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 .
Response to Amendment and Status of Claims
Applicant’s amendments to the claims, filed August 25, 2025, are acknowledged. Claim 1 is amended. No new matter has been added.
Claim 7 remains withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, Group II, drawn to a method, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely elected Group I, drawn to a sintered MnZn ferrite, in the reply filed on January 2, 2024.
Claims 1-2, 5-9 and 11-13 are pending, and Claims 1-2, 5-6, 8-9 and 11-13 are currently being considered in this office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim 2, the claim recites a Zr of 0.03-0.06%, however, Claim 1 from which Claim 2 depends, recites a range for Zr of 0.06-0.09%. The ranges are therefore conflicting and it is unclear which range is required to meet the claim.
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.
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.
Claims 1-2, 9 and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tada (previously cited and cited by Applicant in IDS filed September 8, 2023, US 20170278607 A1) and Miyoshi (previously cited and cited by Applicant in IDS filed September 8, 2023, US 20200373047 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Tada discloses a sintered MnZn ferrite (Abstract), comprising:
Main components
Claim 1, mol%
Tada
Citation
Fe, calc. as Fe2O3
53.5-54.3%
53.25-54.00%
Abstract
Zn, calc. as ZnO
4.2-7.2%
2.50-8.50%
Abstract
Mn, calc. as MnO
balance
Bal.
Abstract
Sub components
Claim 1, mass %
Tada
Citation
Si, calc. as SiO2
0.003-0.018
>0.001 to <0.02%
Abstract
Ca, calc. as CaCO3
0.03-0.21
>0.04 to <0.4%
Abstract
Co, calc. as Co3O4
0.40-0.50
<0.50%
Abstract
Nb, calc. as Nb2O5
0.003-0.012
<0.05
Abstract
Bi, calc. as Bi2O5
0-0.001
<0.05%
Abstract
Tada fails to disclose 0.06-0.09% Zr, calculated as parts by mass of ZrO2.
Miyoshi teaches including 0.03-0.10 parts by mass of Zr calculated as ZrO2 in order to increase grain boundary resistance, thereby reducing core loss and the core loss change ratio Ps, while balancing for grain coarsening and increased core loss (para. [0045]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included 0.03-0.10 parts by mass of Zr calculated as ZrO2, which overlaps the claimed 0.06-0.09% Zr range, as taught by Miyoshi, for the invention disclosed by Tada, in order to increase grain boundary resistance, thereby reducing core loss and the core loss change ratio Ps, while balancing for grain coarsening and increased core loss (see teachings above).
Tada discloses 2.5-8.50mol% Zn, and discloses less than 0.5% Co, with a preferred range including 0.4% Co (Abstract; para. [0028]). Therefore, for a composition comprising 0.4% Co, Tada discloses a C(Zn)/C(Co) range from 6.25-21.25, wherein C(Zn) is the content of Zn contained as a main component (% by mol calculated as ZnO in the main components), and C(Co) is the content contained as a sub-component (parts by mass calculated as Co3O4 per 100 parts b mass in total of the main components), which overlaps the claimed C(Zn)/C(Co) range of 9.3-16.0. For example, see Ex. 36 (Table 5) of Tada, wherein Co is 0.4% and Zn is 4.50%, such that C(Zn)/C(Co) would be 11.25, and within the claimed range of 9.3-16.0.
Tada further discloses a crystal grain size of 5-30um, which overlaps the claimed range of 8.3-11um (para. [0039]).
Regarding the compositional ranges, the C(Zn)/C(Co) ratio, and the crystal grain size, 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). See MPEP § 2144.05.I.
Tada discloses wherein the MnZn ferrite is sintered (para. [0040]), but fails to disclose a density of 4.80 g/cm3 or more.
