RESPONSE TO AMENDMENT
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 .
REJECTIONS
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
Claims 1, 3, 5, 10 and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsuchiya et al. (U.S. App. Pub. No. 2021/0118602) in view of Yoshizawa et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 4,985,089) and Mitani et al. (WO 2009/104677).
Citations to Mitani et al. below refer to the machine translation document provided with this office action.
Regarding claim 1, Tsuchiya et al. discloses an inductor comprising a magnetic powder having a D50 particle diameter in the range most preferably 3 micrometers or less and 2 micrometer or more. (par. [0018]). The D90/D50 ratio is preferably in the range of 1-2 to obtain the desired inductance. (par. [0023]). The powder is coated with an insulation layer. (par. [0028]). The powder is made of an iron based magnetic material. (par. [0026]).
With respect to the composition of the insulation layer, Tsuchiya et al. teaches that it is derived from constituents in the magnetic powder (par. [0028]) which would therefore include composite oxides of Fe, Si and Cr. (par. [0027]).
Tsuchiya et al. does not teach a magnetic powder alloy composition including Fe, Si and B.
Yoshizawa et al. discloses an Fe-base soft magnetic alloy powder and dust core (Abstract) having the general composition of 1% Cu, 16.5% Si, 6% B, 3% Nb and 73.5% Fe (col. 8, lines 59-64) as well as stoichiometric variations thereof (see Examples 2-4), all of which the present claim limitations for an alloy consisting essentially of Fe, Si and B and at least one of Cr, Cu, Nb and C. Yoshizawa et al. discloses that the magnetic alloy of is selected due to the having excellent magnetic characteristics such as magnetic flux density (col. 2, lines 36-40)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the magnetic alloy disclosed in Yoshizawa et al. as the magnetic powder alloy material in Tsuchiya et al.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use the alloy composition disclosed in Yoshizawa et al. in view of the excellent magnetic properties such as flux density of the alloy. One of ordinary skill in the art would therefore have a reasonable expectation of success in using the alloy of Yoshizawa as the magnetic alloy for Tsuchiya et al. to obtain a magnetic core having improved properties.
Tsuchiya et al. does not teach that the magnetic powder has a ratio of particles having a circularity of 0.60 or less is in the range of 0.5 to 1.5%.
Mitani et al. teaches an iron-based powder for use in a dust core wherein 50% or more, including 100%, have a circularity fraction of 0.75 or more and 15% or less have a circularity of 0.65 or less. (Abstract). Mitani et al. teaches that by having the powder population with a content of circularity of 0.75 or more being 50% or more and the content having a circularity of 0.65 or less to be 15% or less, the powders have a reduced coercive force which translated to a reduced coercive force for the dust core containing the powder material. (page3, 2nd to last full paragraph).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to control the circularity of the magnetic powder alloy such that the content of powders having a “lower circularity” (i.e. 0.65 or less) is 15% or less as taught by Mitani et al.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to optimize the content of magnetic powders having circularities of 0.65 or less to be 15% or lower in view of the improved properties imparted to the magnetic powders with respect to coercive force in order to produce a dust core having those same improved properties.
While Mitani et al. does not specifically disclose that the content of powders having a circularity of 0.6 or less is in the range of 0.5 to 1.5% as claimed, the broad disclosure of a circularity value of 0.65 and a content of 15% or less significantly overlaps with the presently claimed range. This suggests to one of ordinary skill in the art the minimize the content of powders having circularity of less than 0.65 (such as 0.6) due to the negative impact thereof on the coercive force of the powders. Furthermore, the teaching of 15% or less suggests that the range is sufficiently broad that while minimize the content of lower circularity powders is desirable, there are workable ranges that would be higher 0 in which the improved properties are observed. As such, in view of the explicit art recognized result effective nature of the circularity of the powders, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to optimize the content of powders having circularities of 0.6 or less in Tsuchiya et al. with the intended purpose to reduce the coercive force of the powders with a reasonable expectation of success in view of the similar fields and applications between Tsuchiya and Mitani et al. "Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456 (CCPA 1955). MPEP 2144.05 (II).
Regarding claim 3, Tsuchiya et al. does not specifically teach that the powder is a gas-atomized powder. However, the limitation “gas-atomized” refers to a particular process for making the claimed powder. The method of forming the product is not germane to the issue of patentability of the product itself, unless Applicant presents evidence from which the Examiner could reasonably conclude that the claimed product differs in kind from those of the prior art. MPEP 2113.
Regarding claim 5, the insulation layer has a thickness of most preferably 50 nm or less. (par. [0028]).
