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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of a certified copy of JP 2020-119007 filed July 10, 2020 as required by 37 CFR 1.55. Receipt is also acknowledged of WO 2022/009502, the WIPO publication of PCT/JP2021/015972 filed April 20, 2021.
Claim Status
This Office Action is in response to Applicant’s Remarks and Claim Amendments filed December 18, 2025.
Claims Filing Date
December 18, 2025
Amended
1, 8, 10
New
13-15
Cancelled
2-7
Pending
1, 8-15
Withdrawn
8-12
Under Examination
1, 13-15
The applicant argues support for amended claim 1 in original claim 7 and new claims 13-15 are supported by [0051] and [0029] of the as-filed specification (Remarks p. 4 para. 2).
Response to Remarks filed December 18, 2025
Kawauchi in view of Aoki
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks p. 6, filed December 18, 2025, with respect to Kawauchi in view of Aoki have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of Kawauchi in view of Aoki has been withdrawn.
The applicant persuasively argues Aoki is directed to ferrite, Fe2O3, powder (Remarks p. 6 para. 3) that adds Cl and S to non-magnetic NiO, ZnO, CuO, and Fe2O3 to lower the reaction temperature for improving economic efficiency of production (Remarks p. 6 paras. 4-6).
Aoki discloses producing ferrite powder by calcining at a lower temperature using a mixture containing a chlorine component and a sulfuric acid component ([0007], [0010], [0013]).
Yamamoto in view of Yoshida and Aoki
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks para. spanning pp. 10-11, filed December 18, 2025, with respect to Yamamoto in view of Yoshida and Aoki have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of Yamamoto in view of Yoshida and Aoki has been withdrawn.
The applicant persuasively argues Aoki refers to “ferrite powder”, which is an oxide powder and not a metal powder, such that the effects of additive elements are completely different (Remarks para. spanning pp. 10-11).
Aoki discloses producing ferrite powder by calcining at a lower temperature using a mixture containing a chlorine component and a sulfuric acid component ([0007], [0010], [0013]).
Kawauchi
Applicant's arguments filed December 18, 2025 with respect to Kawauchi have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues Kawauchi discloses chlorine and sulfur impurities that are to be avoided or minimized and not purposefully included in the claimed amounts (Remarks p. 5 para. 2), where Cl and S impurities do not harm magnetic properties and have a total content less than 1% and more preferably 10 to 5000 ppm (0.5%) (Kawauchi [0028]), with a lower content being better (Remarks p. 5 para. 3).
Arguments by applicant cannot take the place of evidence in the record. MPEP 7169.01(c)(II). Where does Kawauchi disclose that chlorine and sulfur are impurities to be avoid or minimized and not purposely included? Kawauchi [0028] actually discloses Cl (chlorine) and S (sulfur) as “other elements in such a range that the effects of the present invention are exhibited” with a preferred content of 1 mass% (1000 ppm) or less in total. There is no mention of avoiding, minimizing, or not purposely including as alleged by applicant.
Further, the pending claims are directed to a “metal powder” product comprising “from 10 ppm to 10000 ppm of Cl” and “from 100 ppm to 10000 ppm or S (sulfur)”. The metal powder product is not limited regarding how the Cl and S come to be present within. Determination of patentability is based on the product itself. MPEP 2113(I). Kawauchi discloses 1 mass% (10,000 ppm) or less of other elements including Cl (chlorine) and S (sulfur) ([0028]), which overlaps with the claimed Cl and S ranges such that a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I).
The applicant argues none of the Examples of Kawauchi indicate S or Cl (Remarks p. 5 para. 4).
Disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or nonpreferred embodiments. MPEP 2123(II). Kawauchi discloses 1 mass% (10,000 ppm) or less of other elements including Cl (chlorine) and S (sulfur) ([0028]), which overlaps with the claimed Cl and S (sulfur) such that a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I).
The applicant argues Cl and S addition improve packing density of magnetic powder in resin, which improves magnetic flux density and magnetic permeability of the green compact (applicant’s specification [0014], [0024], [0025]), whereas Kawauchi discloses impurities deteriorate magnetic properties (Kawauchi [0026]-[0029]) (Remarks p. 5 para. 5, p. 6 para. 8).