Miyoshi teaches a similar MnZn ferrite, wherein the density of the sintered body is 4.65g/cm3 or more, preferably 4.75g/cm3 or more, in order to prevent poor mechanical strength, and therefore chipping and cracking (para. [0054]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have comprised a density of 4.75g/cm3 or more, and therefore 4.80g/cm3 as claimed, as taught by Miyoshi, for the invention disclosed by Tada, in order to maximize mechanical strength and to mitigate chipping and cracking of the sintered body (see teaching by Miyoshi above). 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). See MPEP § 2144.05.I.
Regarding Claim 2, Tada discloses:
Sub components
Claim 2, mass %
Tada, mass%
Citation
Si, calc. as SiO2
0.006-0.012
>0.001 to <0.02%
Abstract
Ca, calc. as CaCO3
0.045-0.18
>0.04 to <0.4%
Abstract
Nb, calc. as Nb2O5
0.006-0.012
<0.05
Abstract
Miyoshi further discloses 0.03-0.10 parts by mass of Zr calculated as ZrO2, which reads on the claimed range of 0.03-0.06 (see teaching above in Claim 1). 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). See MPEP § 2144.05.I.
Regarding Claim 9, Tada discloses containing 0 parts by mass of Ta calculated as Ta2O5 (Abstract; para. [0013], <0.05% including 0%).
Regarding Claim 11, Tada discloses an average crystal grain size of 5-30um, which overlaps the claimed range of 8.3-10um (para. [0039]). 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). See MPEP § 2144.05.I.
Regarding Claim 12, Tada discloses 2.5-8.50 mol% Zr calculated as ZnO, which overlaps the claimed range of 4.2-6.96mol% Zn (Abstract). 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). See MPEP § 2144.05.I.
Regarding Claim 13, Tada discloses 2.5-8.50 mol% Zr calculated as ZnO, which overlaps the claimed range of 4.2-6.94mol% Zn (Abstract). 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). See MPEP § 2144.05.I.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tada (previously cited and cited by Applicant in IDS filed September 8, 2023, US 20170278607 A1) and Miyoshi (previously cited and cited by Applicant in IDS filed September 8, 2023, US 20200373047 A1), as applied to Claim 1 above, in further view of Lyu (previously cited, CN 113956031 A, English Machine Translation provided).
Regarding Claim 5, Tada discloses a maximum core loss Pcvmax of 1000 kW/m3 or less in a temperature range of 23-1000C at a frequency of 100 kHz and an exciting magnetic flux density of 200 mT (para. [0043]; see Tables 2, 4 6 and 8, values for 23C and 100C are below 1000kW/m3), but fails to disclose data for a frequency of 200 kHz.
Lyu discloses a core loss of 1000 kW/m3 or less in a temperature range of 23-100C at a frequency of 200 kHz and an exciting magnetic flux density of 200mT by controlling the oxygen partial pressure during cooling to be 0.02-0.06vol% (see Abstract; para. [0028]; para. [0046]-[0047]; Table 3 in foreign patent, values of inventive example (left side) at 100C are less than 1000kW/m3 for 200mT and 200Hz conditions; para. [0100]), and a Co ratio (Co2O3) to be 0.46-0.47wt% (parts by mass) (Abstract; Table 4 in foreign patent, values of inventive example (left side) at 100C are less than 1000kW/m3 for 200mT and 200Hz conditions; para. [0116]). Lyu teaches that these values are important in order to provide performance for multiple indicators at the same time in the electronic industry (para. [0006]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a maximum core loss Pcvmax of 1000kW/m3, such as by controlling the Co content (Co2O3) to be 0.46-0.47wt% and the oxygen during cooling to be 0.02-0.06vol%, as taught by Lyu, for the invention disclosed by Tada. One would be motivated to comprise the claimed core loss values at the claimed conditions in order to provide a component which can support multiple indicators at the same time (see teachings by Lyu above).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tada (previously cited and cited by Applicant in IDS filed September 8, 2023, US 20170278607 A1) and Miyoshi (previously cited and cited by Applicant in IDS filed September 8, 2023, US 20200373047 A1), as applied to Claim 1 above, in further view of Miyoshi-217 (previously cited, US 20190062217 A1).
