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 .
Status of Claims
Amendment of the claims filed on 01/13/2026 has been entered.
Claims 1 and 2 have been amended, however, amendment finds support at least in the paragraph [0064] of the instant specification od the disclosure, therefore, no new matter is presented.
Claim 9-13 are newly added.
Therefore, claims 1-13 are remaining for examination on the merits.
Status of Previous Objection/Rejections
The previously cited claim objection have been withdrawn, due to amendment of the claim 1.
The previously cited 35 USC § 102(a)(1) rejections of the claims 1-8 have been withdrawn due to amendment of claim 1.
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 2 recites “a face-center” in line 2, which is a typographical error and need to be replaced with “a face-centered”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 2, 11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 2 requires that the calculated value is “0.01 or more and 0.80 or less.”, which renders the claim indefinite, because it is unclear how both of these can be true, i.e., how a value calculated can be both 0.01 and 0.80. Examiner interprets this is a value that is within the range 0.01-0.80 for the examination purpose.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 11 and 13 requires that “1 mass% or more and 6 mass% or less of Si, 0.2 mass%
or more and 5 mass% or less of Cr, and 0.01 mass% or more and 1 mass% or less of P”, which renders the claim indefinite, because it is unclear how both of these can be true, i.e., how Si can be a 1 mass% or more and 6 mass% or less, Examiner interprets this is the mass% of Si that is within the range 1 - 6 for the examination purpose, same rational apply for Cr and P also.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
(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.
Claims 1-4 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Ren Bo, et.al. [CN109175346A] (machine translation is relied on text, while table and figures are from the original disclosure) (Bo, hereafter).
Regarding claim 1, Bo discloses a soft magnetic metal particle comprising an Fe-Ni based soft magnetic metal wherein the soft magnetic metal particle includes both a face-center cubic (fcc) phase and a body-centered cubic (bcc) phase (example of Co-Cr-Mn-Ni-Fe alloy with Co having a 0.5 molar ratio, mixed phase of FCC and BCC, Abstract, claim 2, and Example 1 [0065] of the machine translation of Bo, TABLE 2 and [0036] of the original disclosure Bo). As shown in the Fig. 2(b) of the Bo’s original disclosure, Bo teaches the face-center cubic (fcc) phase appears 2[Symbol font/0x71] = 43.5° in an X-ray diffraction chart, and a diffraction peak of the body-centered cubic (bcc) phase appears 2[Symbol font/0x71] = 44.52° therein (Fig. 2(b) of
PNG
media_image1.png
432
924
media_image1.png
Greyscale
the Bo’s original disclosure).
Bo’s 2[Symbol font/0x71] for the peak of the face-center cubic (fcc) phase and a body-centered cubic (bcc) phase are incorporated within the as recited in the range.
Therefore, it is anticipatory when the prior art is within a claimed range. [See MPEP § 2131.03].
PNG
media_image2.png
288
380
media_image2.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: textbox (Peak of FCC (111))][AltContent: textbox (Peak of BCC (110))][AltContent: textbox (Base line)]Regarding claim 2 and 9, all the discussions above claim 1 are applicable for claim 2, wherein as shown in the Fig. 2(b) of the Bo’s original disclosure, Bo teaches the face-center cubic (fcc) phase appears 2[Symbol font/0x71] = 43.5° in an X-ray diffraction chart, and a diffraction peak of the body-centered cubic (bcc) phase appears 2[Symbol font/0x71] = 44.52° therein (Fig. 2(b) of the Bo’s original disclosure).
In the Fig. 2(b) of the Bo’s original disclosure, Examiner annotated (dotted lines) the peak of the FCC and BCC with the corresponding baseline in the X-ray diffraction chart of Bo, and then a value is being calculated by dividing a diffraction peak intensity of the BCC peak in an X-ray diffraction chart by a diffraction peak intensity of the FCC. As the height of the BCC peak in the annotated an X-ray diffraction chart is about 0.5 of the height of the FCC peak in the annotated an X-ray diffraction chart, therefore, an estimated diffraction peak intensity ratio would be 0.5, which is within the as recited range in the both instant claim 2 and 9.
