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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
JP2013-546162 cited in the information disclosure statement filed 13 February 2024 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(3)(i) because it does not include a concise explanation of the relevance, as it is presently understood by the individual designated in 37 CFR 1.56(c) most knowledgeable about the content of the information, of each reference listed that is not in the English language. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered. The supplied abstract is in German. There is no English language concise explanation of the relevance.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign mentioned in the description: The baffles 600 discussed in lines 1-3 of page 11 of the specification.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference characters not mentioned in the description: Reference numbers 610 and 620 in figure 2.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by the Jang et al article.
This article teaches soft magnetic Fe-Al powder and a powder core of the taught powders. The Fe-Al alloy particles of the taught powder has an alumina insulation coating film on the surface of the alloy particles wherein the alumina is from the aluminum in the alloy. Thus the taught particles read upon and are identical to those of claim 1. The article teaches the powder core is produced by pressing the taught particles to form a molded body and annealing the molded body in nitrogen at 800oC. The taught annealing temperature falls within the range of claim 16 and the taught powder core producing process is identical to that of claim 15. The article clearly teaches and anticipates the claimed soft magnetic powder and powder core.
Claims 1, 2, and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by the Choi et al article published 9/17/2020.
This article teaches soft magnetic Fe-Al powder and a powder core of the taught powders. The Fe-Al alloy particles of the taught powder has an oxide insulation coating, or film, comprising alumina, where the coating is on the surface of the alloy particles. The alumina in the coating is from the aluminum in the alloy. Thus the taught particles read upon and are identical to those of claim 1. The thickness of the taught oxide insulating coating or film is 60-70 nm, which falls within the range of claim 2. The article teaches the powder core is produced by pressing the taught particles to form a molded body and annealing the molded body in nitrogen at 700oC or 900oC. The taught annealing temperatures fall within the range of claim 16 and the taught powder core producing process is identical to that of claim 15. The article clearly teaches and anticipates the claimed soft magnetic powder and powder core.
Claims 1, 3, 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by U.S. patent application publication 2014/0104023.
This reference teaches soft magnetic powder and a powder core formed from the powder. The powder is a core-shell composite soft magnetic powder of Fe/Fe3O4 where the Fe2O4 shell is an insulating oxide film coating formed by when the Fe particles are oxidized (para 64-73). This powder reads upon that of claim 1. The reference teaches the core/shell particles have an insulating coating thereon wherein the coating is composed of a silicone resin (para 74-78). Silicone resins are, by definition, a polymer. Thus the reference teaches a polymer coating layer on the Fe3O4 shell, which is an oxide insulation film. This silicone resin coated powder reads upon that of claim 3.
The reference teaches forming a powder core from the taught silicone resin coated powder by pressing the powder to form a molded body and annealing heat-treating the molded body (para 79-84). The example teaches annealing in a nitrogen atmosphere in paragraph [0094]. The reference teaches the powder core of claims 14 and 15. The reference clearly teaches and anticipates the claimed soft magnetic powder and powder core.
Claims 1, 2 and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by KR 101620032B.
This reference teaches magnetic soft powder of particles of FeSiAl metal alloy particles having an oxide insulating film coating thereon and a powder core made from these particles. The reference teaches the oxide insulating film coating comprises oxides of silicon and/or aluminum and has a thickness of about 10-150 nm. This thickness falls within the range of claim 2 and the taught powder has the composition of claim 1. The reference teaches powder core is produced by pressing the taught powder to form a molded body and then annealing heat treating at 900oC in nitrogen. The taught annealing temperatures fall within the range of claim 16 and the taught powder core producing process is identical to that of claim 15. The article clearly teaches and anticipates the claimed soft magnetic powder and powder core.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by KR 102398174B.
This reference teaches a soft magnetic powder comprising Fe-M soft magnetic alloy particles having an oxide insulating film coating on the surface of the alloy particles where the film comprises oxides of M. This powder reads upon that of claim 1.
Claims 1, 2, 5, 7-11, 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by Choi et al article published 7/28/2022.
This article teaches a method for producing an iron oxide containing insulating film coating on pure iron particles and the resulting soft magnetic powder. The process is to mix iron powder with about 0.3 wt% Mg(OH)2, which acts as an anti-sintering agent; and then forming the iron oxide containing insulating film coating by heating and oxidizing the mixture at 500oC in a closed system, which is a sealed container that contains an amount of oxygen effect to oxidizing the iron particles and form the oxide insulting film thereon. This is the process of claim 5 and 7. The taught magnesium hydroxide amount and oxidation temperature fall within the ranges of claims 8 and 9, respectfully. The atmosphere in the closed system is argon, which is an inert gas, containing an amount of oxygen, wherein the amount of oxygen to be consumed wherein the amount consumed determines, and thus controls, the thickness of the oxide film. This teaches the limitations of claims 10 and 11. Thus the article teaches and anticipates the process of claims 5 and 7-11. The taught resulting soft magnetic powder of pure iron particles having an iron oxide containing insulating film coating thereon, wherein the coating has a thickness of 25 nm, 50 nm, 75 nm and 100 nm teaches and anticipates the powder of claims 1 and 2. The article teaches forming a powder core from the taught powder by pressing the powder into a molded body and annealing heat-treating in nitrogen. This powder core teaches and anticipates the powder core of claims 14 and 15.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by Choi et al article published 11/29/2022.
