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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/02/2025 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 1 and 12 are amended. Claims 2, 6-11, 13, 18 and 21-22 are cancelled. Claim 25 is new. Claims 1, 3-5, 12, 14-17, 19-20 and 23-25 are pending.
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.
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.
Claims 1, 3-5, 23 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Urata (US 2016/0177429), as evidenced by Li (Materials, Vol. 13, 1839, (2020)).
Regarding claims 1, 3-5 and 23, Urata teaches a Fe-based alloy containing Fe84.8B9P5Cu1.2 and the alloy has saturated magnetic flux density of 1.76 T (Abstract; Table 3 and Table 6: Example 28), which meets the recited amount of Fe, B, P and Cu in claims 1 and 3-4 and the property limitation recited in claim 5. Urata further discloses that Fe84.8B9P5Cu1.2 alloy contains 0.002 wt% Al and 0.002 wt% Ti (Table 3, Example 28), which converts to 0.00375 at% Al and 0.00211 at% Ti and meets the recited amount of M3 and Ti in claim 1.
Urata does not explicitly disclose that the alloy contains Si. However, Si is known to be present in iron. Li teaches a high purity iron and discloses that the high purity iron contains 0.0011-0.01 wt.% Si (Abstract; Table 1). Thus, Fe84.8B9P5Cu1.2 alloy disclosed by Urata contains greater than 0 at. % and 0.5 at. % or less Si as evidenced by Li.
The Fe84.8B9P5Cu1.2 alloy disclosed by Urata does not contain Nb. However, Urata discloses that 0-3 at% Fe may be replaced by Nb and Nb has an effect of lowering coercivity ([0066]; Table 4 and Table 7: Examples 38 and 47). Thus, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate 0-3 at% Nb in the Fe84.8B9P5Cu1.2 alloy in order to lower the coercivity of the Fe84.8B9P5Cu1.2 alloy as disclosed by Urata. The amount of Nb disclosed by Urata overlaps the recited amount of Nb. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Thus, the recited amount of Nb is a prima facie case of obviousness over Urata. See MPEP 2144.05 I. When 1.001 at% Fe is replaced by Nb in the Fe84.8B9P5Cu1.2 alloy, the Fe content is 83.799 at%, which is close to the recited amount of Fe in claim 4. A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Thus, claim 4 is obvious over Urata.
Regarding claim 25, Urata teaches a Fe-based alloy containing Fe84.8B9P5Cu1.2 and the alloy has saturated magnetic flux density of 1.76 T (Abstract; Table 3 and Table 6: Example 28), which meets the recited property in claim 25.
Claims 12, 14-17 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Urata (US 2016/0177429) as evidenced by Li (Materials, Vol. 13, 1839, (2020)), and further in view of Urata’171 (US 2010/0097171).
Regarding claims 12, 14-17 and 24, Urata teaches a Fe-based alloy containing Fe84.8B9P5Cu1.2 and the alloy has saturated magnetic flux density of 1.76 T (Abstract; Table 3 and Table 6: Example 28), which meets the recited amount of Fe, B, P and Cu in claims 12 and 14-15 and the property limitation recited in claim 17. Urata further discloses that Fe84.8B9P5Cu1.2 alloy contains 0.002 wt% Al and 0.002 wt% Ti (Table 3, Example 28), which converts to 0.00375 at% Al and 0.00211 at% Ti and meets the recited amount of M3 and Ti in claim 12.
Urata does not explicitly disclose that the alloy contains Si. However, Si is known to be present in iron. Li teaches a high purity iron and discloses that the high purity iron contains 0.0011-0.01 wt.% Si (Abstract; Table 1). Thus, Fe84.8B9P5Cu1.2 alloy disclosed by Urata contains greater than 0 at. % and 0.5 at. % or less Si as evidenced by Li.
The Fe84.8B9P5Cu1.2 alloy disclosed by Urata does not contain Nb. However, Urata discloses that 0-3 at% Fe may be replaced by Nb and Nb has an effect of lowering coercivity ([0066]; Table 4 and Table 7: Examples 38 and 47). Thus, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate 0-3 at% Nb in the Fe84.8B9P5Cu1.2 alloy in order to lower the coercivity of the Fe84.8B9P5Cu1.2 alloy as disclosed by Urata. The amount of Nb disclosed by Urata overlaps the recited amount of Nb. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Thus, the recited amount of Nb is a prima facie case of obviousness over Urata. See MPEP 2144.05 I. When 1.001 at% Fe is replaced by Nb in the Fe84.8B9P5Cu1.2 alloy, the Fe content is 83.799 at%, which is close to the recited amount of Fe in claim 15. A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Thus, claim 15 is obvious over Urata.
Urata discloses that the alloy can be made into powder having an average size of 44 µm ([0017]; [0067]), which meets the limitation recited in claim 16. Urata discloses that the alloy can be used to make an inductor ([0040]; [0046]). Urata does not teach the inductor comprises a coil, a body covering the coil and including an insulator as recited in claim 12. Urata’171 teaches a soft magnetic alloy having composition overlapping the composition of Makino (Abstract). Urata’171 discloses that an inductor comprises a magnetic body part made of the soft magnetic material and a resin, and a coil conductor embedded in the magnetic body part ([0114]). Urata discloses that the inductor has excellent properties ([0114]). Thus, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make an inductor comprising a magnetic body part made of the soft magnetic material and a resin, and a coil conductor embedded in the magnetic body part as taught by Urata’171 using the soft magnetic alloy of Urata in order to make an inductor having excellent properties as disclosed by Urata’171.
Claims 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Urata (US 2016/0177429) as evidenced by Li (Materials, Vol. 13, 1839, (2020)), in view of Urata’171 (US 2010/0097171), as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Yoon (US 2016/0163442).
Regarding claims 19-20, Urata in view of Urata’171 does not teach that the inductor comprises a support substrate supporting the coil and the coil is a winding type coil. Yoon teaches an electronic component that is analogous to that of Urata’171. Yoon disclosed that that the inductor comprises a support substrate supporting the coil and the coil is a winding type coil (Abstract; [0019] to [0031]). Thus, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make an inductor comprising a support substrate supporting the coil and the coil is a winding type coil as taught by Yoon in the process of making the inductor of Urata in view of Urata’171would be able to make an inductor with success as disclosed by Yoon.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments dated 12/02/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicants argued that the Urata does not teach that the alloy contains Si.
In response, even though Urata does not explicitly disclose that the alloy contains Si, Si is known to be present in iron. Li teaches a high purity iron and discloses that the high purity iron contains 0.0011-0.01 wt.% Si (Abstract; Table 1). Thus, Fe84.8B9P5Cu1.2 alloy disclosed by Urata contains greater than 0 at. % and 0.5 at. % or less Si as evidenced by Li.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Xiaowei Su whose telephone number is (571)272-3239. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-5:00.
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, Keith Hendricks can be reached at 5712721401. 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.
/XIAOWEI SU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1733
Prosecution Insights