Therefore, it is anticipatory when the prior art is within a claimed range. [See MPEP § 2131.03].
Regarding claim 3, all the discussions above claim 1 are applicable for claim 3, Bo discloses the soft magnetic metal particle comprises Fe, Ni, and Co as a main component (example of Co-Cr-Mn-Ni-Fe alloy, Abstract, claim 2, and Example 1 [0065] of the machine translation of Bo, TABLE 2 and [0036] of the original disclosure Bo).
Regarding claim 4, all the discussions above claim 1 are applicable for claim 4, Bo discloses a soft magnetic metal powder comprising the soft magnetic metal particle according to claim 1 (example of Co-Cr-Mn-Ni-Fe alloy and the soft magnetic high entropy alloy powder made by ball milling, Abstract, claim 2, and Example 1 [0065] of the machine translation of Bo, TABLE 2 and [0036] of the original disclosure Bo).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
Claims 5-8 are rejected are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ren Bo, et.al. [CN109175346A] (machine translation is relied on text, while table and figures are from the original disclosure) (Bo, hereafter) as applied to claim 1, and in view of Takashi Suzuki, et.al. [US20220336128A1] (PCT Filed: Sep. 25, 2020) (Suzuki, hereafter).
Regarding claim 5, all the discussions above claim 1 are applicable for claim 5, although, although Bo teaches that the soft magnetic metal particle has multiple uses in the field, that requires, electromagnetic and magnetic properties ([004-0005]), and exhibit hard magnetic or semi-hard magnetic properties [0008], Bo is silent about a magnetic element body comprising the soft magnetic metal particle.
However, Suzuki discloses a magnetic element body comprising the soft magnetic metal particle (a soft magnetic metal powder capable of providing a soft magnetic metal sintered body having high permeability µ and specific resistance p included in a coil type electronic component which has sufficiently high inductance L and Q value while rarely causing a plating elongation and a short circuit [Section 0006]. Suzuki’s FIG. 1 is a multilayer coil 1 includes an element body 2, wherein, a coil conductor 5 is embedded three dimensionally and spirally in a magnetic element 4 ([0042], [0065]-[0066]) and a soft magnetic sintered body comprising the soft magnetic metal powder (Suzuki’s claims 1, and 6)).
Suzuki is analogous to Bo and as well as the instant claim as Suzuki also teaches a soft magnetic metal powder including soft magnetic metal particles each constituted by an Fe-Ni (Fe-Ni-Si-M) based alloy) ([0006], Suzuki’s claim 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the present invention to have Suzuki’s teachings to combine with the teachings of soft magnetic particle of Bo to have a coil-type electronic component comprising the magnetic element body with high permeability µ and specific resistance p are required while lowering the risk of short circuit for an intended application.
Regarding claim 6, all the discussions above claim 1 and 5 are applicable for claim 6, But is silent about any specific magnetic element and therefore, silent about a coil-type electronic component comprising the magnetic element body and a coil conductor.
However, Suzuki discloses a coil-type electronic component comprising the magnetic element body and a coil conductor (Suzuki’s FIG. 1 is a multilayer coil 1 includes an element body 2, wherein, a coil conductor 5 is embedded three dimensionally and spirally in a magnetic element 4 ([0042], [0065]-[0066]) and a coil type electronic component comprising a magnetic element and a coil conductor embedded in the magnetic clement (Suzuki’s claim 7)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the present invention to have Suzuki’s teachings to combine with the teachings of soft magnetic particle of Bo to have a coil-type electronic component comprising the magnetic element body with high permeability µ and specific resistance p are required while lowering the risk of short circuit for an intended application.
Regarding claim 7, all the discussions above claim 1 and 6 are applicable for claim 7, Bo is silent about the coil-type electronic component, wherein the coil conductor is disposed inside the magnetic element body.