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., improved packing density of magnetic powder in resin, which improves magnetic flux density and magnetic permeability of the green compact) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
The claims are directed to a “metal powder”, not a green compact of magnetic powder in resin. In the April 23, 2025 Restriction Requirement, Group I is drawn to a metal powder and Group II is drawn to a green compact. Applicant’s June 20, 2025 response elected Group I, the metal powder, for prosecution.
Further, Kawauchi discloses “other elements” including Cl (chlorine) and S (sulfur) in [0028] as being “in such a range that the effects of the present invention are exhibited”. This disclosure does not support applicant’s allegation regarding impurities of Cl and S as deteriorating magnetic properties. Kawauchi [0029] discloses limiting oxygen for good saturation magnetization, a magnetic property. This teaching is specific to oxygen, not Cl or S.
For the above cited reasons the rejection of Kawauchi is maintained.
Yamamoto in view of Yoshida
Applicant's arguments filed December 18, 2025 with respect to Yamamoto in view of Yoshida have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues Yamamoto is a metal sintered compact (Abstract) (Remarks p. 7 para. 5) with bonded particles bonded that have lost powder characteristics (Remarks para. spanning pp. 7-8), such that “Official Notice should be stated on the record as to the alleged equivalence of a sintered body and the powder from which it is formed” (Remarks p. 8 para. 2).
The pending rejection of the claimed “metal powder” is over Yamamoto’s disclosure of “metal powder” ([0015], [0031]). While the soft magnetic alloy powder may be sintered into a metal compact, the rejection is over the prior art’s disclosed metal powder. Processing of metal powder into a product does not negate the starting material being a powder.
As evidenced by Rahaman (Rahaman. Sintering Theory and Fundamentals. ASM Handbook. Volume 7, Powder Metallurgy. P. Samal and J. Newkirk, editors. 2015 ASM International. 205-236.), during sintering particles bond together at contact points (p. 205 cols. 1-2, Fig. 1). There are no chemical reactions required to change the powder composition to an article during sintering (Rahaman p. 205 cols. 1-2, Fig. 1). Rather, sintering is “a thermal process in which a powder…is converted into a useful article…” (Rahaman p. 205 col. 1). The goal of sintering is to bond the particles to form an article. There is no mention of the composition changing as a result of sintering. Therefore, the composition of the metal powder is substantially similar to the composition of the resulting sintered compact.
The applicant argues Applicant’s specification kneads magnetic particles into resin such that there is no direct contact and no electrical conductivity between particles (Remarks p. 8 para. 3).
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., magnetic particles are kneaded into resin) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
The claims are directed to a “metal powder”. Applicant’s argument appears to be directed to the purpose or intended use of the metal powder. This does not further limit the structure of the claimed “metal powder”. Further, in the April 23, 2025 Restriction Requirement, Group II, claims 2-3, directed to a green compact of metal powder and a resin, are a separate group from the elected Group I metal powder. The Group II green compact was not elected for examination.
The applicant argues Yamamoto’s intended use switches between “open” and “closed” (Remarks p. 8 para. 4) and are used in DC magnetic fields (Remarks para. spanning pp. 8-9), whereas the present disclosure is for high-frequency applications that cannot be used in bulk form (applicant’s specification [0001], [0013], [0016], [0021], [0026], [0036]) (Remarks p. 9 para. 2).
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., magnetic materials for high-frequency applications) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
The pending claims are directed to a “metal powder” with the recited composition and particle diameter. Yamamoto in view of Yoshida discloses a metal powder (Yamamoto [0015], [0031]; Yoshida [0001]) with an overlapping composition (Yamamoto [0009]-[0010], [0015], [0020]-[0021], [0025]-[0029]; Yoshida [0075]) and particle diameter (Yoshida [0022], [0073]), such that a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I).
The applicant argues iron loss value is an example of high-frequency characteristics (Remarks p. 9 para. 3), which is not described in nor considered by Yamamoto (Remarks p. 9 para. 4).
In response to applicant's argument that Yamamoto would not have considered iron loss, the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
The applicant argues Cl is described by Yoshida as an inevitable impurity that should be actively avoided or minimized (Remarks p. 10 para. 2) with a total content of 0.1% (1000 ppm) or less is acceptable, suggesting that lower content is better and Cl not being present do not contribute to the desired effects (Remarks p. 10 para. 3).
