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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 10/30/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Examiner acknowledges amended Claim 1 and canceled Claims 2-3 in the response filed on 10/30/2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant stated that according to examples in Tables 1 and 3 of the present application, for the magnetic core prepared by using the soft magnetic metal powder in which a number ratio of particles having a low circularity was 0.07% or more and 1.40% or less, such as sample Nos. 1 and 4 in which the particles had a structure formed of the Fe-based nanocrystals and had the specific composition which is within the present invention, and the number ratio of particles having a low circularity was 0.07% (sample No. 1) and 1.40% (sample No. 4), the relative permeability was higher compared to the sample which was under the same conditions except that the number ratio of particles having a low circularity was less than 0.07% and the sample which was under the same conditions except that the number ratio of particles having a low circularity exceeded 1.40%.
However, Applicant’s arguments are unpersuasive. The evidence pointed to in Table 1 is not necessarily commensurate in scope with the claims. In particular, Sample Nos. 1, 2, 3, 3a-3c, 4-7* in Applicant’s Table 1 use a specific composition for its soft magnetic metal powder, Fe0.799Nb0.070B0.098P0.031S0.002 (atomic number ratio). Claim 1, however, discloses a broader composition, wherein elements Fe, M, B, P, Si, C, and S each have their own respective concentration range. It is not necessarily clear that the claimed composition would behave the same as the ones employed by Applicant in the instant examples, especially considering that it appears that the composition also influences the permeability. Please see Sample Nos. 15 and 18 in Table 2 disclosing a different composition than what is claimed, yet appears to have the argued unexpected result of a high permeability.
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, 4, and 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.
Claim 1 recites “the soft magnetic metal powder particles consist of a main component consisting of a composition formula” (emphasis added). Due to the recitation of the term “main component”, the instant limitation implies that there is something else present in the soft magnetic metal powder particles (e.g. an auxiliary or unrecited sub component), yet the soft magnetic metal powder can only consist of the claimed composition formula. For the purpose of evaluating prior art, the Examiner is interpreting the instant limitation as: “the soft magnetic metal powder particles consisting of a composition formula”.
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, 4, and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub. No. 20190013129 (“Maede et al.”) in view of US Pub. No. 20180122540 (“Matsumoto et al.”).
With regards to Claim 1, Maede et al. teaches a magnetic core comprising soft magnetic metal powder particles, wherein the soft magnetic metal powder particles have a structure formed of Fe-based nanocrystals and have a composition formula Fe73.5-Cu1-Nb3-Si13.5-B9 (atomic %) (i.e. Fe=0.735, a=0.03, b=0.09, c=0, d=0, e=0, and f=0) (Abstract, Fig. 13, [0090], [0121], and [0137]-[0139]). Meade et al. recognizes that its soft magnetic metal powder particles are not necessarily limited to Fe73.5-Cu1-Nb3-Si13.5-B9 (atomic %), but that the soft magnetic metal powder particles may be any material, for example, a metal, an alloy, a nanocrystalline alloy, provided that it shows soft magnetic properties ([0137]-[0139]).
Maede et al. further teaches that the soft magnetic metal powder particles comprising a first powder (701) and a second spherical powder (503b). The first powder (701) has a maximum circularity of 0.50, a mean circularity of 0.2 or more, a particle size of more than 32 µm, and is 30 weight % or less of the total soft magnetic powder. The second spherical powder (503b) is a spherical powder having a particle size of 32 µm or less, and occupies 70 weight % or more of the total soft magnetic powder (Fig. 13, [0050], [0051], [0121], and [0122]). Therefore, Maede et al.’s teachings overlap with the claimed limitation of “wherein a number ratio of soft magnetic metal powder particles having a circularity of less than 0.50 to a total number of soft magnetic metal powder particles having a particle size of 10 µm or more and less than 50 µm is 0.05% or more and 1.50% or less”. 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.
Due to Meade et al.’s composition formula containing Cu in Example 2, Meade et al. does not explicitly teach its soft magnetic metal powder particles consist of a composition formula as claimed.
However, Matsumoto et al. teaches a soft magnetic alloy including a composition having a formula of ((Fe(1-(α+β))X1αX2β)(1-(a+b+c+d+e))MaBbPcCrdCue)1-fCf, wherein α=0, β=0, 0.020≤α≤0.060, 0.020≤b≤0.060, 0≤c≤0.030, d=0, 0≤e≤0.030, and 0<f≤0.040 are satisfied (Abstract, [0053]-[0064], [0104], and Table 1. Matsumoto et al. recognizes that when Cu is not contained, there is an advantage that saturation magnetic flux density is high [0059]. Matsumoto et al. further teaches an example having the composition Fe0.90Nb0.06B0.04C0.001, which substantially meets the claimed composition. Prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775.
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 Meade et al.’s composition to not contain Cu in order to have a high saturation magnetic flux density [0059]. In the alternative, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the composition disclosed by Matsumoto et al. as Meade et al.’s soft magnetic metal powder particles in order to have a high saturation magnetic flux density and a low coercivity [0051].
With regards to Claim 4, Maede et al. teaches a coil component comprising the magnetic core [0001].
With regards to Claim 5, Maede et al. teaches the magnetic core has a relative permeability of 22 or more ([0068]-[0069]). 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.
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