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 § 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.
Claims 1-3, 8, 10-12, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Amara et al. (Colloids and Surfaces A: Physiochem. Eng. Aspects, 339, 2009, 106-110) as evidenced by Schaaf et al. (Mossbauer spectroscopy, Encyclopedia of Condensed Matter Physics, Second Edition, 2025).
Considering Claims 1 and 10: Amara et al. teaches magnetic nanoparticles comprising a Fe-based phase and a Fe3O4 phase (Section 3.5), where the F3O4 phase is 28% in an example (Table 3). Schaaf et al. teaches that the phase fractions can be identified by the relative areas of the Mossbauer spectrum (pg. 20), and thus the Mossbauer spectral data of Amara et al. would be equivalent to the area ratio occupied by the phases.
Considering Claims 2 and 3: Amara et al. teaches the Fe based phase as being crystalline (Section 3.2), with single crystalline zones provided in plural (Fig. 2).
Considering Claim 8: Amara et al. teaches a crystalline zone for the Fe3O4 phase (Section 3.2, Fig. 2).
Considering Claim 11: Amara et al. does not teach the surface of the particle as having a different composition than the rest of the particle, and thus the amount of F3O4 phase would be in a similar range of about 28%.
Considering Claim 12: Amara et al. teaches the F3O4 phase as being present throughout the particle.
Considering Claim 17: Amara et al. teaches the particles as having a size of several hundred nanometers (Fig. 1D).
Claims 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Amara et al. (Colloids and Surfaces A: Physiochem. Eng. Aspects, 339, 2009, 106-110) as evidenced by Schaaf et al. (Mossbauer spectroscopy, Encyclopedia of Condensed Matter Physics, Second Edition, 2025).
Considering Claims 18 and 19: Amara et al. teaches magnetic nanoparticles comprising a Fe-based phase and a Fe3O4 phase (Section 3.5), where the F3O4 phase is 28% in an example (Table 3). Amara et al. does not teach the surface of the particle as having a different composition than the rest of the particle, and thus the amount of F3O4 phase would be in a similar range of about 28%. Schaaf et al. teaches that the phase fractions can be identified by the relative areas of the Mossbauer spectrum (pg. 20), and thus the Mossbauer spectral data of Amara et al. would be equivalent to the area ratio occupied by the phases.
Schaaf et al. teaches that the phase fractions can be identified by the relative areas of the Mossbauer spectrum (pg. 20), and thus the Mossbauer spectral data of Amara et al. would be equivalent to the area ratio occupied by the phases.
Considering Claim 20: Amara et al. teaches the F3O4 phase as being present throughout the particle.
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.
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.
Claim 5-7 and 13-15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Amara et al. (Colloids and Surfaces A: Physiochem. Eng. Aspects, 339, 2009, 106-110) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zhang et al. (Journal of Magnetism and Magnetic Materials 531 (2021) 167955) as evidenced by Urata et al. (JP 2012082476). Note: A machine translation is being used for JP 2012082476.
Considering Claims 5-7: Amara et al. teaches the particles of claim 1 as shown above.
Amara et al. does not teach the inclusion of silicon or chromium in the iron phase. However, Zhang et al. teaches forming magnetic nanoparticles with an iron-silicon alloy (Abstract). Urata et al. teaches that the incorporation of silicon in the alloy results in the formation of an amorphous phase comprising iron (pg. 2). Amara et al. and Zhang et al. are analogous art as they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely magnetic iron nanoparticles. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have used an iron-silicon alloy in the iron phase of Amara et al., as in Zhang et al., and the motivation to do so would have been, as Zhang et al. suggests, the alloy has higher saturation magnetization than pure iron powder (Introduction).
Considering Claims 13-15: Amara et al. teaches the particles of claim 1 as shown above.
Amara et al. does not teach forming an oxide film on the surface of the particles. However, Zhang et al. teaches forming a Fe3O4 shell having a crystalline structure on magnetic particles (Abstract, Section 3.1). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have formed the shell of Zhang et al. on the particles of Amara et al., and the motivation to do so would have been, as Zhang et al. suggests, to reduce core loss of the particles (Abstract).