The claimed metal powder product is not limited regarding how the Cl becomes present. Determination of patentability is based on the product itself. MPEP 2113(I). Yoshida discloses 1,000 ppm or less Cl as a known unavoidable impurity in soft magnetic powder that includes Fe, Si, and O ([0075]). This overlaps with the claimed range such that a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I). Furter, Yamamoto and applicant’s claimed powder are also directed to soft magnetic powders that include Fe, Si, and O (applicant’s claim 1, [0004]-[0008]; Yamamoto [0009]-[0010]). Therefore, Yoshida is analogous art and proper for use in an obviousness rejection. MPEP 2141.01(a)(I).
The applicant argues none of the Examples of Yoshida indicate the inclusion of chlorine (Remarks p. 10 para. 4).
Disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or nonpreferred embodiments. MPEP 2123(II). Yoshida discloses soft magnetic powder with 1,000 ppm or less Cl ([0075]), which overlaps with the claimed range such that a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I).
The applicant argues Cl and S improve packing density of magnetic powder in resin, improving magnetic flux density and magnetic permeability of the green compact (applicant’s specification [0014], [0024], [0025]) (Remarks p. 10 para. 5) where applicant’s Comparative Powder 29 and Inventive Powder 30 show the addition of Cl increases packing rate (Remarks p. 11 para. 2) and Comparative Powder 39 and Inventive Powder 40 show the addition of S increases packing rate (Remarks p. 11 para. 3).
In response to applicant's argument that Cl and S improve packing density of magnetic powder in resin, significantly improving magnetic flux density and magnetic permeability of the green compact, the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
Further, the argued packing rate is a property of the green compact (applicant’s Table 1). In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., green compact and the associated packing rate) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
For the above cited reasons the rejection of Yamamoto in view of Yoshida is maintained.
New Claim 13
In the Remarks filed December 18, 2025, applicant did not argue new claim 13 over the prior art cited in the July 23, 2025 Non-Final Rejection.
New Claim 14
Applicant's arguments filed December 18, 2025 with respect to new claim 14 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues claim 14 recites coercivity of 12 Oe or less ([0051], Table 1), but Kawauchi discloses coercivity of 15-23 (Table 3) (Remarks p. 12 paras. 5-6).
A reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. MPEP 2123(I). Disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or nonpreferred embodiments. MPEP 2123(II).
The coercivity has been considered and determined to recite a property of the claimed metal powder. The prior art discloses a composition that overlaps with that claimed (Kawauchi [0017]-[0018], [0025]-[0028], Table 2), such that the claimed properties, including coercivity, naturally flow from the disclosure of the prior art.
The applicant argues claim 14 recites coercivity of 12 Oe or less ([0051], Table 1), but Yoshida discloses 13-23 Oe in Table 3 and 15-24 Oe in Table 6 (Remarks p. 12 paras. 5-6).
The pending rejection is over the composition of Yamamoto modified by the Cl content of Yoshida. Yamamoto discloses a coercive force of 150 A/m (1.9 Oe) or less for the magnetic material ([0013], [0019]), which overlaps with that claimed such that a prima facie case obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I).
New Claim 15
Applicant's arguments filed December 18, 2025 with respect to new claim 15 and Kawauchi have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues Kawauchi discloses oxygen content is preferably low to achieve good saturation magnetization with embodiments having contents of 0.50-0.93 wt% ([0024], Table 2) (Remarks p. 12 para. 2).
A reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. MPEP 2123(I). Kawauchi discloses OxD50 is preferably 0.40 to 7.50 and D50 is preferably 0.5 to 8 um, such that O is preferably 0.07 to 20 mass% (O*7.5=0.5 to O*0.4=8) ([0017], [0029], [0043]). Further, while Kawauchi’s examples have O from 0.50 to 0.93 wt% (Table 2), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include an increase O content such that OXD50 is from 0.40 to 7.50 because within this preferred range good saturation magnetization is obtained (Kawauchi [0029]). For Kawauchi Ex. 7 with D50 of 5.9 um, an OxD50 of 7.50 has an O content of 1.3 mass% (7.50/5.9), which falls within the scope of the claimed range of O of 1.0 to 2.0% by mass. Therefore, the disclosed O content of Kawauchi overlaps with that claimed such that a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Applicant's arguments filed December 18, 2025 with respect to new claim 15 and Yamamoto in view of Yoshida have been fully considered and are persuasive.