Regarding Claim 6, Tada is silent towards initial permeability values.
Miyoshi teaches initial permeabilities of 1500 or more in order to be usable for electronic device cores that withstand the use of high voltage and large current at high temperatures (para. [0026]; inventive examples comprising initial permeabilities µi of 2700 or more (see Table 2, values ranging up to 2850 (example 26)).
Miyoshi-217 further teaches initial permeabilities µi of 2700 or more by using a grain size of at least 7um (para. [0028]; see Table 6, wherein increased grain size increases initial permeabilities to 2700 or more).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have comprised an initial permeability of 2700 or more, as taught by Miyoshi and Miyoshi-217, such as by modifying the grain size, as taught by Miyoshi-217, for the invention disclosed by Tada, in order to optimize the ferrite for electronic device cores that can withstand even higher voltages and larger currents at higher temperatures (see teaching by Miyoshi above).
Claims 1-2, 6, 8-9 and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yasuhara (previously cited, JP 2002179461 A1, English Machine Translation provided) and Miyoshi (previously cited and cited by Applicant in IDS filed September 8, 2023, US 20200373047 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Yasuhara discloses a sintered MnZn ferrite (Abstract; para. [0020]) comprising:
Main components
Claim 1, mol%
Yasuhara, mol%
Overlap
Citation
Fe, calc. as Fe2O3
53.5-54.3%
43-66% (bal., calc. from Zn and Mn)
53.8-54.2%
Abstract
Zn, calc. as ZnO
4.2-7.2%
4.0-16.0%
4.2-7.2%
Abstract
Mn, calc. as MnO
Bal.
30-41%
Bal.
Abstract
Sub components
Claim 1, mass%
Yasuhara, mass%
Overlap
Citation
Si, calc. as SiO2
0.003-0.018
0.006-0.014
0.006-0.014
Abstract
Ca, calc. as CaCO3
0.03-0.21
0.035-0.07
0.035-0.07
Abstract
Zr, calc. as ZrO2
0-0.09
0.005-0.1 total of Zr and/or Nb
0.005-0.01, 0%
Abstract
Nb, calc. as Nb2O5
0.003-0.012
0.005-0.1 total of Zr and/or Nb
0.005-0.01%
Abstract
Regarding Zr and Nb, One of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that the invention of Yasuhara comprises compositions including one with 0.06wt% Zr and 0.01wt% Nb (and therefore 0.07wt% total of Zr+Nb as required by Yasuhara), which overlap with the claimed range of 0.03-0.06% Zr and 0.006-0.012% Nb.
Regarding the content of Bi, Yasuhara is silent towards this element, and one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate the content of Bi to be absent and 0%, which reads on and is inclusive of the claimed range less than 0.001 parts by mass of Bi calculated as Bi2O5.
Regarding Fe, Yasuhara discloses Fe as the balance, and one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate the range of Fe to be 43-66mol%, calculated as Fe2O3, for ranges of Zn of 4-16mol% and Mn of 30-41mol%, wherein Fe, Zn and Mn sum to 100%.
Further, Miyoshi teaches wherein Fe is within the range of 53.30-53.80mol%, calculated as Fe2O3, in order to reduce core loss in the temperature range of 20-100C (para. [0027]-[0028]).
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 range of Fe to be within 53.30-53.80mol%, calculated as Fe2O3, as taught by Miyoshi, for the invention disclosed by Yasuhara, in order to reduce core loss in the temperature range of 20-100C (see teaching above).
Yasuhara fails to disclose Co, calculated as Co3O4.
Miyoshi teaches including 0.30-0.50 wt% of Co, calculated as Co3O4, in order to improve the temperature dependence of the core loss, and to reduce a residual magnetic flux density Br, thereby reducing hysteresis loss (para. [0041]-[0043]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included 0.30-0.50wt% Co, calculated as Co3O4, for the invention of Yasuhara, in order to improve the temperature dependence of the core loss, and to reduce a residual magnetic flux density Br, thereby reducing hysteresis loss (see teaching above by Miyoshi).