Claims 21 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Amara et al. (Colloids and Surfaces A: Physiochem. Eng. Aspects, 339, 2009, 106-110) as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Saito et al. (US 2018/0294085).
Considering Claims 21 and 22: Amara et al. teaches the particles of claim 18 as shown above.
Amara et al. does not teach the claimed component. However, Saito et al. teaches a component comprising a body containing a plurality of magnetic particles and a coil (¶0020). Amara et al. and Saito et al. are analogous art as they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely magnetic particles. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have used the magnetic particles of Amara et al. in the component of Saito et al., and the motivation to do so would have been, as Saito et al. suggests, it is a known use for the magnetic particles.
Claims 28-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Amara et al. (Colloids and Surfaces A: Physiochem. Eng. Aspects, 339, 2009, 106-110) in view of Saito et al. (US 2018/0294085).
Considering Claims 28 and 29: Amara et al. teaches magnetic nanoparticles comprising a Fe-based phase and a Fe3O4 phase (Section 3.5), where the F3O4 phase is 28% in an example (Table 3).
Amara et al. does not teach the claimed component. However, Saito et al. teaches a component comprising a body containing a plurality of magnetic particles and a coil (¶0020). Amara et al. and Saito et al. are analogous art as they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely magnetic particles. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have used the magnetic particles of Amara et al. in the component of Saito et al., and the motivation to do so would have been, as Saito et al. suggests, it is a known use for the magnetic particles.
Considering Claim 30: Amara et al. teaches the particles as having a size of several hundred nanometers (Fig. 1D).
Claims 31-37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meguro (US 2021/0241951) in view of Zhang et al. (Journal of Magnetism and Magnetic Materials 531 (2021) 167955).
Considering Claims 31 and 37: Meguro teaches a magnetic component comprising a coil component and a base body (¶0008) comprising a first group of metal magnetic particles having a first average particle size, a second group of metal magnetic particles having a second average particle size that is smaller than the first average particle size (¶0008), and a third group of metal magnetic particles having a third average particle size that is less than the second average particle size (¶0048). Meguro teaches the third particles as comprising iron and having a metal oxide of iron as an insulating coating on the surface of the particle (¶0053-54).
Meguro does not teach that the oxide phase as being Fe3O4 with sufficient specificity. However, Zhang et al. teaches forming a Fe3O4 shell having a crystalline structure on magnetic particles made of an Fe-Si alloy (Abstract, Section 3.1). Meguro and Zhang et al. are analogous art as they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely magnetic iron particles. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have used the Fe3O4 phase of Zhang et al. as the coating of Meguro, and the motivation to do so would have been, as Zhang et al. suggests, Fe3O4 has relatively high saturation magnetization and it can be formed on the particle surface by in-situ reaction method (Introduction).
Considering Claims 32: The means of measuring the particles does not change the structure of the component.
Considering Claims 33 and 36: Meguro teaches the average particle size of the first particles as being 4 to 30 microns, the particle size of the second particles as being 0.2 to 6 microns (¶0046) and the particle size of the third particles as being 100 to 1,000 nm (¶0048).
Considering Claim 34: Meguro teaches the amount of the first particle as being 75 to 95 volume percent of the amount of the first and second particles (¶0055). Meguro further teaches that amount of each particle affects the filling factor of the magnetic particles in the body (¶0055). As such, a person of ordinary skill in the art would consider the amount of the first and third magnetic particles as being a result effective variable controlling the filling factor the metal magnetic particles. As such, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have optimized the amount of the first, second and third particles through routine experimentation, and the motivation to do so would have been, as Meguro suggests, to increase the filling factor of the particles in the base body of the magnetic component.
Considering Claim 35: Meguro teaches that the second and third magnetic particles can be made of a different material (¶0053).
Claims 38-44 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meguro (US 2021/0241951) in view of Zhang et al. (Journal of Magnetism and Magnetic Materials 531 (2021) 167955) as evidenced by Urata et al. (JP 2012082476).
