FINAL OFFICE ACTION
This Final Office action addresses U.S. Application Serial No. 18/178,834, entitled SOFT MAGNETIC BODY, MAGNETIC CORE, AND ELECTRICAL COMPONENT.
Claims 1 and 3-8 are pending.
Claims 1 and 3-8 are rejected.
I. STATUS OF CLAIMS AND APPLICATION
The amendment filed March 26, 2026 (hereinafter the “Mar 2026 Amendment”) has been entered and considered. In the Mar 2026 Amendment, claim 1 was amended, claim 2 was cancelled, claims 3-6 were unchanged and new claims 7-8 were added. Therefore claims 1 and 3-8 are pending and will be examined.
II. PRIORITY
Examiner recognizes the Applicant’s claim to Japanese Patent Application Publication No. JP2022-051538, filed March 28, 2022. Thus, the earliest filing date of the present application is March 28, 2022.
III. CLAIM INTERPRETATION
After careful review of the original specification, the prosecution history, and unless expressly noted otherwise by the Examiners, the Examiners find that they are unable to locate any lexicographic definitions (either express or implied) with the required clarity, deliberateness, and precision with regard to pending and examined claims. Because the Examiners are unable to locate any lexicographic definitions with the required clarity, deliberateness, and precision, the Examiners conclude that Applicant is not his own lexicographer for the pending and examined claims. See MPEP §2111.01(IV).
The Examiners further find that because the pending and examined claims herein recite neither “step for” nor “means for” nor any substitute therefore, the examined claims fail Prong (A) as set forth in MPEP §2181(I). Because all examined claims fail Prong (A) as set forth in MPEP §2181(I), the Examiners conclude that all examined claims do not invoke 35 U.S.C. §112(f). See also Ex parte Miyazaki, 89 USPQ2d 1207, 1215-16 (B.P.A.I. 2008)(precedential)(where the Board did not invoke 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) because “means for” was not recited and because applicant still possessed an opportunity to amend the claims).
Because of the Examiners’ findings above that Applicant is not his own lexicographer and the pending and examined claims do not invoke 35 U.S.C. §112(f) the pending and examined claims will be given the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification since patentee has an opportunity to amend claims. See MPEP §2111, MPEP §2111.01 and In re Yamamoto et al., 222 USPQ 934 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Under a broadest reasonable interpretation, words of the claim must be given their plain meaning, unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification. See MPEP §2111.01(I). It is further noted it is improper to import claim limitations from the specification, i.e., a particular embodiment appearing in the written description may not be read into a claim when the claim language is broader than the embodiment. See MPEP §2111.01(II).
Specific interpretation applied in this Office action.
Claim 1 recites “wherein a ratio of the element M at the center of the soft magnetic particles to a ratio of the element M in a soft magnetic composition that constitutes the soft magnetic body is within a range of 10% to 70% on a cross-section of the soft magnetic body.” Examiners note this recitation is described at ¶¶0042-0044 of the specification and shown in FIG. 2A, reprinted below. As stated, the first ratio of the
PNG
media_image1.png
352
352
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Drawings FIG. 2A
element M it taken in the at point O1 within the center of the soft magnetic particle 21 and the second ratio of element M is taken at point O2 in a region 31 between the soft magnetic particles 21. Then a final ratio is taken between the first ratio and the second ratio, which as recited such that the first ratio is “within a range 10%-70%” of the second ratio. Using this interpretation as guide to understand the claim language taken from the specification and drawings, Examiners find this interpretation reasonable.
IV. CLAIM REJECTIONS – 35 U.S.C. §102
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. §102 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
IV.A. Anticipation Rejections Applying Kenichiro
Claims 1 and 3-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Japanese Patent Application Publication No. 2020-038922A to Matsuno Kenichiro et al. (hereinafter “Kenichiro”), which was published on March 12, 2020.
Regarding claim 1, Kenichiro discloses
1. A soft magnetic body comprising:
See Kenichiro FIGS. 1 and 2, reprinted below:
PNG
media_image2.png
364
716
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Kenichiro FIG. 1 Kenichiro FIG. 2
soft magnetic particles containing an element M having an ionization tendency larger than ionization tendency of Fe and Si; and
See Kenichiro FIG. 2 above and ¶0031, wherein the soft magnetic particles 21 contain iron and silicon and further contain element M (Chromium) in the range of 1-9%. See also Kenichiro ¶0028 wherein element M can comprise Chromium, Aluminum, Magnesium, Titanium, Zirconium, Manganese and Zinc. See also claim 8 which states these particles are either Cr and Al. Since Kenichiro discloses the same particles, i.e., Cr or AL, these particles would have the same ionization tendency.
an intergranular region existing between the soft magnetic particles and covering the soft magnetic particles,
See Kenichiro FIG. 2 above and ¶¶0047-0049, intergranular regions 31 between the soft magnetic particles 21, which comprise SI and element M.