Therefore, Yasuhara and Miyoshi discloses wherein C(Zn)/C(Co) is ranges from 8-53.3, which overlaps with the claimed ratio of 9.3-16.0, wherein C(Zn) is the content of Zn contained as a main component (% by mol calculated as ZnO in the main components), and C(Co) is the content of Co contained as a sub-component (parts by mass calculated as Co3O4 per 100 parts by mass in total of the main components) (see values for ZnO above in table and Abstract of Yasuhara). For example, a amount of Zn of 6mol% and an amount of Co of 0.4mol%, which reads on the amount of Zn disclosed by Yasuhara and the amount of Co taught by Miyoshi, would comprise a C(Zn)/C(Co) value of 15, which reads on the claimed 9.3-16.0 range.
Yasuhara further discloses average crystal grain size of 8-20um, which reads on the claimed range of greater than 8um to 11um.
Yasuhara is silent towards the density.
Miyoshi teaches a similar MnZn ferrite, wherein the density of the sintered body is 4.65g/cm3 or more, preferably 4.75g/cm3 or more, in order to prevent poor mechanical strength, and therefore chipping and cracking (para. [0054]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have comprised a density of 4.75g/cm3 or more, and therefore 4.80g/cm3 as claimed, as taught by Miyoshi, for the invention disclosed by Yasuhara, in order to maximize mechanical strength and to mitigate chipping and cracking of the sintered body (see teaching by Miyoshi above).
Regarding the composition, C(Zn)/C(Co) ratio, grain size and the density of the sintered MnZn ferrite, 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). See MPEP § 2144.05.I.
Regarding Claim 2, Yasuhara discloses:
Sub components
Claim 2, mass %
Yasuhara, mass%
Citation
Si, calc. as SiO2
0.003-0.018
0.006-0.014
Abstract
Ca, calc. as CaCO3
0.03-0.21
0.035-0.07
Abstract
Zr, calc. as ZrO2
0.03-0.06
0.005-0.1 total of Zr and Nb
Abstract
Nb, calc. as Nb2O5
0.006-0.012
0.005-0.1 total of Zr and Nb
Abstract
One of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that the invention of Yasuhara comprises compositions including one with 0.06wt% Zr and 0.01wt% Nb (and therefore 0.07wt% total of Zr+Nb as required by Yasuhara), which overlap with the claimed range of 0.03-0.06% Zr and 0.006-0.012% 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). See MPEP § 2144.05.I.
Regarding Claim 6, Yasuhara discloses initial permeabilities of 2700 or more (see Table 2, values are all above 2700).
Further, Miyoshi teaches initial permeabilities of 1500 or more in order to be usable for electronic device cores that withstand the use of high voltage and large current at high temperatures (para. [0026]; inventive examples comprising initial permeabilities µi of 2700 or more (see Table 2, values ranging up to 2850 (example 26)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to comprise an initial permeability of 2700 or more, as disclosed by Yasuhara and taught by Miyoshi, in order to optimize the ferrite for electronic device cores that can withstand even higher voltages and larger currents at higher temperatures (see teaching by Miyoshi above).
Regarding Claim 8, Yasuhara is silent towards the content of Bi, and one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate the content of Bi to be absent and 0%, which reads on and is inclusive of the claimed value of 0 parts by mass of Bi calculated as Bi2O5.
Regarding Claim 9, Yasuhara discloses wherein Nb and/or Zr may be used, and Ta is an optional element, inclusive of 0% Ta (see Table 1, wherein Nb is included and Ta is 0%).
Regarding Claim 11, Yasuhara discloses wherein the average crystal grain size is 8-20um, which overlaps the claimed range of 8.3-10um (para. [0021]). 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). See MPEP § 2144.05.I.
Regarding Claim 12, Yasuhara discloses 4.0-16.0mol% of Zn, calculated as ZnO (Abstract), which reads on the claimed range of 4.2-6.96mol% Zn. 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). See MPEP § 2144.05.I.