Regarding claims 10 and 12-14, Tsuchiya et al. discloses that the powder material is used in a dust core for an inductor (Abstract), which would meet the limitations of a “magnetic element”, “electronic device” and “moving body” as claimed.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsuchiya et al. (U.S. App. Pub. No. 2021/0118602) in view of Yoshizawa et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 4,985,089) and and Mitani et al. (WO 2009/104677), further in view of Tajima et al. (U.S. App. Pub. No. 2003/0230362).
Tsuchiya, Yoshizawa and Mitani et al. are relied upon as described in the rejection of claim 1, above.
Tsuchiya et al. does not teach the specific coercive force and saturation magnetization as presently claimed.
Tajima et al. teaches an insulation film composition for use on magnetic powders for magnetic cores (Abstract and par. [0015]). Tajima et al. teaches that with respect to coercive force, a smaller force value is desirable from the standpoint of diminishing hysteresis loss. (par. [0066]). Preferable values are in the range 320 A/m or less. (par. [0066]). With respect to saturation magnetization, a value upwards 1.9 T is preferred for producing high magnetic flux density in a high magnetic field. (par. [0064]-[0065]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adjust the values of the coercivity and saturation magnetization in Tsuchiya et al. to fall within the range disclosed therein.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to carefully control these parameters in view of the disclosed result effective nature of these properties as discussed in Tajima et al. By producing a magnetic powder and core having coercivity and saturation magnetization within the ranges disclosed by Tajima et al., one of ordinary skill in the art would have an expectation of producing successfully producing magnetic powder and core having improved properties.
Claim 3 is further rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsuchiya et al. (U.S. App. Pub. No. 2021/0118602) in view of Yoshizawa et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 4,985,089) and Mitani et al. (WO 2009/104677), further in view of Miyamura et al. (U.S. App. Pub. No. 2013/0181804)
Tsuchiya,Yoshizawa and Mitani et al. are relied upon as described in the rejection of claim 1, above.
Tsuchiya et al. does not disclose that the soft magnetic powder is an atomized powder.
Miyamura et al. discloses iron-based soft magnetic powders which are used for magnetic cores. (Abstract). Miyamura et al. teaches that atomization is generally preferred over pulverized powder for making soft magnetic core materials. (par. [0011]). In particular, gas and water atomization are generally preferred with some tradeoffs including coercive force and core strength depending on the method used. (par. [0012]-[0013]). Miyamura et al. in particular focuses on solving the problems associated with water atomization because the method is disclosed to be low cost and suitable for industrial production. (par. [0013]-[0014] and [0017]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to produce the iron-based powders disclosed in Tsuchiya et al. using an atomization process.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use an atomization process as Miyamura et al. discloses that this is a preferred production process from a standpoint of cost and industrial production scale.
Claims 1, 3, 5 and 10-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohkubo et al. (U.S. App. Pub. No. 2017/0154720) in view of Yoshizawa et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 4,985,089), Mitani et al. (WO 2009/104677) and Suetsuna et al. (U.S. App. Pub. No. 2008/0220231).
Citations to Mitani et al. below refer to the machine translation document provided with this office action.
Regarding claim 1, Ohkubo et al. discloses a magnetic coil device comprising a metal powder comprised of two different types of magnetic metal powders having different D50 diameters. (Abstract). The small diameter particles have a D50 between 0.5 to 1.5 micrometers (Abstract and [0020]) and a D90 particle diameter of 4.0 micrometers or less. (par. [0021]). The D90/D50 ratio for the small particles is therefore in the range of 8 (4.0/0.5) or lower which encompasses the presently claimed range. As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “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).
The magnetic powder is a Ni-Fe alloy which would meet the limitation of a soft magnetic material as claimed. (par. [0073]-[0074]). The magnetic powder comprises an insulating film on the surface of the powder (i.e. coats the powder). (Abstract and [0075]).
Ohkubo et al. does not teach a magnetic powder alloy composition including Fe, Si and B.
Yoshizawa et al. discloses an Fe-base soft magnetic alloy powder and dust core (Abstract) having the general composition of 1% Cu, 16.5% Si, 6% B, 3% Nb and 73.5% Fe (col. 8, lines 59-64) as well as stoichiometric variations thereof (see Examples 2-4), all of which the present claim limitations for an alloy consisting essentially of Fe, Si and B and at least one of Cr, Cu, Nb and C. Yoshizawa et al. discloses that the magnetic alloy of is selected due to the having excellent magnetic characteristics such as magnetic flux density (col. 2, lines 36-40)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the magnetic alloy disclosed in Yoshizawa et al. as the magnetic powder alloy material in Ohkubo et al.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use the alloy composition disclosed in Yoshizawa et al. in view of the excellent magnetic properties such as flux density of the alloy. One of ordinary skill in the art would therefore have a reasonable expectation of success in using the alloy of Yoshizawa as the magnetic alloy for Ohkubo et al. to obtain a magnetic core having improved properties
Ohkubo et al. does not teach that the magnetic powder has a ratio of particles having a circularity of 0.60 or less is in the range of 0.5 to 1.5%. Ohkubo et al. discloses that the particles are spherical, having a sphericity of 0.9 or more. (par. [0082]).
