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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 9/12/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Examiner acknowledges amended Claims 1 and canceled Claims 2-3 in the response filed on 8/12/2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/5/2024 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant stated that when the soft magnetic metal powder satisfies 0.2 ≤ [Mn]o – [Mn]m ≤ 6.8, the coercivity decreases easily and the Q value of the magnetic core enhance easily, compared to samples conducted under the same conditions except that [Mn]o-[Mn]m was outside the claimed range.
However, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant's Declaration filed 8/12/2025 and data provided in Applicant’s Specification have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The data are not commensurate in scope with the instant claims. Claim 1 broadly recites a compositional formula ((Fe1-(α+β)CoαNiβ)1-γX1γ)1-(a+b+c+d+e+f)BaPbSicCdCreMnf, with specific ranges for Fe, a, b, c, d, e, f, α, β, and γ. A composition formula of FebalB3-25at%Mn0.010-2.8at% is within the scope of the claimed compositional formula (i.e. b=0, c=0, d=0, e=0, α=0, β=0, α + β = 0, γ=0). The data provided by Applicant, inter alia, additionally requires at least P. It is not clear that every different type of composition as claimed would behave the same as the ones employed by Applicant in the Examples provided in the Declaration(s) and Specification. The evidence does not necessarily support the entire claimed composition recited in Claim 1, especially for an example when b=0, c=0, d=0, e=0, α=0, β=0, and γ=0.
Samples Nos. 65 and 66 appears to provide the criticality of the upper endpoint of the range 0.2 ≤ [Mn]o – [Mn]m ≤ 6.8, due to the coercivity increasing when [Mn]o – [Mn]m is at 7.1. However, Sample Nos. 38-41, Sample Nos. 43-45, Sample Nos. 49, 50, 51a, Sample Nos.19, 19a, 20a, Sample Nos. 55, 55a, 56a, and Sample Nos. 61a, 62a, 62 appear to merely demonstrate that as [Mn]o – [Mn]m increases, the respective coercivities Hc1, Hc2, and Hc3 each respectfully decreases and Q value increases, which demonstrates an expected behavior (i.e. as [Mn]o – [Mn]m increases, coercivity decreases and core Q value increases).
Therefore, Applicant has not provided criticality of 0.2 ≤ [Mn]o – [Mn]m ≤ 6.8 that is commensurate in scope, and so fails to provide evidence against the closest prior art(s). For the reasons set forth above, unexpected results have not been persuasively demonstrated.
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.
Claims 1 and 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub. No. 20120082844 (“Takahashi et al.”) in view of US Pub. No. 20190108931 (“Harada et al.”).
With regards to Claims 1 and 9, Takahashi et al. teaches a soft magnetic metal powder comprising soft magnetic metal particles (1), wherein the soft magnetic metal particles comprise metal particles (2) and oxide parts (3a and relevant thereof) covering the metal particles. Each of the metal particles at least include Fe, and each of the oxide parts at least include Fe and Mn, wherein concentration distributions of Mn of the soft magnetic particles have maximum concentrations of Mn in the oxide parts (Abstract, Fig. 1, [0032], [0033], [0037], [0041]-[0043], and [0047]).
Takahashi et al. teaches the metal particles include a small amount of other elements (e.g., Si, P, Co, Ni, Cr, Al, Mo, Mn, Cu, Zn, B, V and Sn) added to iron. The metal particles may be an Fe-Al-Si based alloy, Fe-B, etc. [0032]. Examples of a preferable metal particles include, but are not particularly limited to, 0.1% by mass or less of Mn (i.e. f = 0.0010) [0033].
Takahashi et al. teaches that its oxide parts have Mn at a concentration about 5 to 80 at. % more than the metal particle ([0033] and [0043]). Therefore, Takahashi et al. overlaps the claimed 0.2 ≤ [Mn]o - [Mn]m ≤ 6.8 and 0.2 ≤ [Mn]o - [Mn]m ≤ 5.0. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness, In re Malagari, 182 USPQ 549.
Takahashi et al. does not teach its boron having a content of 0.030 ≤a≤0.250, and the soft magnetic metal powder has a structure made of amorphous or a structure made of nanocrystal.
However, Harada et al. teaches a soft magnetic metal powder include a component expressed by a compositional formula (Fe(1-(α-β))X1αX2β)1-(a+b+c+d)MaBbPcCd and auxiliary components including at least Ti, Mn and Al, wherein X1 is one or more selected from the group consisting of Co and Ni, X2 is one or more selected from the group consisting of Ag, Zn, Sn, As, Sb, Bi and a rare earth element, and M is one or more selected from the group consisting of Nb, Hf, Zr, Ta, Mo, W and V. The content of B is 0.050≤b≤0.150 (Abstract and [0054]). Harada et al. further teaches the soft magnetic metal powder has a structure made of amorphous or of nanocrystal (Abstract, [0050], and [0054]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have Takahashi et al.’s soft magnetic metal powder have the claimed structure and a boron content of 0.050-0.150, as demonstrated by Harada et al., in order to achieve a soft magnetic metal powder with a low melting point, a low coercivity, and a high saturation magnetic flux density at the same time ([0007] and [0054]).
With regards to Claims 6-8, please see paragraph [0033].
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub. No. 20120082844 (“Takahashi et al.”) in view of Pub. No. 20190108931 (“Harada et al.”)as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of US Pub. No. 20160254082 (“Tanada et al.”).
Takahashi et al. teaches each of the metal particles may include Fe and Si, and each of the oxide parts at least include Fe, Si, and Mn ([0032], [0037]-[0043], and [0047]).
Takahashi et al. does not teach the soft magnetic metal powder comprises an amount of Si to be within a range of larger than 0 at % and 10 at % or less, and an average concentration of Si of the oxide parts is higher than an average concentration of Si of the metal particles.