Regarding Claim 13, Yasuhara discloses 4.0-16.0mol% of Zn, calculated as ZnO (Abstract), which reads on the claimed range of 4.2-6.94mol% Zn. 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). See MPEP § 2144.05.I.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yasuhara (previously cited, JP 2002179461 A1, English Machine Translation provided) and Miyoshi (previously cited and cited by Applicant in IDS filed September 8, 2023, US 20200373047 A1), as applied to Claim 1 above, in further view of Miyoshi-217 (previously cited, US 20190062217 A1) and Lyu (previously cited, CN 113956031 A, English Machine Translation provided).
Regarding Claim 5, Yasuhara discloses a core loss for 100kHz and 200mT as low as 270kW/m3 (para. [0035]; Table 2), but is silent towards a Pcvmax core loss value of 1000 kW/m3 or less in a temperature range of 23-1000C when tested at a frequency of 200 kHz and an exciting magnetic flux density of 200 mT.
Miyoshi-217 also discloses a core loss of 1000 kW/m3 or less in a temperature range of 23-100C at a frequency of 100 kHz and an exciting magnetic flux density of 200 mT by using a grain size of 7-15um and in order to produce components usable for automotive applications (para. [0004]; para. [0028]; para. [0065]; Fig. 3, see Table 6, wherein increased grain size increases lower core losses at 100C, wherein core losses are as low as 260 for a 7.4um grain size and similarly 262 for 9.3um grain size).
Miyoshi-217 does not disclose data for a frequency of 200 kHz and an exciting magnetic flux density of 200 mT.
Lyu discloses a core loss of 1000 kW/m3 or less in a temperature range of 23-100C at a frequency of 200 kHz and an exciting magnetic flux density of 200mT by controlling the oxygen partial pressure during cooling to be 0.02-0.06vol% (see Abstract; para. [0028]; para. [0046]-[0047]; Table 3 in foreign patent, values of inventive example (left side) at 100C are less than 1000kW/m3 for 200mT and 200Hz conditions; para. [0100]). Lyu teaches that these values are important in order to provide performance for multiple indicators at the same time in the electronic industry (para. [0006]).
One of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate the values of maximum Pcv core loss of Yasuhara and Miyoshi-217 (200mT, 100kHz) and Lyu (200mT, 100kHz) are substantially similar values (see Yasuhara, PCv as low as 270kW/m3; see Miyoshi-217, Table 6, values range from 260-277 kW/m3 for grain sizes 7um or larger; see Lyu, Tables 3 and 4, values are 263 and 270 kW/m3). It would therefore be reasonable to one of ordinary skill in the art that the data suggests that Yasuhara and Miyoshi-217 comprises similar values of Pcv core loss at 200mT and 200Hz conditions as Lyu, and those which are 1000kW/m3 or less.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have obtained a maximum core loss Pcvmax of 1000kW/m3 or less, such as by further control of the grain size, as taught by Miyoshi-217, and by controlling the oxygen during cooling to be 0.02-0.06vol%, as taught by Lyu, for the invention disclosed by Yasuhara. One would be motivated to comprise the claimed core loss values at the claimed conditions in order to provide a component which is usable as an automotive component or one which can support multiple indicators as an electrical component (see teachings by Miyoshi-217 and Lyu above).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed August 25, 2025, with respect to Claim 1, and dependent claims thereof, rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Tada in view Miyoshi, over Miyoshi in view of Koyuhara, and over Saita in view of Koyuhara, have been fully considered and are persuasive in view of the amendments further limiting the amount of Zr. Therefore, the rejections have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration a new ground(s) of rejection is made over Tada in view Miyoshi and Yasuhara in view of Miyoshi.
Arguments directed to Miyoshi and Saito as primary references, and arguments directed to Koyuhara, are deemed moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Regarding Tada:
Applicant argues that Tada does not discuss Zr (Remarks, Pg. 6).
This argument is not found persuasive.