However, Suzuki discloses the coil-type electronic component, wherein the coil conductor is disposed inside the magnetic element body (and a coil type electronic component comprising a magnetic element and a coil conductor embedded in the magnetic clement (Suzuki’s claim 7) and also in Suzuki’s FIG. 1 a multilayer coil 1 includes an element body 2 a coil conductor 5 is embedded three dimensionally and spirally in a magnetic element 4 ([0042], [0065]-[0066])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the present invention to have Suzuki’s teachings to combine with the teachings of soft magnetic particle of Bo to have a coil-type electronic component comprising the magnetic element body with high permeability µ and specific resistance p are required while lowering the risk of short circuit for an intended application.
Regarding claim 8, all the discussions above claim 1 and 7 are applicable for claim 8, Bo is silent about the coil-type electronic component and thus, silent about the coil inner-diameter region and a cover region of the magnetic element body comprise the soft magnetic metal particle.
However, Suzuki discloses the coil-type electronic component according to claim 7, wherein a coil inner-diameter region and a cover region of the magnetic element body comprise the soft magnetic metal particle (the soft magnetic metal particles included in the coil type electronic component may be each covered with the same coating film which covers each of the soft magnetic metal particles included in the coil type electronic component [00127] and soft magnetic metal powder along with binder, granulated and molded in a pressure, to a toroidal shape having an outer diameter of 13 mm x an inner diameter of 6 mm x a height of 2.7 to 3.3 mm was formed [0135]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the present invention to have Suzuki’s teachings to combine with the teachings of soft magnetic particle of Bo to have a coil-type electronic component with a magnetic element body to have required magnetic properties as required for an application.
Claims 10-13 are rejected are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ren Bo, et.al. [CN109175346A] (machine translation is relied on text, while table and figures are from the original disclosure) (Bo, hereafter) as applied to claim 1, and in view of Kaneko Yasushi, et.al. [JP2006097123A] (machine translation) (Yasushi hereafter).
Regarding claim 10, all the discussions above claim 1 are applicable for claim 11, wherein Bo discloses a soft magnetic metal powder (example of Co-Cr-Mn-Ni-Fe alloy, Abstract, claim 2, and Example 1 [0065] of the machine translation of Bo, TABLE 2 and [0036] of the original disclosure Bo). But Bo is silent about the Fe-Ni based soft magnetic metal contains 20 mass% or more of Fe and 20 mass% or more of Ni.
However, Yasushi teaches a soft magnetic Fe-Ni based metal alloy powder (the magnetic metal particles preferably contains at least one of Fe, Co, and Ni) and associated magnetic device with improved magnetic properties ([0001], [0014] and [0016]). Yasushi teaches Fe as a main component and 1 mass % or more and less than 50 mass % of an element X, i.e. Fe is 50 – 99%, and Yasushi also teaches metal particle contains Ni and Ni may be contained in a mass ratio of Ni to Fe, Ni/Fe, may be in the range of 0.01 to 0.5 [0016]. Therefore, Ni would be 0.5 to 25%.
Yasushi teaches metal particle can be composed of any of Fe, Co, and Ni alone or an alloy thereof, such as an Fe-Co system, an Fe-Ni system ([0055]) and Yasushi’s powder further includes a (111) diffraction peak of γ-Fe having a face-centered cubic structure and the (110) diffraction peak of α-Fe having a body-centered cubic structure in the X-ray diffraction pattern ([0056]).
Yasushi’s composition of Fe and Ni are overlapping the as recited range in the instant claim.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the present invention, to have selected and produced a composition from the teachings of Yasushi that falls within the instantly-claimed ranges, because “In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)” [See MPEP § 2144.05.I].
Yasushi further teaches when the amount of Ni added is less than 0.01 in mass ratio, the magnetostriction is large, and when the amount of Ni added is more than 0.5 in mass ratio, the saturation magnetization becomes 100 Am2/kg or less and by adding Ni to Fe to form an alloy of Fe and Ni, the soft magnetic properties are improved and low coercive force and high magnetic permeability are achieved ([0057]).
Yasushi is analogous to Bo and as well as the instant claim as Yasushi also teaches a magnetic metal powder including soft magnetic metal particles constituted by an Fe-Ni based alloy.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the present invention to have Yasushi’s teachings of the amount of Fe and Ni in the composition of a soft magnetic alloy powder to combine with the teachings of the magnetic particle of Bo to have a magnetic metal particle that exhibits low coercive force and high magnetic permeability as required for an intended application.
