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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I, set A-oxide, set B-spray forming, set C- iron/iron alloy (claims 1-9) in the reply filed on April 10, 2024 is acknowledged.
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species I-argon in the reply filed on October 3, 2024 is acknowledged.
Claims 10-67 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claim Interpretation
With respect to claim 9, the 112f claim interpretation has been withdrawn since claim 9 has been amended to remove the “means plus function” language.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi et al. (U.S. 2012/0082844) in view of Harada et al. (U.S. 2008/0029300) or Sun et al. (U.S. 2004/0134565).
Referring to Figures 1-2 and paragraphs [0028]-[0060], Takahashi et al. disclose a system for producing a soft magnetic material having a core- shell structure, the system, comprising: a gas supply configured to supply at least one gas (par.[0073], i.e. oxygen-containing atmosphere, inert gas); and a furnace configured to receive the at least one gas (pars.[0071]-[0072]); wherein a flow of the at least one gas is configured to be varied to provide a shell on a particle in the furnace (par.[0076], i.e. switching atmospheres of nitrogen and air or turning on or off).
Takahashi et al. is silent on a shell chemically bonded to a core defined by a particle the core comprising iron and the shell comprising a substantially non-iron oxide material.
Referring to paragraphs [0033]-[0043], Harada et al. teach a system for producing a soft magnetic material having a core-shell structure having a shell chemically bonded to a core defined by a particle, the core comprising iron and the shell comprising a substantially non-iron oxide material since the structure exhibits high saturation magnetic flux density, high resistance, and high thermal stability (pars.[0056],[0089]). Referring to paragraphs [0070]-[0071], Sun et al. teach a system for producing a soft magnetic material having a core-shell structure having a shell chemically bonded to a core defined by a particle, the core comprising iron and the shell comprising a substantially non-iron oxide material since the structure exhibits high saturation magnetic flux density, high resistance, and high thermal stability. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the core-shell structure of Takahashi et al. to have a shell chemically bonded to a core defined by a particle, the core comprising iron and the shell comprising a substantially non-iron oxide material as taught by Harada et al. or Sun et al. since the core-shell structure would exhibit high saturation magnetic flux density, high resistance, and high thermal stability.
The resulting apparatus of Takahashi et al. in view of Harada et al. or Sun et al. would yield a shell chemically bonded to a core defined by a particle in the furnace the core comprising iron and the shell comprising a substantially non-iron oxide material.
With respect to claim 2, the system of Takahashi et al. further includes wherein the gas supply comprises an oxygen source (par.[0073]).
With respect to claim 3, the system of Takahashi et al. further includes wherein the furnace comprises at least one heater configured to heat the particle (par.[0072]).
With respect to claim 8, the system of Takahashi et al. further includes wherein the gas supply is further configured to deliver argon (par.[0073]); to the furnace to purge the furnace.
Claim(s) 4-7 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi et al. (U.S. 2012/0082844) in view of Harada et al. (U.S. 2008/0029300) or Sun et al. (U.S. 2004/0134565) as applied to claims 1-3 and 8 above, and further in view of King et al. (U.S. 2019/0062914).
The teachings of Takahashi et al. in view of Harada et al. or Sun et al. have been discussed above.
Takahashi et al. is silent on a flow controller through which the at least one gas is fed to the furnace.
Referring to paragraphs [0207]-[0208], King et al. teach a system wherein a flow controller (i.e. mass flow controller) through which the at least one gas is fed to the furnace in order to regulate the flow of the gas into the furnace for the desired process conditions. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the system of Takahashi et al. in view of Harada et al. or Sun et al. with a flow controller as taught by King et al. in order to regulate the flow of the gas into the furnace for the desired process conditions.
With respect to claim 5, the system of Takahashi et al. in view of Harada et al. or Sun et al. and King et al. further comprising a pressure sensor (i.e. sensing device) downstream of the flow controller and upstream of the furnace (King et al.-pars.[0182], [0187], [0207]-[0208]).
With respect to claim 6, the system of Takahashi et al. in view of Harada et al. or Sun et al. fail to teach a system controller, the system controller comprising at least one processor and at least one memory having software, the system controller being configured to adjust and control the supply of the at least one gas through the flow controller and being configured to control a temperature in the furnace.
Referring to paragraphs [0163]-[0166],[0181]-[0182],[0187], [0204],[0207]-[0208]), King et al. teach a system wherein a system controller (par.[0181]) comprising at least one processor and at least one memory having software, the system controller being configured to adjust and control the supply of the at least one gas through the flow controller (pars. [0182],[0208]) and being configured to control a temperature in the furnace (pars.[0182], [0204]) in order to achieve the desired process conditions. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide the system of Takahashi et al. in view of Harada et al. or Sun et al. to have a system controller comprising at least one processor and at least one memory having software, the system controller being configured to adjust and control the supply of the at least one gas through the flow controller and being configured to control a temperature in the furnace as taught by King et al. in order to achieve the desired process conditions. The modified system of Takahashi et al. in view of Harada et al. or Sun et al. and King et al. yields a system controller comprising at least one processor and at least one memory having software, the system controller being configured to adjust and control the supply of the at least one gas through the flow controller and being configured to control a temperature in the furnace.
With respect to claim 7, the system of Takahashi et al. in view of Harada et al. or Sun et al. and King et al. further includes wherein adjustment and control of the supply of the at least one gas through the flow controller and control of the temperature of the furnace is based on at least a pressure from the pressure sensor, the temperature in the furnace, or one or more of temperature or flow rate of the at least one gas (King et al.-pars.[0163]-[0166],[0181]-[0182],[0187], [0204],[0207]-[0208]).
With respect to claim 9, the system of Takahashi et al. in view of Harada et al. or Sun et al. and King et al. further comprising at least one valve to control the flow of the at least one gas from the gas supply (King et al.-pars. [0207]-[0208]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot because new references Harada et al.’300 or Sun et al.’565 teach a shell chemically bonded to a core defined by a particle in the furnace, the core comprising iron and the shell comprising a substantially non-iron oxide material.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Ikari’664 and Yang’023 teach a core comprising iron and a shell comprising a substantially non-iron oxide material.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michelle CROWELL whose telephone number is (571)272-1432. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 10:00am-6:00pm.
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, Parviz Hassanzadeh can be reached on 571-272-1435. 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.
/Michelle CROWELL/Examiner, Art Unit 1716
/SYLVIA MACARTHUR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716