Miyoshi is applied to teach the inclusion of Zr (see teaching above in the rejection of Claim 1). In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Regarding Miyoshi (and Miyoshi and Yasuhara):
Applicant argues that one would require the grain sizes of Miyoshi in order to produce the densities taught by Miyoshi. Applicant argues literature depicting a relationship between density and grain size, and therefore one would have not motivation to use a larger grain size (Remarks, Pg. 6-7).
Applicant argues that one could not combine the densities of Miyoshi and the grain sizes of Yasuhara because the grain sizes of Miyoshi are required to acquire the densities of Miyoshi (Remarks, Pg. 15).
These arguments are not found persuasive.
The cited literature by Applicant describes the individual particle growth which occurs (for all particles) during the different stages of sintering. The cited portion does not correlate density with final grain size. Further, Miyoshi does not contain disclosure wherein the density is limited by the grain size or that a particular grain size is necessary to achieve the disclosed density. Therefore, the density teachings of Miyoshi are applicable to Tada (and to Yasuhara – see claim rejections above), with the motivation to maximize mechanical strength and to mitigate chipping and cracking of the sintered body.
Applicant argues that Miyoshi teaches away from the claimed grain size, and that Miyoshi does not contain Nb (Remarks, Pg. 7-9).
This argument is not found persuasive.
Tada discloses the claimed grain size, and Tada further discloses the inclusion of Nb (see Claim 1 rejection above). In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Tada (cited above, further teachings): teaches wherein both Ta and Nb may be added together, such that a total of the elements Ta (calculated as Ta2O5) and Nb (Nb2O5) comprise a preferable amount of 0.015-0.04mass % (parts by mass), in order to increase resistance of the grain boundary layer, and reduce the core loss (para. [0030]).
Both (previously cited, “Electrolytic Capacitors From the Postwar Period to the Present”): teaches wherein niobium is much more abundant and less expensive than tantalum (Pg. 21, Col. 2, Para. 1).
Takahashi (previously cited, JP 3617070 B2, English Machine Translation provided): teaches an MnZn ferrite with 50-60mol% Fe (calc. as Fe2O3), 5-15mol% Zn (calc. as ZnO), and remainder of Mn, with a core loss Pcv of 1000kW/m3 or less when measured at 90C under 200kHz and 200mT (para. [0011]; para. [0030]; Table 4).
Saita (previously cited, cited by Applicant in IDS filed September 8, 2023, EP 1083158 A2): discloses a sintered MnZn ferrite (Abstract) comprising:
Main components
Claim 1, mol%
Saita, mol%
Overlap
Citation
Fe, calc. as Fe2O3
53.5-54.3%
53.8-54.2%
53.8-54.2%
Para. [0017]
Zn, calc. as ZnO
4.2-7.2%
7.0-9.0%
7.0-7.2%
Para. [0017]
Mn, calc. as MnO
balance
Bal.
Bal.
Para. [0017]
Sub components
Claim 1, mass%
Saita, mass%
Overlap
Citation
Si, calc. as SiO2
0.003-0.018
0.005-0.015
(50-150 ppm)
0.005-0.015
Para. [0020]
Ca, calc. as CaCO3
0.03-0.21
0.03-0.12
(300-1200ppm)
0.03-0.12
Para. [0020]
Co, calc. as Co3O4
0.40-0.50
0.25-0.45
(2500-4500ppm)
0.4-0.45
Para. [0020]
Zr, calc. as ZrO2
0-0.09
0.001-0.045
0.001-0.045
Para. [0020]
Nb, calc. as Nb2O5
0.003-0.012
0.005-0.01
0.005-0.01
Para. [0020]
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 CATHERINE P SMITH whose telephone number is (303)297-4428. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00-4:00 MT.
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 Walker can be reached on (571)-272-3458. 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.
CATHERINE P. SMITH
Patent Examiner
Art Unit 1735
/CATHERINE P SMITH/Examiner, Art Unit 1735
/KEITH WALKER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1735