However, Tanada et al. teaches a soft magnetic powder comprising soft magnetic metal particles, wherein the soft magnetic particles comprise metal particles and oxide parts covering the metal particles. For example, Tanada et al. teaches the metal particles comprise of Fe94Cr4.5Si1.5S0.003 in percent by weight ([0070] and Example 2 in Table 1). This equates to Fe92.32Cr4.75Si2.93S0.01 in atomic percent. Tanada et al. further teaches a concentration of Si of the oxide parts is higher than a concentration of Si of the metal particles (Abstract, Fig. 1, [0030], [0034], [0038], [0070], and Table 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have Takahashi et al.’s the soft magnetic metal powder have the Si concentration within the claimed range and a content of Si of the oxide parts be higher than the content of Si in the metal particles to achieve desirable high compact soft magnetic powder with insulation property [0054].
Claims 1 and 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2019176005 (“Kaneda et al.”) in view of US Pub. No. 20190108931 (“Harada et al.”).
For Kaneda et al., all citations will refer to the provided English translated document.
With regards to Claims 1 and 9, Kaneda et al. teaches a soft magnetic metal powder comprising soft magnetic metal particles (10), wherein the soft magnetic metal particles comprise metal particles (2) and oxide parts (4) covering the metal particles, each of the metal particles at least include Fe, each of the oxide parts at least include Fe and Mn, concentration distributions of Mn of the soft magnetic metal particles have maximum concentrations of Mn in the oxide parts.
Kaneda et al. teaches the soft magnetic metal powder includes, as the metal particles, a component expressed by a compositional formula Febal.Co12.2Mn0.05, for example (Example 1 in Table 1). Kaneda et al. further teaches that Si, Ti, Zr, Hf, Al, Ca, Mg, and/or rare earth elements may be further included (Abstract, Fig. 1, [0004], [0008]-[0012], [0016]-[0022], [0025]-[0027], and Tables 1-3).
Kaneda et al. teaches a mass ratio of Mn in the oxide parts (4) is at least 7 times the mass ratio of Mn in the metal particles (2), and more preferably at least 10 times the mass ratio of Mn in the metal particles (2) [0020]. As shown in Table 2, the oxide parts comprise 3.1 mass% of Mn (Example 1). With the oxide parts being 7 times more than the metal particles (2), the concentration of Mn of the metal particles is calculated to be at 0.44 mass%. Therefore, the difference between the Mn concentration in the oxide parts (4) and metal particles (2) is 2.66, which is within Applicant’s claimed [Mn]o - [Mn]m range. It would have been obvious to optimize the content of Mn in the oxide parts and the metal particles as claimed in order to suppress the increase in magnetic loss and obtain a higher magnetic permeability [0020].
Kaneda et al. does not teach its boron having a content of 0.030 ≤a≤0.250, and the soft magnetic metal powder has a structure made of amorphous or a structure made of nanocrystal.
However, Harada et al. teaches a soft magnetic metal powder include a component expressed by a compositional formula (Fe(1-(α-β))X1αX2β)1-(a+b+c+d)MaBbPcCd and auxiliary components including at least Ti, Mn and Al, wherein X1 is one or more selected from the group consisting of Co and Ni, X2 is one or more selected from the group consisting of Ag, Zn, Sn, As, Sb, Bi and a rare earth element, and M is one or more selected from the group consisting of Nb, Hf, Zr, Ta, Mo, W and V. The content of B is 0.050≤b≤0.150 (Abstract and [0054]). Harada et al. further teaches the soft magnetic metal powder has a structure made of amorphous or of nanocrystal (Abstract, [0050], and [0054]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have Kaneda et al.’s soft magnetic metal powder have the claimed amorphous or nanocrystal structure and a boron content of 0.050-0.150, as demonstrated by Harada et al., in order to achieve a soft magnetic metal powder with a low melting point, a low coercivity, and a high saturation magnetic flux density at the same time ([0007] and [0054]).
With regards to Claims 6-8, please see paragraphs [0002] and [0003].
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2019176005 (“Kaneda et al.”) in view of Pub. No. 20190108931 (“Harada et al.”) as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of US Pub. No. 20160254082 (“Tanada et al.”).
Kaneda et al. teaches each of the metal particles may include Fe and Si, and each of the oxide parts at least include Fe, Si, and Mn ([0017], [0019], [0026], and Table 1).
Kaneda et al. does not explicitly teach the soft magnetic metal powder comprises an amount of Si is in a range of larger than 0 at % and 10 at % or less, and an average concentration of Si of the oxide parts is higher than an average concentration of Si of the metal particles.
However, Tanada et al. teaches a soft magnetic powder comprising soft magnetic metal particles, wherein the soft magnetic particles comprise metal particles and oxide parts covering the metal particles. For example, Tanada et al. teaches the metal particles comprise of Fe94Cr4.5Si1.5S0.003 in percent by weight ([0070] and Example 2 in Table 1). This equates to Fe92.32Cr4.75Si2.93S0.01 in atomic percent. Tanada et al. further teaches a concentration of Si of the oxide parts is higher than a concentration of Si of the metal particles (Abstract, Fig. 1, [0030], [0034], [0038], [0070], and Table 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have Kaneda et al.’s the soft magnetic metal powder have the Si concentration within the claimed range and a content of Si of the oxide parts be higher than the content of Si in the metal particles to achieve desirable high compact soft magnetic powder with insulation property [0054].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LISA CHAU whose telephone number is (571)270-5496. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 11 AM-730 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, Mark Ruthkosky can be reached at (571) 272-1291. 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.
/LC/
Lisa Chau
Art Unit 1785
/Holly Rickman/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1785