The applicant persuasively argues Yamamoto discloses 0.30% or less oxygen (Yamamoto [0021]) and Yoshida discloses 0.75% or less oxygen (Yoshida [0049]) (Remarks p. 12 paras. 3-4).
New claim 15 is not rejected over Yamamoto in view of Yoshida.
New Grounds
New claims 13-15 are rejected over Wang in view of Yoshida, Wang in view of Kawauchi, Fujiwara in view of Yoshida, and Fujiwara in view of Kawauchi
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 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawauchi (WO 2020/090849 with citations from US 2022/0005636).
Regarding claim 1, Kawauchi discloses a metal (soft magnetic) powder ([0001], [0025]) with an overlapping composition ([0017]-[0018], [0025]-[0028], Table 2), wherein the average particle diameter of the metal powder is from 0.1 um to 1.5 um (D50 0.1 to 15 um) ([0017], [0043]). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Element
Claim 1
Kawauchi Disclosure
Kawauchi Citation
Si
1.0 to 15.0 mass%
0.1 to 15 mass%
[0026]
Cr
1.0 to 13.0 mass%
0.1 to 8 mass%
[0027]
Cl
10 to 10,000 ppm
1 mass% or less
(10,000 ppm or less)
[0028]
S
100 to 10,000 ppm
O
0.2 to 0.7 mass%
0.50 to 0.93 wt%
[0029], Table 2
Fe
Remainder
Main component
[0026]
Regarding claim 13, the metal powder having a saturation magnetization of 170 emu/g or more has been considered and determined to recite a property of the claimed metal powder. The prior art discloses a metal powder that renders obvious the claimed composition (Kawauchi [0017]-[0018], [0025]-[0028], Table 2) and average particle diameter (Kawauchi [0017], [0043]). Therefore, the claimed properties, including saturation magnetization of 170 emu/g or more, naturally flow from the disclosure of the prior art.
Regarding claim 14, the metal powder having coercivity of 12 Oe or less has been considered and determined to recite a property of the claimed metal powder. The prior art discloses a metal powder that renders obvious the claimed composition (Kawauchi [0017]-[0018], [0025]-[0028], Table 2) and average particle diameter (Kawauchi [0017], [0043]). Therefore, the claimed properties, including coercivity of 12 Oe or less, naturally flow from the disclosure of the prior art.
Regarding claim 15, Kawauchi discloses the metal powder comprises from 1.0 to 2.0% of oxygen by mass concentration (OxD50 is preferably from 0.40 to 7.50 and D50 is preferably from 0.5 to 8 um, such that O is preferably from 0.07 to 20 mass% (O*7.5=0.5 to O*0.4=8) ([0017], [0029], [0043]). While Kawauchi’s examples have O from 0.50 to 0.93 wt% (Table 2), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include an increase O content such that OXD50 is from 0.40 to 7.50 because within this preferred range good saturation magnetization is obtained (Kawauchi [0029]). For Kawauchi Ex. 7 with D50 of 5.9 um, an OxD50 of 7.50 has an O content of 1.3 mass% (7.50/5.9), which falls within the scope of the claimed range of O of 1.0 to 2.0% by mass. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Claims 1, 13, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto (JP 2010-133023 machine translation) in view of Yoshida (US 2021/0046549).
Regarding claim 1, Yamamoto discloses a metal powder ([0015], [0031]) with an overlapping composition ([0009]-[0010], [0015], [0020]-[0021], [0025]-[0029]). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Element
Claim 1
Yamamoto Disclosure
Yamamoto Citation
Si
1.0 to 15.0 mass%
3.0 to 5.0 mass%
[0026]
Cr
1.0 to 13.0 mass%
8.0 to 13.5 mass%
[0027]
Cl
10 to 10,000 ppm
-
-
S
100 to 10,000 ppm
0.03 mass% limit
(300 ppm)
[0028]
O
0.2 to 0.7 mass%
0.30 or less mass%
[0025]
Fe
Remainder
Balance
Yamamoto is silent to the average particle diameter of the metal powder being from 0.1 um to 1.5 um.