Regarding claim 11, all the discussions above claim 1 are applicable for claim 11, wherein Bo discloses a soft magnetic metal powder (example of Co-Cr-Mn-Ni-Fe alloy, Abstract, claim 2, and Example 1 [0065] of the machine translation of Bo, TABLE 2 and [0036] of the original disclosure Bo). But Bo is silent about the Fe-Ni based soft magnetic metal contains 1 mass% or more and 6 mass% or less of Si, 0.2 mass% or more and 5 mass% or less of Cr, and 0.01 mass% or more and 1 mass% or less of P.
Yasushi teaches a soft magnetic Fe-Ni based metal alloy powder (the magnetic metal particles preferably contains at least one of Fe, Co, and Ni) and associated magnetic device with improved magnetic properties ([0001], [0014] and [0016]). Yasushi teaches Fe as a main component and 1 mass % or more and less than 50 mass % of an element X of Cr, P, and Si etc. ([0016], [0056]) and by adding X Yasushi further teaches controlling the (111) diffraction peak of γ-Fe having a face-centered cubic structure and the (110) diffraction peak of α-Fe having a body-centered cubic structure in the X-ray diffraction pattern ([0056]) as required by the application.
Yasushi’s composition of Cr, P and Si are also overlapping the as recited range in the instant claim.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the present invention, to have selected and produced a composition from the teachings of Yasushi that falls within the instantly-claimed ranges, because “In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)” [See MPEP § 2144.05.I].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the present invention to have Yasushi’s teachings of the amount of Cr, Si and P in the composition of a soft magnetic alloy powder to combine with the teachings of the magnetic particle of Bo to have a magnetic metal particle for controlling the crystal structure of γ-Fe having a face-centered cubic structure and α-Fe having a body-centered cubic structure to have appropriate magnetic properties as required for an intended application.
Regarding claim 12, all the discussions above claim 1 and 3 are applicable for claim 12, Bo discloses a soft magnetic metal powder (example of Co-Cr-Mn-Ni-Fe alloy, Abstract, claim 2, and Example 1 [0065] of the machine translation of Bo, TABLE 2 and [0036] of the original disclosure Bo). But Bo is silent about the Fe-Ni based soft magnetic metal contains 20 mass% or more of Fe, 10 mass% or more of Ni, and 3 mass% or more of Co.
However, Yasushi teaches a soft magnetic Fe-Ni based metal alloy powder (the magnetic metal particles preferably contains at least one of Fe, Co, and Ni) and associated magnetic device with improved magnetic properties ([0001], [0014] and [0016]). Yasushi teaches Fe as a main component and 1 mass % or more and less than 50 mass % of an element X, i.e. Fe is 50 – 99%, and the metal particle contains Fe and Co, and the mass ratio of Co to Fe, Co/Fe, is in the range of 0.3 to 0.9. Therefore, Co would be 15 to 45%. Yasushi also teaches and metal particle contains Ni and Ni may be contained in a mass ratio of Ni to Fe, Ni/Fe, may be in the range of 0.01 to 0.5 ([0016]). Therefore, Ni would be 0.5 to 25%. Yasushi teaches metal particle can be composed of any of Fe, Co, and Ni alone or an alloy thereof, such as an Fe-Co system, an Fe-Ni system ([0055]) and Yasushi’s powder further includes a (111) diffraction peak of γ-Fe having a face-centered cubic structure and the (110) diffraction peak of α-Fe having a body-centered cubic structure in the X-ray diffraction pattern ([0056]).
Yasushi’s composition of Fe, Co and Ni are overlapping the as recited range in the instant claim.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the present invention, to have selected and produced a composition from the teachings of Yasushi that falls within the instantly-claimed ranges, because “In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)” [See MPEP § 2144.05.I].
