CTFR 17/602,157 CTFR 85957 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. 12-151 AIA 26-51 12-51 Status of Claims Claim 9 is cancelled. Claims 1-8 and 10-15 are pending where no claims have been amended. Status of Previous Rejections The previous 35 USC § 103 rejections of the claims have been maintained. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. 07-20-02-aia AIA 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 and 8-12, 14 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over JP 2008106334 A to Uozumi et al (an English language machine translation has been relied upon for examination purposes). Regarding claim 1, Uozumi discloses a soft magnetic alloy powder which overlaps the instantly claimed composition as follows (Uozumi, abstract, para [0005]): Element Claimed atomic fraction Uozumi atomic fraction Overlaps? Co, Ni ≥0 ≤impurity Yes Al, Mn, Ag, Zn, Sn, As, Sb, Cu, Cr, Bi, N, O, REM ≥0 Mn: >0-0.01 Cr: >0-0.05 Yes Nb, Hf, Zr, Ta, Mo, W, Ti, V 0-0.150 ≤impurity Yes B 0-0.200 ≤impurity Yes P 0-0.200 ≤impurity Yes Si 0.085-0.095 0.04-0.21 Yes C >0-0.200 >0-0.05 Yes S 0.0001-0.200 >0-0.001 Yes Nb+Hf+Zr+Ta+ Mo+W+Ti+V+B+P+ Si+C+S 0.100-0.300 Si: 0.04-0.21 C: >0-0.05S: >0-0.001 Yes C+S 0.0001-0.220 C: >0-0.05S: >0-0.001 Yes Co+Ni+Al+Mn+Ag+ Zn+Sn+As+Sb+Cu+ Cr+Bi+N+O+REM 0-0.50 Mn: >0-0.01 Cr: >0-0.05 Yes In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05 [R-5]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to select any portion of the disclosed ranges of Uozumi including the instantly claimed because Uozumi discloses the same utility throughout the disclosed ranges. Regarding the limitation “an amorphous ratio (X) represented by a below formula (1) satisfies 85% or more,” Uozumi discloses that the alloy is amorphous and does not mention other phases (Uozumi, para [0005]). Although Uozumi does not explicitly disclose the exact ratio of amorphous phase, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. 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 (see MPEP 2112.01 [R-3].) In the instant case, the alloy of Uozumi would be expected to have the same or similar properties as the instantly claimed alloy because the alloy of Uozumi has the same or substantially the same composition, microstructure, and method of manufacturing. Regarding claims 8, 10 and 11, Uozumi overlaps the instantly claimed ranges. Regarding claim 12, para [0080] of the instant specification discloses that nanocrystal particles may be precipitated by heat treatment at 350 °C or higher and 800 °C or lower for 0.1 minute or longer and 120 minutes or less. Uozumi discloses heat treatment at 400 °C for 2 hours (Uozumi, para [0021]). When the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. 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 (see MPEP 2112.01 [R-3].) In the instant case, the alloy of Uozumi would be expected to have the same or similar nanocrystals as the instantly claimed alloy because the alloy of Uozumi has the same or substantially the same composition, microstructure, and method of manufacturing. Regarding claims 14 and 15, the alloy of Uozumi may be in the form of an electromagnetic interference suppressor (Uozumi, para [0001]), i.e. a magnetic component and an electronic device. 07-22-aia AIA Claim (s) 2-7 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2008106334 A to Uozumi et al (an English language machine translation has been relied upon for examination purposes) as applied to claim s 1 and 8-12, 14 and 15 above and further in view of US 2012/0048063 A1 to Maetani et al . Uozumi sets forth a soft magnetic alloy powder as set forth above. Uozumi is silent as to a circularity of the powder. Maetani discloses that the compressibility of iron powder for a dust core can be improved by increasing the circularity to 0.7 or more, with excellent compressibility achieved at a circularity of 0.9 or more (Maetani, para [0057,0132]). Regarding claims 2-7 it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to increase the circularity of the powder of Uozumi across all size distributions to 0.7 or more, preferably 0.9 or more as suggested by Maetani. The motivation for doing so would be to improve compressibility of the iron powder of Makino (Maetani, para [0057,0132]). Regarding claim 13, Maetani discloses that iron powder has known utility for a dust core (Maetani, para [0002]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the iron powder of Uozumi in view of Maetani for a dust core as suggested by Maetani. The motivation for doing so is that iron powder has known utility for a dust core (Maetani, para [0002]) . Response to Arguments 07-37 AIA Applicant's arguments filed 3/19/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that examples Table 8 demonstrates unexpected results of the instantly claimed silicon range because examples 71, 139a, and 140a have superior HcJ compared to examples 139 and 140. This is not found persuasive because to establish unexpected results over a claimed range, applicants should compare a sufficient number of tests both inside and outside the claimed range to show the criticality of the claimed range. Whether the unexpected results are the result of unexpectedly improved results or a property not taught by the prior art, the “objective evidence of nonobviousness must be commensurate in scope with the claims which the evidence is offered to support.” In other words, the showing of unexpected results must be reviewed to see if the results occur over the entire claimed range. See MPEP 716.02(d) [R-2]. In the instant case, the data relied upon by applicant to show unexpected results is directed solely to alloys comprising 74.9 at% Fe, 0 at% M, 12 at% B, 2-4 at% P, 8-10 at% Si, 1 at% C and 0.1 at% S, which covers an extremely small fraction of the breadth of the alloy composition recited in instant claim 1. As such, the data relied upon by applicant to demonstrate unexpected results does not show that the alleged unexpected results occur over the entirety of the claimed range and is thus insufficient to establish unexpected results over the entirety of the instantly claimed composition ranges. Conclusion 07-39 AIA THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 BRIAN D WALCK whose telephone number is (571)270-5905. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10 AM - 6:30 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, Sally Merkling can be reached at 571-272-6297. 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. /BRIAN D WALCK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1738 Application/Control Number: 17/602,157 Page 2 Art Unit: 1738 Application/Control Number: 17/602,157 Page 3 Art Unit: 1738 Application/Control Number: 17/602,157 Page 4 Art Unit: 1738 Application/Control Number: 17/602,157 Page 5 Art Unit: 1738 Application/Control Number: 17/602,157 Page 6 Art Unit: 1738 Application/Control Number: 17/602,157 Page 7 Art Unit: 1738 Application/Control Number: 17/602,157 Page 8 Art Unit: 1738
Prosecution Insights