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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 May 20, 2026 has been entered.
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) as evidenced by Schaaf et al. (Mossbauer spectroscopy, Encyclopedia of Condensed Matter Physics, Second Edition, 2025).
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). 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.
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, 34, 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 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.
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 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 35: Meguro teaches that the second and third magnetic particles can be made of a different material (¶0053).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 23, 26, 27, 38, and 41-44 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.
Considering Claim 38: 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed May 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. “As a simplification, it is often assumed that all subspectra and all phases have the same Debye-Waller factors fD and neglecting (most of the times) smaller errors caused by that. Thus, the phase fraction can be identified with the relative fractions (areas) of the phases in the Mössbauer spectrum (Gonser, 1981).” (pg. 20).
B) The applicant’s argument that Meguro would not lead a person of ordinary skill in the art to have the claimed area ratio of the third magnetic particle. 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.
As Meguro teaches the first particle as being the largest volume percentage of the mixture, and teaches that the smaller particles increase the filling factor, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to optimize the amount of the minority of third particles to increase the filling factor. As the third particle is present in a low amount, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to optimize the area of the claimed range.
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
Prosecution Insights