wherein a ratio of the element M at the center of the soft magnetic particles to a ratio of the element M in a soft magnetic composition that constitutes the soft magnetic body is within a range of 10% to 70% on a cross-section of the soft magnetic body, and
Note claim interpretation above. Further note above wherein the ratio of element M in the soft magnetic particles in the center thereof is between 1-9%, i.e., assume first ratio of 9%. Second as shown in FIG. 6, reprinted below, at point identified at the center
PNG
media_image3.png
436
642
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Kenichiro FIG. 6
of the region between .35-.66µm, i.e., at a center of region 31 between soft magnetic particles 21, the ratio of element M is about 30%, i.e., this is the second ratio. Thus, the
ratio of first ratio of 9% to the ratio of the second ratio is 9%/30%, which provides a ratio of 33.3%, which is “within a range of 10% to 70%.”
an average of peripheral lengths of the intergranular regions existing around each of the soft magnetic particles is within a range of 5 μm to 15.5 μm on the cross-section of the soft magnetic body.
See Kenichiro ¶0039 wherein the average diameter of the soft magnetic particles is from 4-60µm. For example, if the average diameter is 4µm as disclosed by Kenichiro, then the average of the peripheral length is 4 times π or provides an average peripheral length of about 12.6µm.
Regarding claim 3, Kenichiro discloses the body of claim 1 and further:
3. The soft magnetic body according to claim 1, wherein a ratio of the element M contained in the intergranular regions is higher than a ratio of the element M at the center of the soft magnetic particles.
Note discussion of claim 1 above, wherein the second ratio of element M at the center of the intergranular regions 31 is about 30% wherein the first ratio of element M in the soft magnetic particles 21 is between 1-9%.
Regarding claim 4, Kenichiro discloses the body of claim 1 and further:
4. The soft magnetic body according to claim 1, wherein a ratio of Si contained in the intergranular regions is higher than a ratio of Si at the center of the soft magnetic particles.
See at least FIG. 6 above and ¶0028, wherein the ratio of Si in the intergranular regions 31 is between about 20-80% whereas the ratio of Si in the soft magnetic particles 21 is from about 0-9%.
Regarding claim 5, Kenichiro discloses the body of claim 1 and further:
5. A magnetic core, comprising:
the soft magnetic body according to claim 1.
See Kenichiro FIG. 1 above.
Regarding claim 6, Kenichiro discloses the body of claim 1 and further:
6. An electronic component, comprising:
the soft magnetic body according to claim 1.
See Kenichiro ¶¶0022-0025 wherein the body is for a coil-type electrical component.
Regarding claim 7, Kenichiro discloses the body of claim 1 and further:
7. (New) The soft magnetic body according to claim 1, wherein a width of a two-grain boundary intergranular region excluding a triple-point is 0.01 to 0.3µm.
See Kenichiro ¶¶0069-0072 wherein the predetermined range is 50% or more of the distance between the soft magnetic particles and the predetermined range is .1-.4µm which implies the distance between soft magnetic particles 21 and 22 is .066-.0266µm.
Regarding claim 8, Kenichiro discloses the body of claim 1 and further:
8. (New) The soft magnetic body according to claim 1, wherein the element M comprises Cr or Al.
See Kenichiro FIG. 2 above and ¶0031, wherein the soft magnetic particles 21 contain iron and silicon and further contain element M (Chromium) in the range of 1-9%. See also Kenichiro ¶0028 wherein element M can comprise Chromium, Aluminum, Magnesium, Titanium, Zirconium, Manganese and Zinc.
V. EXAMINER’S RESPONSES TO APPLICANT’S ARGUMENTS
Examiner has fully considered the Applicant’s arguments, but do not find them persuasive to overcome the rejections provided above, as amended in the view of the amendments to the claims in the Mar 2026 Amendment.
On page 6 of the Mar 2026 Amendment, Applicant disputes the rejection on the premise that in the core of Kenichiro, Chromium is “hardly detected” and asserted the limitations of the claims are not met. Examiners do not find this argument persuasive because the Examiners submit the Applicant’s premise is not accurate in view of the disclosure of Kenichiro. As noted in Kenichiro FIG. 2 above and ¶0031, the soft magnetic particles 21 contain iron and silicon and further contain element M (Chromium) in the range of 1-9%. A range between 1-9%, particularly 9% is not “hardly detected.” If it is assumed that the core of Kenichiro is at the high end of this ranged, i.e., 9%, the core of Kenichiro reads on the claim limitations.
On page 8 of the Mar 2026 Amendment, Applicant further argues that Kenichiro does not discloses the average of peripheral lengths, but does not assert why. Examiners thus disagree for the reasons provided in the rejection above.
VI. CONCLUSION
Claims 1 and 3-8 are pending.
Claims 1 and 3-8 are rejected.
Applicant's substantial amendments to the claims provided in the Mar 2026 Amendment necessitated the new/amended grounds 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 C.F.R. §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 C.F.R. §1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §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 KENNETH WHITTINGTON whose telephone number is (571) 272-2264. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30am - 5:00pm, Monday - Friday.
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, Andrew Fischer can be reached at (571) 272-6779. 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.
/KENNETH WHITTINGTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3992
Prosecution Insights