Mitani et al. teaches an iron-based powder for use in a dust core wherein 50% or more, including 100%, have a circularity fraction of 0.75 or more and 15% or less have a circularity of 0.65 or less. (Abstract). Mitani et al. teaches that by having the powder population with a content of circularity of 0.75 or more being 50% or more and the content having a circularity of 0.65 or less to be 15% or less, the powders have a reduced coercive force which translated to a reduced coercive force for the dust core containing the powder material. (page3, 2nd to last full paragraph).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to control the circularity of the magnetic powder alloy such that the content of powders having a “lower circularity” (i.e. 0.65 or less) is 15% or less as taught by Mitani et al.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to optimize the content of magnetic powders having circularities of 0.65 or less to be 15% or lower in view of the improved properties imparted to the magnetic powders with respect to coercive force in order to produce a dust core having those same improved properties.
While Mitani et al. does not specifically disclose that the content of powders having a circularity of 0.6 or less is in the range of 0.5 to 1.5% as claimed, the broad disclosure of a circularity value of 0.65 and a content of 15% or less significantly overlaps with the presently claimed range. This suggests to one of ordinary skill in the art the minimize the content of powders having circularity of less than 0.65 (such as 0.6) due to the negative impact thereof on the coercive force of the powders. Furthermore, the teaching of 15% or less suggests that the range is sufficiently broad that while minimize the content of lower circularity powders is desirable, there are workable ranges that would be higher 0 in which the improved properties are observed. As such, in view of the explicit art recognized result effective nature of the circularity of the powders, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to optimize the content of powders having circularities of 0.6 or less in Tsuchiya et al. with the intended purpose to reduce the coercive force of the powders with a reasonable expectation of success in view of the similar fields and applications between Tsuchiya and Mitani et al. "Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456 (CCPA 1955). MPEP 2144.05 (II).
Ohkubo in view of Yoshizawa and Mitani et al. does not teach an insulating layer having the composition of composite oxide containing silicon and at least one of Al, Ti, V, Nb, Cr, Mn and Zr, as claimed.
Suetsuna et al. discloses a core/shell type magnetic powder for a magnetic core material wherein the powder includes an insulating layer on the surface thereof. (Abstract and par. [0003], [0029]). Suetsuna et al. further teaches that the insulating layer is preferably an oxide or composite oxide including at least one of Mg, Al, Si, Ca, Zr, Ti, Hf, Zn, Mn, rare earth element, Ba or Sr. (par. [0029]). More particularly, the composite oxide insulating layer should include the same nonmagnetic elements as magnetic core for improved bonding to the magnetic material. (par. [0029]).
It would have been obvious to use an insulating layer in Ohkubo et al. having the composition as the insulating layer in Suetsuna et al. or including the same non-metallic elements as the composition of the magnetic powder as taught by the combination of Ohkubo in view of Yoshizawa, as set forth above.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use a composite oxide material including Si, Al, Ti and Mn, in view of the disclose in Suetsuna et al. that such composite oxides may suitably be used as insulating layer materials in magnetic powders for magnetic cores. The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended purpose is prima facie obvious. MPEP 2144.07. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to select a composite oxide include non-magnetic elements included in the core material, such as those taught in Yoshizawa and includes Si and Nb, in view of the teaching in Suetsuna et al. that such composite oxides have improved adhesion to the magnetic powder.
Regarding claim 3, Ohkubo et al. does not specifically teach that the powder is a gas-atomized powder. However, the limitation “gas-atomized” refers to a particular process for making the claimed powder. The method of forming the product is not germane to the issue of patentability of the product itself, unless Applicant presents evidence from which the Examiner could reasonably conclude that the claimed product differs in kind from those of the prior art. MPEP 2113.
Regarding claim 5, the thickness of the insulation layer in Ohkubo et al. is in the range of 5-45 nm. (par. [0085]).
Regarding claims 10 and 12-14, Ohkubo et al. discloses that the powder material is used in a dust core (par. [0052]) which would meet the limitations of a “magnetic element”, “electronic device” and “moving body” as claimed.
