loss of 350 kW/m3 or less at 20 kHz (claim 15) or of 2800 kW/m3 or less at 100 kHz (claim 16), a magnetic permeability retention rate of 83% or more (claim 17), a radial crushing strength of 40 MPa or more (claim 18), or a resistance value of 1x1013 Ω or more (claim 19). However, Kawano teaches the claimed composition, comprising the claimed components in the claimed amounts, and teaches an injection molded product obtained therefrom. It is noted that 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 (see In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 15 USPQ2d 1655, (Fed. Cir. 1990); see also In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 195 USPQ 430, (CCPA 1977). “Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established.”; MPEP 2112.01)).
Claims 1-3, 6-10 and 12-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tada et al. (WO 9854734 A1; using Clarivate Analytics machine translation for English language citations).
Regarding claims 1-3, Tada teaches resin compositions comprising a synthetic resin (A) and a soft magnetic filler (B) (abstract; pg3). Tada teaches the synthetic resin (A) is a thermoplastic resin including Nylons and other polyamides (pg3-4). Tada teaches the soft magnetic filler (B) is selected from a soft filler powder (B1) alone or the combination of soft filler powder (B1) and a metal magnetic powder (B2) (pg4). Tada further teaches the powder (B2) has an electrically insulating layer formed thereon by treating with a silane coupling agent and decomposing to an oxide layer (pg5)(instant coating layer; instant ‘a glass’).
Regarding claims 6-10, Tada teaches resin compositions as set forth above and further teaches the soft magnetic filler (B1) is selected from ferrites, include ferrites of Mn-Zn type, Mg-Zn type, Ni-Zn type, Cu-type, Cu-Zn-Mg type, etc. (pg4)(instant Fe-based), wherein the average particle sizes of the powder ranges from 20-100 µm (pg5; see also pg10 original WO document). Tada further teaches the metal magnetic powder (B2) is selected from iron and iron-based alloys, including Fe-Si alloys (pg5), wherein the average particle sizes of the powder ranges from 2-500 µm (pg6; see also pg11 original WO document). Tada further teaches that (B1) is preferably from 20 to 80 wt% of (B) and (B2) is preferably from 80 to 20 wt% of (B) (pg7).
Regarding claim 12, Tada teaches the resin compositions as set forth above and further teaches the composition comprising 100-2000 parts (B) per 100 parts (A), wherein the amount of (B) is determined by molding fluidity needs of the composition (pg6), but is silent as to the MFR of the composition being 80 g/10min or more at 330ºC. However, Tada teaches the claimed composition, comprising the claimed components in the claimed amounts. It is noted that 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 (see In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 15 USPQ2d 1655, (Fed. Cir. 1990); see also In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 195 USPQ 430, (CCPA 1977). “Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established.”; MPEP 2112.01)).
Regarding claims 13-19, Tada teaches the resin compositions as set forth above and further teaches the compositions may be formed into molded articles via injection molding (pg7). Tada teaches the withstand voltage is 250 C or more, teaches the magnetic permeability is 10 or more, and the saturation magnetic flux density is more than 300 gauss (pg7).
Tada is silent as to the injection molded product having the properties of a core loss of 350 kW/m3 or less at 20 kHz (claim 15) or of 2800 kW/m3 or less at 100 kHz (claim 16), a magnetic permeability retention rate of 83% or more (claim 17), a radial crushing strength of 40 MPa or more (claim 18), or a resistance value of 1x1013 Ω or more (claim 19). However, Tada teaches the claimed composition, comprising the claimed components in the claimed amounts, and teaches an injection molded product obtained therefrom. It is noted that 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 (see In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 15 USPQ2d 1655, (Fed. Cir. 1990); see also In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 195 USPQ 430, (CCPA 1977). “Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established.”; MPEP 2112.01)).
Claims 1-8, 11-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yoshida et al. (JP 2019182950 A; using Clarivate Analytics machine translation for English language citations).
Regarding claims 1-5, Yoshida teaches molding materials (1) comprising a resin (2), and magnetic powder (3) comprising first particles (31) exhibiting soft magnetism and second particles (32) which differ from the first particles, and non-magnetic powder (4) (abstract). Yoshida teaches the resin (2) is selected from thermoplastic resins including polyamides (pg3). Yoshida further teaches at least one of first particles (31) and second particles (32) is subjected to surface treatment including treating with a coupling agent (pg7) and additionally treating with a silicone resin (pg9)(instant coating layer; instant silicone resin; instant coupling agent).
Regarding claims 6-8, Yoshida teaches molding materials as set forth above and further teaches the first particle (31) is selected from iron-based soft magnetic materials (instant Fe-based) including iron and iron alloys of iron with other elements including B, C, Al, Si, P, Mn, etc. and teaches examples of iron alloys include silicon steel, etc. (instant Fe-Si alloy). Yoshida teaches the particle size of the magnetic powder is from 4 to 180 µm (pg5), wherein the first particle (31) ranges from 12-150 µm and is crystalline and the second particle (32) ranges from 3-80 µm (pg6).
Regarding claim 11, Yoshida teaches the molding materials as set forth above and as noted teaches surface treating with a coupling agent and/or silicone resin. As the instant claim is further limiting to a non-positively recited, unselected optional alternative of ‘glass’, the claim is deemed met by the selected optional alternatives of coupling agent and/or silicone resin of Yoshida.
Regarding claim 12, Yoshida teaches the molding materials as set forth above and further teaches the composition comprising 50-90 vol% oof magnetic powder (3) (pg9), wherein the amount of (3) is determined by molding fluidity needs of the composition (pg8; pg9), but is silent as to the MFR of the composition being 80 g/10min or more at 330ºC. However, Yoshida teaches the claimed composition, comprising the claimed components in the claimed amounts. It is noted that 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 (see In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 15 USPQ2d 1655, (Fed. Cir. 1990); see also In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 195 USPQ 430, (CCPA 1977). “Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established.”; MPEP 2112.01)).
Regarding claims 13-19, Yoshida teaches the molding materials as set forth above and further teaches the compositions may be formed into molded bodies via injection molding (pg14). Yoshida teaches the molded bodies have a relative magnetic permeability of 10 or more, and has good magnetic properties (pg14).
Yoshida is silent as to the injection molded product having the properties of a core loss of 350 kW/m3 or less at 20 kHz (claim 15) or of 2800 kW/m3 or less at 100 kHz (claim 16), a magnetic permeability retention rate of 83% or more (claim 17), a radial crushing strength of 40 MPa or more (claim 18), or a resistance value of 1x1013 Ω or more (claim 19). However, Yoshida teaches the claimed composition, comprising the claimed components in the claimed amounts, and teaches an injection molded product obtained therefrom. It is noted that 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 (see In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 15 USPQ2d 1655, (Fed. Cir. 1990); see also In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 195 USPQ 430, (CCPA 1977). “Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established.”; MPEP 2112.01)).
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JANE L STANLEY whose telephone number is (571)270-3870. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 AM to 3:30 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 Eashoo can be reached at 571-272-1197. 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.
/JANE L STANLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1767