This article teaches a method for producing an iron oxide containing insulating film coating on pure iron particles. It also teaches a soft magnetic powder composed of pure iron particles having the iron oxide containing insulating film coating thereon, which is produced by the disclosed process wherein the particles further have a silicone resin, which is a polymer, coating layer on the iron oxide containing insulating film.
The process is to mix iron powder with about 0.3 wt% Mg(OH)2, which acts as an anti-sintering agent; and then forming the iron oxide containing insulating film coating by heating and oxidizing the mixture at 500oC in a rotating closed system, which is a sealed container that contains an amount of oxygen effect to oxidizing the iron particles and form the oxide insulting film coating thereon and which can rotate. The rotation acts to stir the powder mixture during oxidation. The amount of oxygen supplied and consumed is 1-4 cc/g of iron. which corresponds to about 4.5*10-5 to 1.8*10-4 mol O2/g Fe. This range falls within the range of claim 12. The article teaches to form a silicone resin layer on the produced powder, which is the process of claim 13. Thus the reference teaches and anticipates the process of claims 5-13.
The article teaches forming a powder core from the taught powder by pressing the powder into a molded body and annealing heat-treating in nitrogen. This powder core teaches and anticipates the powder core of claims 14 and 15.
The taught resulting soft magnetic powder of pure iron particles having an iron oxide containing insulating film thereon, wherein the film has a thickness of about 30-110 nm, teaches and anticipates the powder of claims 1 and 2. Page 5, second column teaches a soft magnetic powder of pure iron particles having an iron oxide containing insulating film thereon having a thickness of about 30 nm and silicon resin layer one the film having a thickness of about 30 nm. This teaches the powder of claim 4.
While both the Choi et al article published 7/28/2022 and the Choi et al article published 11/29/2022 were published less than one year before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (which is 9 May 2023), it is not readily apparent from the articles that they are an inventor-originated disclosure. This is because the application names fewer joint inventors than the articles. See MPEP 2153.01(a).
Applicant cannot rely upon the certified copy of the foreign priority application to overcome this rejection because a translation of said application has not been made of record in accordance with 37 CFR 1.55. When an English language translation of a non-English language foreign application is required, the translation must be that of the certified copy (of the foreign application as filed) submitted together with a statement that the translation of the certified copy is accurate. See MPEP §§ 215 and 216.
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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. patent application publication 2014/0104023.
As discussed above, this reference teaches soft magnetic powder of a core-shell composite soft magnetic powder of Fe/Fe3O4 where the Fe2O4 shell is an insulating oxide film coating formed by when the Fe particles are oxidized. Paragraph [0017] teaches the thickness of the Fe2O4 insulating oxide film is 5-1000 nm, which overlaps the thickness range of claim 2. Product claims with numerical ranges which overlap prior art ranges were held to have been obvious under 35 USC 103. In re Wertheim 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Malagari 182 USPQ 549 (CCPA 1974); In re Fields 134 USPQ 242 (CCPA 1962); In re Nehrenberg 126 USPQ 383 (CCPA 1960). Also see MPEP 2144.05. The reference suggests and makes obvious the powder of claim 2.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 101620032B.
As discussed above, this reference teaches a powder core produced from a soft magnetic FeSiAl powder which reads upon that of claim 1. The taught process for forming the powder core is to pressing the taught powder to form a molded body and then annealing heat treating at 500-1000oC in nitrogen. This taught annealing heat treating temperature range overlaps the range of claim 16. Product claims with numerical ranges which overlap prior art ranges were held to have been obvious under 35 USC 103. In re Wertheim 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Malagari 182 USPQ 549 (CCPA 1974); In re Fields 134 USPQ 242 (CCPA 1962); In re Nehrenberg 126 USPQ 383 (CCPA 1960). Also see MPEP 2144.05. The reference suggests and makes obvious the annealing heat treating conditions of claim 16.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 102398174B.
As discussed above, this reference teaches a soft magnetic powder comprising Fe-M soft magnetic alloy particles having an oxide insulating film coating on the surface of the alloy particles where the film comprises oxides of M. The reference teaches the oxide coating has a thickness of 5-500 nm, which overlaps the thickness range of claim 2. Product claims with numerical ranges which overlap prior art ranges were held to have been obvious under 35 USC 103. In re Wertheim 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Malagari 182 USPQ 549 (CCPA 1974); In re Fields 134 USPQ 242 (CCPA 1962); In re Nehrenberg 126 USPQ 383 (CCPA 1960). Also see MPEP 2144.05. The reference suggests and makes obvious the powder of claim 2.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to C. MELISSA KOSLOW whose telephone number is (571)272-1371. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Tues:7:45-3:45 EST;Thurs-Fri:6:30-2:00EST; and Wed:7:45-2:00EST.
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, Jonathan Johnson can be reached at 571-272-1177. 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.
/C Melissa Koslow/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1734
cmk
1/15/2026