Yasushi teaches if the mass ratio of Co to Fe is less than 0.3, the effect of adding Co cannot be expected, and if it exceeds 0.9, the saturation magnetization becomes less than 120 Am2/kg and Co controls the α phase and the γ-Fe phase ([0057]) and when the amount of Ni added is less than 0.01 in mass ratio, the magnetostriction is large, and when the amount of Ni added is more than 0.5 in mass ratio, the saturation magnetization becomes 100 Am2/kg or less and by adding Ni to Fe to form an alloy of Fe and Ni, the soft magnetic properties are improved and low coercive force and high magnetic permeability are achieved ([0057]).
Yasushi further teaches the same effect as above can be expected from a ternary composition of Fe-Co-Ni, but it is characterized by excellent corrosion resistance and soft magnetic properties, and a material having high saturation magnetization and low magnetostriction can be obtained ([0057]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the present invention to have Yasushi’s teachings of the amount of Fe, Co and Ni in the composition of a soft magnetic alloy powder to combine with the teachings of the magnetic particle of Bo to have a magnetic metal particle with a controlled crystal structure and excellent corrosion resistance and soft magnetic properties, and a material having high saturation magnetization and low magnetostriction as required for an intended application.
Regarding claim 13, all the discussions above claim 1 and 3 are applicable for claim 13, Bo discloses a soft magnetic metal powder (example of Co-Cr-Mn-Ni-Fe alloy, Abstract, claim 2, and Example 1 [0065] of the machine translation of Bo, TABLE 2 and [0036] of the original disclosure Bo). But Bo is silent about the Fe-Ni based soft magnetic metal contains 1 mass% or more and 6 mass% or less of Si, 0.2 mass% or more and 5 mass% or less of Cr, and 0.01 mass% or more and 1 mass% or less of P.
Yasushi teaches a soft magnetic Fe-Ni based metal alloy powder (the magnetic metal particles preferably contains at least one of Fe, Co, and Ni) and associated magnetic device with improved magnetic properties ([0001], [0014] and [0016]). Yasushi teaches Fe as a main component and 1 mass % or more and less than 50 mass % of an element X of Cr, P, and Si etc. ([0016], [0056]). Yasushi teaches metal particle can be composed of any of Fe, Co, and Ni alone or an alloy thereof, such as an Fe-Co system, an Fe-Ni system ([0055]) and Yasushi’s powder further includes a (111) diffraction peak of γ-Fe having a face-centered cubic structure and the (110) diffraction peak of α-Fe having a body-centered cubic structure in the X-ray diffraction pattern ([0056]).
Yasushi’s composition of Cr, P and Si are also overlapping the as recited range in the instant claim.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the present invention, to have selected and produced a composition from the teachings of Yasushi that falls within the instantly-claimed ranges, because “In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)” [See MPEP § 2144.05.I].
Yasushi teaches by adding X (Cr, Si, P etc.) the (111) diffraction peak of γ-Fe having a face-centered cubic structure and the (110) diffraction peak of α-Fe having a body-centered cubic structure in the X-ray diffraction pattern is being controlled ([0056]). Yasushi further teaches the same effect as above can be expected from a ternary composition of Fe-Co-Ni, but it is characterized by excellent corrosion resistance and soft magnetic properties, and a material having high saturation magnetization and low magnetostriction can be obtained ([0057]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the present invention to have Yasushi’s teachings of the amount of Cr, Si and P in the composition of a soft magnetic alloy powder to combine with the teachings of the magnetic particle of Bo to have a magnetic metal particle with a controlled crystal structure of γ-Fe having a face-centered cubic structure and α-Fe having a body-centered cubic structure to have excellent corrosion resistance and soft magnetic properties, and a material having high saturation magnetization and low magnetostriction as required for an intended application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-8, filed 01/13/2026 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.
A new 35 USC § 102 (a) (1) rejection and 35 USC § 103 rejection of the claims have been associated with this office action due to the amendments (please check the section of the 35 USC § 102 (a) (1) rejection and 35 USC § 103 rejection associated with this office action for further details).
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NAZMUN NAHAR SHAMS whose telephone number is (571)272-5421. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 11:00 AM-7:00PM (EST).
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, Merkling Sally can be reached on (571)2726297. 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.
/NAZMUN NAHAR SHAMS/Examiner, Art Unit 1738
/SALLY A MERKLING/SPE, Art Unit 1738