Yoshida discloses a metal powder ([0001]) with an average particle diameter of the metal powder of from 0.1 um to 1.5 um (D50 is 0.5 to 10 um) ([0022], [0073]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the metal powder of Yamamoto to have a particle diameter D50 of 0.5 to 10 um to reduce eddy current loss (Yoshida [0073]).
Yamamoto is silent to the presence of 10 to 10,000 ppm Cl.
Yoshida discloses a metal powder ([0001]) with 10 to 10,000 ppm Cl (1,000 ppm or less Cl) ([0075]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in the metal powder of Yamamoto to have 1,000 ppm or less Cl as an unavoidable impurity from the raw materials and devices and substances used in the production steps (Yoshida [0075]). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 13, the metal powder having a saturation magnetization of 170 emu/g or more has been considered and determined to recite a property of the claimed metal powder. The prior art discloses a metal powder that renders obvious the claimed composition (Yamamoto [0009]-[0010], [0015], [0020]-[0021], [0025]-[0029]; Yoshida [0075]) and average particle diameter (Yoshida [0022], [0073]). Therefore, the claimed properties, including saturation magnetization of 170 emu/g or more, naturally flow from the disclosure of the prior art.
Regarding claim 14, Yamamoto discloses the metal powder has a coercivity of 12 Oe or less (150 A/m, 1.9 Oe, or less) ([0013], [0019]). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Claims 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (CN 107385361 machine translation) in view of Yoshida (US 2021/0046549).
This new grounds of rejection is necessitated by new claims 13-15. New claims 13-15 depend from claim 1, such that they require all the particulars of claim 1.
With respect to claim 1, Wang discloses a metal powder ([0022], [0033]-[0034]) with a composition that falls within the scope of the claimed Si, Cr, and Fe ([0032]).
Element
Claim 1
Wang [0032]
Si
1.0 to 15.0 mass%
1.2
Cr
1.0 to 13.0 mass%
5.0
Cl
10 to 10,000 ppm
-
S
100 to 10,000 ppm
1.1 (11,000 ppm)
O
0.2 to 0.7 mass%
0.4
Fe
Remainder
Remainder
The S content of the example, 1.1% (11,000 ppm), is close to the upper limit of the claimed range of 10 ppm to 10,000 ppm such that one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the powder of the prior art (Wang [0032]) to have substantially similar properties to the claimed powder. A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap but are close. MPEP 2144.05(I).
In the event it is determined that 11,000 ppm S is not close to 10,000 ppm S, then the below rationale is applied.
Wang discloses the powder includes 0.3 to 1.8% S (3,000 to 18,000 ppm) ([0016]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in the powder of Wang to vary the S from 0.3 to 1.8 wt% (3,000 ppm to 18,000 ppm) because this S content is within the scope of Wang’s inventive powder (Wang [0016]). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Wang is silent to the average particle diameter of the metal powder being from 0.1 um to 2.0 um.
Yoshida discloses a metal powder ([0001]) with an average particle diameter of the metal powder of from 0.1 um to 2.0 um (D50 is 0.5 to 10 um) ([0022], [0073]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the metal powder of Wang to have a particle diameter D50 of 0.5 to 10 um to reduce eddy current loss (Yoshida [0073]). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Wang is silent to 10 to 10,000 ppm Cl.
Yoshida discloses a metal powder ([0001]) with 10 to 10,000 ppm Cl (1,000 ppm or less Cl) ([0075]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in the metal powder of Wang to have 1,000 ppm or less Cl as an unavoidable impurity from the raw materials and devices and substances used in the production steps (Yoshida [0075]). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 13, the metal powder having a saturation magnetization of 170 emu/g or more has been considered and determined to recite a property of the claimed metal powder. The prior art discloses a metal powder that renders obvious the claimed composition (Wang [0016], [0032]; Yoshida [0075]) and average particle diameter (Yoshida [0022], [0073]). Therefore, the claimed properties, including saturation magnetization of 170 emu/g or more, naturally flow from the disclosure of the prior art.
