DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1, 5 and 7-15 are pending as amended on 10/3/2025. Claims 8-15 stand withdrawn from consideration.
The rejection set forth below is substantially the same as a previously set forth rejection, with modifications solely to reflect Applicant’s amendment incorporating previously presented claims 2, 4 and 6 into independent claim 1. Therefore, this action is properly made final.
Any rejections and/or objections made in the previous Office action and not repeated below are hereby withdrawn. The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office Action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 1, 5 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ueda et al (JP 2002217015A; included machine translation cited herein) in view of Maetani et al (US 2012/0048063).
As to claims 1 and 5, Ueda discloses an iron-based powder magnetic material for dust cores (abstract), [0013]. The surfaces of the iron-based powder particles are coated with an epoxy resin [0013], which meets the instant recitation that the iron powders are individually insulated by thermosetting resin (wherein the thermosetting resin is an epoxy resin).
Ueda teaches that the content of the epoxy resin is 0.1 to 5.0 mass% [0013], which overlaps the presently claimed “thermosetting resin” range of 1-10 wt% (and the range of 2-5 wt% recited in claim 5). Ueda teaches that if the epoxy resin content is too low, sufficient insulation cannot be obtained, and if too high, green density and magnetic permeability decreases [0050-51]. It would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art, therefore, to have selected any epoxy resin content within Ueda’s disclosed range in order to achieve a desired balance between insulation and green density, including an epoxy content within the presently claimed ranges.
Ueda further teaches that a content of lubricant is 0.01 mass% or more in order to reduce ejection force, and does not exceed 2 mass% because it is not economical and reduces density of the molded body [0056]. It would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art, therefore, to have selected any appropriate lubricant content within Ueda’s disclosed range of 0.01 to 2 wt% in order to achieve a desired balance between reduction in ejection force, costs, and density, including an amount within the presently claimed range of 0.01-1.0 wt%.
[Relevant to both discussions above regarding the recited amounts of thermosetting resin and lubricant, case law has established that a prima facie case of obviousness is established where the claimed ranges overlap the ranges disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP 2144.05.]
Ueda fails to teach the impurity contents of iron powders as recited in claim 1.
Maetani discloses iron powder for a dust core [0002]. Maetani teaches that in manufacturing parts having excellent magnetic characteristics or high strength, a green compact with higher density needs to be obtained after a pressure forming process at a determinate pressure [0005]. Maetani teaches that iron powder needs to be highly purified to obtain high compressibility iron powder [0022-23], and provides the following disclosure with regard to impurity contents (note that Mn: 0.63% contains a typo and should be Mn: 0.03%, as evidenced by the discussion in [0070]):
PNG
media_image1.png
134
438
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The ranges disclosed by Maetani for each of the impurities either falls within or overlaps each of the corresponding ranges recited in claim 2. Maetani further teaches (in paragraphs [0067-76]) how increasing or decreasing the amounts of each of the impurities affects properties such as nozzle clogging and the compressibility and hardness of the iron powder. Therefore, when forming a magnetic material for a dust core utilizing iron powders as taught by Ueda, it would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art to have utilized iron powder having impurities in any appropriate contents within the ranges disclosed by Maetani in order to achieve a desired iron powder hardness and compressibility, including contents within the presently claimed ranges.
Ueda further fails to teach the average particle size of the iron powders.
However, Maetani teaches that it is better for the particle size distribution of the iron powder to be within that of generally used iron powder to achieve a low manufacturing cost due to manufacturing economies of scale [0038]. It is clear from Maetani’s particle size distribution shown in Table 1 that the average particle size of such commercially available iron powder must fall within the presently claimed range of 30-200 micron. (As shown in Maetani’s table 1, less than 5 wt% of the iron powder has a particle size greater than 180 micron, and only 15-30 wt% has a particle size below 45 microns; therefore, the average particle size must be some value between a range of 45-180 microns.) Therefore, when forming a magnetic material for a dust core utilizing iron powders as suggested by modified Ueda, it would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art to have utilized iron powder having a particle size distribution within that of generally used iron powder in order to decrease manufacturing costs, as disclosed by Maetani (thereby arriving at a material wherein the iron powders have an average particle size within the presently claimed ranges).
Ueda fails to teach that the magnetic material is “for a wireless charging system” as presently recited in the preamble of the claim.
However, if the body of a claim fully and intrinsically sets forth all the limitations of the claimed invention, and the preamble merely states, for example, the purpose or intended use of the invention, rather than any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations, then the preamble is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. Furthermore, statements in the preamble reciting the purpose or intended use of the claimed invention must be evaluated to determine whether the purpose or intended use results in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art. Only if such structural difference exists, does the recitation serve to limit the claim. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. (See MPEP 2111.02 regarding the effect of the preamble). While Ueda fails to expressly describe the magnetic material as being for a wireless charging system as is presently recited in the preamble of the claim, the magnetic material of modified Ueda has the same composition as is presently claimed, and must therefore possess the same physical properties as the presently claimed magnetic material. It is therefore evident that the magnetic material suggested by modified Ueda is inherently capable of being used as a magnetic material for a wireless charging system.
As to claim 7, modified Ueda suggests a material according to claim 1, as set forth above. Ueda names zinc stearate as a lubricant [0016].
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/3/2025 have been fully considered.
The examiner agrees that, in view of the amendments to the claims incorporating claims 2, 4 and 6 into claim 1, all rejections other than the rejection over Ueda in view of Maetani have been overcome.
Applicant argues (p 6) that limiting the particle size of the iron powder provides various desired properties. Applicant argues that Maetani (the secondary reference, relied on for particle size disclosure) describes particle size only in terms of sieve analysis distribution, and does not provide numerical specification of the average particle size. Applicant further argues (p 7) that there is no teaching or suggestion in Maetani as to importance of particle size.
With regard to Maetani’s disclosure of particle size in terms of sieve analysis distribution, Applicant has not provided any reasoning or evidence which establishes that Maetani’s commercially available iron powder shown in Table 1 (wherein less than 5 wt% of the powder has a particle size above 180 micron and only 15-30 wt% has a particle size below 45 micron) could have an average particle size outside of a range of 45-180 microns. Therefore, the examiner maintains that Maetani discloses commercially available iron powder having an average particle size which falls within the presently claimed range of 30 to 200 microns.
As to Applicant’s argument that Maetani does not teach the importance of particle size for controlling resin dispersibility, molding density and magnetic properties, Applicant has not provided any evidence which establishes that there is criticality associated with the presently claimed particle size range (30 to 200 microns). See MPEP 716.02(d)(II). Because Applicant’s allegation that limiting particle size provides a physical basis advantage for controlling resin dispersibilty, molding density and magnetic properties is not supported by any data or evidence that the claimed range is associated with criticality or unexpected results, Applicant’s argument is not sufficient to overcome the prima facie case of obviousness over Ueda and Maetani.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the modified 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 RACHEL KAHN whose telephone number is (571)270-7346. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 8-5.
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, Randy Gulakowski can be reached at 571-272-1302. 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.
/RACHEL KAHN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1766
Prosecution Insights