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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The rejections of claims 4 and 10 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 8, 10 and 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Mori et al. (US 2020/0306831).
With regard to claim 1, Mori et al. disclose magnetic metal powder having a particle core corresponding to the claimed “magnetic metal particle” wherein the particle core comprises a soft magnetic metal portion (11) containing Fe with an amorphous zone on the surface thereof (13a). The particle has an oxide film with both an amorphous and crystalline microstructure formed thereon (13b) and is in direct contact with the amorphous portion of the magnetic metal powder. It is noted that the claims do not require direct contact between the oxide film and the single crystalline zone of the magnetic metal particle.
The reference teaches that the soft magnetic metal portion of the magnetic metal core contains Fe and has a nanocrystal structure (see para [0006] and [0049]). The coating portion 13b contains an oxide of Fe (see para [0065]).
With regard to claims 4 and 10, Mori et al. does not explicitly disclose the area ratio of a single crystalline zone in a cross-section of the magnetic metal particle to the total area of the magnetic metal particle. However, the reference does teach that the grain size of crystalline particle 11 of the coated particle is 0.1-100 microns and the oxide coating portion 13b thereon has a thickness of 0.5-20 nm. Therefore, the area of the magnetic particle (11) would account for the majority of the area of the total area of particle (11) and layer (13b), the two of which taken together read on the claimed total area of the magnetic metal particle.
With regard to claim 8, see paragraph [0134] and sample numbers 6-8 in Table 1. See also paragraph [0140] and samples 22, 24, 26, 28, 30, 32, 34 and 36 in Table 2
With regard to claim 13, More et al. teaches a component made from the above-described magnetic powder wherein the “component” reads on the claimed “body including magnetic particles.” See para [0019].
With regard to claim 14, see paragraph [0127].
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 rejection of claim(s) 1-5 and 8-14 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishida et al. (US 2021/0313100) in view of Henmi et al. (US 2023/0212722) is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s arguments and amendments.
The rejection of claim(s) 6-7 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishida et al. (US 2021/0313100) in view of Henmi et al. (US 2023/0212722), and further in view of Zhang et al. (“Preparation and magnetic properties of core-shell structured Fe-Si/Fe3O4 composites via in site reaction method”, J Magn Mag Matl 53 (2021) 167955, pp 1-6) is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments and arguments.
The rejection of claim(s) 1-5 and 8-15 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsumoto (US 2021/0129218) in view of Ishida et al. (US 2021/0313100) is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments and arguments.
The rejection of claim(s) 6-7 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsumoto (US 2021/0129218) in view of Ishida et al. (US 2021/0313100) and further in view of Zhang et al. (“Preparation and magnetic properties of core-shell structured Fe-Si/Fe3O4 composites via in site reaction method”, J Magn Mag Matl 53 (2021) 167955, pp 1-6) is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments and arguments.
Claim(s) 5 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mori et al. (US 2020/0306831).
Mori et al. discloses all of the features of the claim, as set forth in section 102 above, but does not explicitly disclose an Fe-Si-Cr alloy for the single crystalline zone of the magnetic metal particle.
However, the reference teaches an embodiment wherein the magnetic metal particle (1) is formed from an alloy containing Fe, Si and an element X2 which is selected from a group that includes Cr. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to choose an alloy having Fe, Si and Cr therein in view of the explicit disclosure of using Cr for element X2 (see para [0066]).
With regard to claim 15, Mori et al. teaches a grain size of the particle (11) in the range of 0.1-100 microns. This range overlaps with the claimed range of 100-300 nm (0.1-0.3 microns). The values in the claimed range would have been obvious in view of the overlapping portion of Mori’s range.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-3 and 6-7 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The closest prior art to Mori et al. fails to teach or suggest a magnetic particle wherein the “magnetic metal particle consists of the single crystalline zone” or wherein the “magnetic metal particle is free of an amorphous zone.” Instead, Mori teaches a structure wherein the magnetic metal particle (11 and 13a) includes an amorphous zone and fails to teach or suggest a motivation to remove the amorphous portion of the structure.
Mori et al. is also silent with regard to a single crystalline zone that comprises an alpha-Fe phase as per claim 6. The prior art fails to teach or suggest a motivation to use a single crystalline zone comprising an alpha-Fe phase for either portion 11 or portion 13a of the magnetic metal particle taught therein.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-1, 4-5, 8, and 10-15 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HOLLY RICKMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-1514. The examiner can normally be reached Mon, Tues, Thurs, 9-3 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, 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.
/Holly Rickman/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1785
Prosecution Insights