Regarding claim 14, the metal powder having coercivity of 12 Oe or less has been considered and determined to recite a property of the claimed metal powder. The prior art discloses a metal powder that renders obvious the claimed composition (Wang [0016], [0032]; Yoshida [0075]) and average particle diameter (Yoshida [0022], [0073]). Therefore, the claimed properties, including coercivity of 12 Oe or less, naturally flow from the disclosure of the prior art.
Regarding claim 15, Wang discloses the metal powder comprises from 1.0 to 2.0% of oxygen by mass concentration (0.4 wt%) ([0032]).
Claims 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (CN 107385361 machine translation) in view of Kawauchi (WO 2020/090849 with citations from US 2022/0005636).
This new grounds of rejection is necessitated by new claims 13-15. New claims 13-15 depend from claim 1, such that they require all the particulars of claim 1.
With respect to claim 1, Wang discloses a metal powder ([0022], [0033]-[0034]) with a composition that falls within the scope of the claimed Si, Cr, and Fe ([0032]).
Element
Claim 1
Wang [0032]
Si
1.0 to 15.0 mass%
1.2
Cr
1.0 to 13.0 mass%
5.0
Cl
10 to 10,000 ppm
-
S
100 to 10,000 ppm
1.1 (11,000 ppm)
O
0.2 to 0.7 mass%
0.4
Fe
Remainder
Remainder
The S content of the example, 1.1% (11,000 ppm), is close to the upper limit of the claimed range of 10 ppm to 10,000 ppm such that one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the powder of the prior art (Wang [0032]) to have substantially similar properties to the claimed powder. A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap but are close. MPEP 2144.05(I).
In the event it is determined that 11,000 ppm S is not close to 10,000 ppm S, then the below rationale is applied.
Wang discloses the powder includes 0.3 to 1.8% S (3,000 to 18,000 ppm) ([0016]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in the powder of Wang to vary the S from 0.3 to 1.8 wt% (3,000 ppm to 18,000 ppm) because this S content is within the scope of Wang’s inventive powder (Wang [0016]). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Wang is silent to the average particle diameter of the metal powder being from 0.1 um to 2.0 um.
Kawauchi discloses a metal powder ([0001], [0025]) with an average particle diameter of the metal powder of from 0.1 um to 2.0 um (D50 0.1 to 15 um) ([0017], [0043]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the metal powder of Wang to have a particle diameter D50 of 0.1 to 15 um to reduce eddy current loss (Kawauchi [0043]). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Wang is silent to the presence of 10 to 10,000 ppm Cl.
Kawauchi discloses a metal powder ([0001], [0025]) with 10 to 10,000 ppm Cl (1 mass%, 1,000 ppm, or less Cl) ([0028]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in the metal powder of Wang to include 1,000 ppm or less Cl so that the effects of the inventive powder are exhibited (Kawauchi [0028]). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 13, the metal powder having a saturation magnetization of 170 emu/g or more has been considered and determined to recite a property of the claimed metal powder. The prior art discloses a metal powder that renders obvious the claimed composition (Wang [0016], [0032]; Kawauchi [0028]) and average particle diameter (Kawauchi [0017], [0043]). Therefore, the claimed properties, including saturation magnetization of 170 emu/g or more, naturally flow from the disclosure of the prior art.
Regarding claim 14, the metal powder having coercivity of 12 Oe or less has been considered and determined to recite a property of the claimed metal powder. The prior art discloses a metal powder that renders obvious the claimed composition (Wang [0016], [0032]; Kawauchi [0028]) and average particle diameter (Kawauchi [0017], [0043]). Therefore, the claimed properties, including coercivity of 12 Oe or less, naturally flow from the disclosure of the prior art.
Regarding claim 15, Wang discloses the metal powder comprises from 1.0 to 2.0% of oxygen by mass concentration (0.4 wt%) ([0032]).
Claims 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujiwara (EP 1341191) in view of Yoshida (US 2021/0046549).
This new grounds of rejection is necessitated by new claims 13-15. New claims 13-15 depend from claim 1, such that they require all the particulars of claim 1.