Regarding claim 11, Ohkubo et al. discloses mixing the small diameter particles with large particle diameters having D50 diameters larger than the small diameter particles. (Abstract and [0018]-[0020]).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohkubo et al. (U.S. App. Pub. No. 2017/0154720), in view of Yoshizawa et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 4,985,089), Mitani et al. (WO 2009/104677) and Suetsuna et al. (U.S. App. Pub. No. 2008/0220231), further in view of Tajima et al. (U.S. App. Pub. No. 2003/0230362).
Ohkubo, Yoshizawa, Mitani and Suetsuna et al. are relied upon as described in the rejection of claim 1, above.
Ohkubo et al. does not teach the specific coercive force and saturation magnetization as presently claimed.
Tajima et al. teaches an insulation film composition for use on magnetic powders for magnetic cores (Abstract and par. [0015]). Tajima et al. teaches that with respect to coercive force, a smaller force value is desirable from the standpoint of diminishing hysteresis loss. (par. [0066]). Preferable values are in the range 320 A/m or less. (par. [0066]). With respect to saturation magnetization, a value upwards 1.9 T is preferred for producing high magnetic flux density in a high magnetic field. (par. [0064]-[0065]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adjust the values of the coercivity and saturation magnetization in Ohkubo et al. to fall within the range disclosed therein.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to carefully control these parameters in view of the disclosed result effective nature of these properties as discussed in Tajima et al. By producing a magnetic powder and core having coercivity and saturation magnetization within the ranges disclosed by Tajima et al., one of ordinary skill in the art would have an expectation of producing successfully producing magnetic powder and core having improved properties.
Claim 3 is further rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohkubo et al. (U.S. App. Pub. No. 2017/0154720) in view of Yoshizawa et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 4,985,089), Mitani et al. (WO 2009/104677) and Suetsuna et al. (U.S. App. Pub. No. 2008/0220231), further in view of Miyamura et al. (U.S. App. Pub. No. 2013/0181804)
Ohkubo, Yoshizawa, Mitani and Suetsuna et al. are relied upon as described in the rejection of claim 1, above.
Ohkubo et al. does not disclose that the soft magnetic powder is atomized powder.
Miyamura et al. discloses iron-based soft magnetic powders which are used for magnetic cores. (Abstract). Miyamura et al. teaches that atomization is generally preferred over pulverized powder for making soft magnetic core materials. (par. [0011]). In particular, gas and water atomization are generally preferred with some tradeoffs including coercive force and core strength depending on the method used. (par. [0012]-[0013]). Miyamura et al. in particular focuses on solving the problems associated with water atomization because the method is disclosed to be low cost and suitable for industrial production. (par. [0013]-[0014] and [0017]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to produce the iron-based powders disclosed in Ohkubo et al. using an atomization process.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use an atomization process as Miyamura et al. discloses that this is a preferred production process from a standpoint of cost and industrial production scale.
ANSWERS TO APPLICANT’S ARGUMENTS
Applicant’s arguments in the response filed 11/12/2025 regarding the rejections made of record in the office action mailed on 08/15/20215 have been considered but are unpersuasive.
Applicant argues that Mitani et al. is directed to particle sizes that are significantly larger that those presently claimed. Applicant argues that it is more difficult to achieve circularities in the range claimed with particle sizes of 3 microns or less and it would be difficult to achieve circularity of 0.60 or less for significantly smaller particles as presently claimed.
These arguments are not persuasive because the difficulty of producing the particles would not teach away from one of ordinary skill in the art from using the circularities disclosed in Mitani et al. in view of the improved performance properties as the result thereof. Applicant is essentially arguing that the cost of making smaller particles having the circularities disclosed in Mitani et al. would be economically unfeasible which is generally insufficient to overcome a prima facie case of obviousness. MPEP 2145 VII.
Applicant further argues that the newly amended claimed range is less than the range disclosed in Mitani et al. in view of the examples in Table 1 of the reference. However, Mitani et al. teaches that by having the powder population with a content of circularity of 0.75 or more being 50% or more and the content having a circularity of 0.65 or less to be 15% or less, the powders have a reduced coercive force which translated to a reduced coercive force for the dust core containing the powder material. (page3, 2nd to last full paragraph). Thus, while the inventive examples may be out of the present range, a reference may be relied upon for all that it teaches including broader and non-preferred embodiments. MPEP 2123. The broad teaching in Mitani et al. overlaps with the newly amended claim which would result in a prima facie case of obviousness. As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “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).
Conclusion
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 ALEXANDRE F FERRE whose telephone number is (571)270-5763. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8 am to 4 pm ET.
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, Alicia Chevalier can be reached at 5712721490. 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.
/ALEXANDRE F FERRE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1788 12/09/2025