Considering Claims 38-40 and 42-44: Meguro teaches a magnetic component comprising a coil component and a base body (¶0008) comprising a first group of metal magnetic particles having a first average particle size, a second group of metal magnetic particles having a second average particle size that is smaller than the first average particle size (¶0008), and a third group of metal magnetic particles having a third average particle size that is less than the second average particle size (¶0048). Meguro teaches the third particles as comprising iron-silicon and having a metal oxide of iron as an insulating coating on the surface of the particle (¶0053-54). Meguro teaches the average particle size of the first particles as being 4 to 30 microns, the particle size of the second particles as being 0.2 to 6 microns (¶0046) and the particle size of the third particles as being 100 to 1,000 nm (¶0048). Urata et al. teaches that the incorporation of silicon in the alloy results in the formation of an amorphous phase comprising iron (pg. 2).
Meguro does not teach that the oxide phase as being Fe3O4 with sufficient specificity. However, Zhang et al. teaches forming a Fe3O4 shell having a crystalline structure on magnetic particles made of an Fe-Si alloy (Abstract, Section 3.1). Meguro and Zhang et al. are analogous art as they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely magnetic iron particles. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have used the Fe3O4 phase of Zhang et al. as the coating of Meguro, and the motivation to do so would have been, as Zhang et al. suggests, Fe3O4 has relatively high saturation magnetization and it can be formed on the particle surface by in-situ reaction method (Introduction).
Considering Claim 41: Zhang et al. does not teach the thickness of the iron oxide film. However, Zhang et al. teaches that the thickness controls the permeability and saturation magnetization of the particle (Section 3.3) and thus would be considered to be a result effective variable. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have optimized the thickness through routine experimentation, and the motivation to do so would have been, as Zhang et al. suggests, to optimize the permeability and saturation magnetization of the particle (Section 3.3)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 23, 26, and 27 are allowed.
Claims 4, 9, and 16 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 following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Considering Claims 4 and 9: The prior art of record does not teach the particles having the claimed crystalline structures. The closest prior art of record is Amara et al. (Colloids and Surfaces A: Physiochem. Eng. Aspects, 339, 2009, 106-110). Amara et al. does not specify the crystalline zone of the iron or Fe3O4 phases and there is no suggestion to select the specific crystalline zones claimed from the possible zones available. As such, the claims are non-obvious over the closest prior art of record.
Considering Claim 16: The prior art of record does not teach or suggest the claimed orientation structure for the oxide film and the Fe3O4 phase. The closest prior art of record is Amara et al. (Colloids and Surfaces A: Physiochem. Eng. Aspects, 339, 2009, 106-110). Amara et al. does not teach the orientation structure of the oxide film and Fe3O4 phase, and there is no suggestion in the prior to control the relative orientation structures of these two components. As such, the claim is non-obvious over the closest prior art of record.
Considering Claim 23: The prior art of record does not teach the particles having the claimed crystalline structures. The closest prior art of record is Amara et al. (Colloids and Surfaces A: Physiochem. Eng. Aspects, 339, 2009, 106-110). Amara et al. does not specify the crystalline zone of the iron or Fe3O4 phases and there is no suggestion to select the specific crystalline zones claimed from the possible zones available. As such, the claims are non-obvious over the closest prior art of record.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed January 20, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive, because:
A) The applicant’s argument that Amara et al. is directed towards the spectral area rather than the area ratio is not persuasive. Schaaf et al. teaches that the phase fractions can be identified by the relative areas of the Mossbauer spectrum (pg. 20), and thus the Mossbauer spectral data of Amara et al. would be equivalent to the area ratio occupied by the phases.
B) 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).
While Zhang et al. does not teach the claimed particle size, this feature is present in the primary reference Meguro. As such, the combination of Meguro and Zhang et al. teach the claimed particle size.
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.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LIAM J HEINCER whose telephone number is (571)270-3297. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5:00.
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 Eashoo can be reached at 571-272-1197. 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.
/LIAM J HEINCER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1767