With respect to claim 1, Fujiwara discloses a metal powder with an overlapping Si, Cr, O, and Fe composition, wherein the average particle diameter of the metal powder is from 0.1 um to 1.5 um (150 um or less) ([0015]). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Element
Claim 1
Fujiwara [0015]
Si
1.0 to 15.0 mass%
3.0 to 8.0 wt%
Cr
1.0 to 13.0 mass%
0 to 2.0 wt%
Cl
10 to 10,000 ppm
-
S
100 to 10,000 ppm
-
O
0.2 to 0.7 mass%
0.1 to 1.0 wt%
Fe
Remainder
Balance
Fujiwara discloses an average particle diameter of the metal powder of 150 um or less ([0015])
Yoshida discloses a metal powder ([0001]) with an average particle diameter of the metal powder of from 0.1 um to 2.0 um (D50 is 0.5 to 10 um) ([0022], [0073]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the metal powder of Wang to have a particle diameter D50 of 0.5 to 10 um to reduce eddy current loss (Yoshida [0073]).
Fujiwara is silent to the presence of 10 to 10,000 ppm Cl and 100 ppm to 10000 ppm S.
Yoshida discloses a metal powder ([0001]) with 10 to 10,000 ppm Cl and 100 ppm to 10000 ppm S (1,000 ppm or less Cl and S) ([0075]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in the metal powder of Fujiwara to have 1,000 ppm or less Cl and S as unavoidable impurities from the raw materials and devices and substances used in the production steps (Yoshida [0075]). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 13, Fujiwara discloses the metal powder has a saturation magnetization of 170 emu/g or more (10,000 G, 10,000 emu/g, or more) ([0015]). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 14, Fujiwara discloses the metal powder has a coercivity of 12 Oe or less (3.0 Oe or less) ([0015]). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 15, Fujiwara discloses the metal powder comprises from 1.0 to 2.0% of oxygen by mass concentration (0.1 to 1.0 wt%) ([0015]).
Claims 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujiwara (EP 1341191) in view of Kawauchi (WO 2020/090849 with citations from US 2022/0005636).
This new grounds of rejection is necessitated by new claims 13-15. New claims 13-15 depend from claim 1, such that they require all the particulars of claim 1.
With respect to claim 1, Fujiwara discloses a metal powder with an overlapping Si, Cr, O, and Fe composition, wherein the average particle diameter of the metal powder is from 0.1 um to 1.5 um (150 um or less) ([0015]). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Element
Claim 1
Fujiwara [0015]
Si
1.0 to 15.0 mass%
3.0 to 8.0 wt%
Cr
1.0 to 13.0 mass%
0 to 2.0 wt%
Cl
10 to 10,000 ppm
-
S
100 to 10,000 ppm
-
O
0.2 to 0.7 mass%
0.1 to 1.0 wt%
Fe
Remainder
Balance
Fujiwara discloses an average particle diameter of the metal powder of 150 um or less ([0015])
Kawauchi discloses a metal powder ([0001], [0025]) with an average particle diameter of the metal powder of from 0.1 um to 2.0 um (D50 0.1 to 15 um) ([0017], [0043]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the metal powder of Fujiwara to have a particle diameter D50 of 0.1 to 15 um to reduce eddy current loss (Kawauchi [0043]). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Fujiwara is silent to the presence of 10 to 10,000 ppm Cl and 100 ppm to 10000 ppm S.
Kawauchi discloses a metal powder ([0001], [0025]) with 10 to 10,000 ppm Cl (1 mass%, 1,000 ppm, or less Cl and S) ([0028]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in the metal powder of Fujiwara to include 1,000 ppm or less Cl and S so that the effects of the inventive powder are exhibited (Kawauchi [0028]). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 13, Fujiwara discloses the metal powder has a saturation magnetization of 170 emu/g or more (10,000 G, 10,000 emu/g, or more) ([0015]). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 14, Fujiwara discloses the metal powder has a coercivity of 12 Oe or less (3.0 Oe or less) ([0015]). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 15, Fujiwara discloses the metal powder comprises from 1.0 to 2.0% of oxygen by mass concentration (0.1 to 1.0 wt%) ([0015]).
Related Art
Li (CN 103480849 machine translation)
Li discloses a powder metallurgical valve seat material ([0007]-[0008]) as a mixed powder ([0010]-[0011]). Li is silent to the presence of Cl.
Conclusion
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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHANI HILL whose telephone number is (571)272-2523. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7am-12pm.
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 at 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.
/STEPHANI HILL/Examiner, Art Unit 1735