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 .
Response to Amendment
The Amendments filed 09/17/2026 responsive to the Office Action filed 06/18/2026 have been entered. Claims 1 and 4-10 have been amended. New claim 13 has been added. Claims 11 and 12 maintain withdrawn. Claims 1-13 are pending in this application.
Response to Arguments
A terminal disclaimer has been filed on 09/17/2026, thus the nonstatutory double patenting rejection in view of copending Application No. 18/255,538 has been withdrawn.
Claims 4-10 have been amended to address indefiniteness, thus the rejection of claims 4-10 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments filed 09/17/2026 in pages 8 and 9 with respect to the rejection of claim 1 under 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) has been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Yu et al. (CN107749340A-of record_Machine Translation-of record) further in view of Shimomura et al. (US 2010/0253463A1).
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 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu et al. (CN107749340A-of record_Machine Translation-of record) in view of Shimomura et al. (US 2010/0253463A1).
With respect to claim 1, Yu teaches a preparation method for an integrated co-fired inductor (“A method for manufacturing a high-reliability, high-current molded inductor”, Pa [0018]), comprising:
filling a mold cavity with a magnetic powder, embedding at least one wire into the magnetic powder, wherein two ends of the wire extend out of the mold cavity (“S2. Place a straight wire on the mold”, Pa [0020]; “S3. Embed the middle part of the straight wire in the magnetic powder”, Pa [0021]), then performing compression molding and heat treatment in sequence to obtain a magnetic core (“press it so that the wire and the magnetic powder become one”, Pa [0021]; “S4. Perform heat treatment”, Pa [0022]), and bending and tin-attaching the wire extending out of the magnetic core to obtain the co-fired inductor (“S5. Bend the exposed wires at both ends of the magnet to form electrodes”, Pa [0023]; “the bent wire is subjected to tin-immersion treatment”, Pa [0084]).
Yu does not explicitly teach that the heat treatment is performed under a protective atmosphere; the protective atmosphere uses nitrogen and/or an inert gas; and the heat treatment is performed at 650-850°C.
In the same field of endeavor, a method for manufacturing the inductance parts, Shimomura teaches that the method for manufacturing the inductance part of the first exemplary embodiment includes a step (FIG. 5A) of forming coiled conductor 11 from a metal conductor such as a copper plate, a step (FIG. 5B) of forming magnetic body 12 by pressure-molding a mixture of iron-based metal magnetic powder 13, bonding material 14, and electrical insulating material 15 in such a manner that the coiled conductor is embedded in the mixture, a step (not shown) of heat treating the pressure-molded body, and a step (FIG. 5C) of forming terminals 16 derived from coiled conductor 11 (Pa [0068]), and in the step of heat treating, the pressure-molded body which has been pressure-molded in the previous step of forming the magnetic body is held in an inert gas atmosphere such as a nitrogen atmosphere at 800° C. for over 30 minutes (Pa [0071]), and a heat treatment at 600° C. or above can remove internal strains of metal magnetic powder 13 generated due to plastic-deformation during the pressure-molding, thus, the straightening annealing of metal magnetic powder 13 can be performed without causing coiled conductor 11 and metal magnetic powder 13 to be diffused by heat, thereby allowing magnetic body 12 to have higher relative magnetic permeability (Pa [0083]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Yu with the teachings of Shimomura to substitute Shimomura’s heat treating for Yu’s for the purpose of straightening annealing of metal magnetic powder without causing the straight wire and the metal magnetic powder to be diffused by heat, thereby allowing magnetic body to have higher relative magnetic permeability.
With respect to claim 2, Yu as applied to claim 1 above further teaches that the wire is a bare wire without paint layer (“the conductor has no enameled film”, Pa [0085]).
With respect to claim 3, Yu as applied to claim 1 above further teaches that the wire is a copper wire (“The conductor… its material is one or more metals such as copper”, Pa [0049]).
With respect to claim 4, Yu as applied to claim 1 above further teaches that the wire is a flat wire having a rectangular cross section (“The conductor is a flat wire”, Pa [0049]): the wire is a straight wire and the wires are laid inside the magnetic powder side by side at intervals on a horizontal plane (Fig. 2).
With respect to claim 5, Yu as applied to claim 1 above further teaches that the compression molding is performed in a manner of hot pressing (“a hot press mold”); the hot pressing is performed at more than or equal to 800 MPa/cm2 (“the powder is pressed at a pressure of 600-1200 MPa”), the hot pressing is performed at 90-180°C (“a temperature of 50-200°C); the hot pressing is performed for 5-100 s (“for 0-60 seconds”) (Pa [0078]). Shimomura as applied in the combination regarding claim 1 above further teaches that the heat treatment is an annealing treatment; and the heat treatment is performed for 30-50 min (“In the step of heat treating, the pressure-molded body which has been pressure-molded in the previous step of forming the magnetic body is held in an inert gas atmosphere such as a nitrogen atmosphere at 800° C. for over 30 minutes.”, Pa [0071]). In the case where claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. (See MPEP 2144.05 (I)).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu et al. (CN107749340A-of record _Machine Translation-of record) in view of Shimomura et al. (US 2010/0253463A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of You et al. (CN111128527A_Machine Translation provided herewith).
With respect to claim 6, Shimomura as applied in the combination regarding claim 1 above further teaches that impregnating the magnetic core in sequence before the bending and tin-attaching (“after the step of heat treating, a step (not shown) of impregnating magnetic body 12 with epoxy resin in order to reinforce its mechanical strength.”, Pa [0071]), but is silent to vacuum impregnation and spray-coating the magnetic core.
In the same field of endeavor, a method of manufacturing the coil component, You teaches that The insulating film 600 can be formed using methods such as screen printing, spraying, vacuum impregnation, vapor deposition (such as chemical vapor deposition (CVD)), and film lamination, but is not limited thereto (Pa [0082]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Yu in view of Shimomura with the teachings of You to perform spraying and vacuum impregnation the magnet with epoxy resin before bending the electrode in order to reinforce its mechanical strength. It has been held that Applying a known technique to a known device (method or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results is likely to be obvious. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, D.).
Claims 7-10 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu et al. (CN107749340A-of record _Machine Translation-of record) in view of Shimomura et al. (US 2010/0253463A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Guo (CN109285682A_Machine Translation-of record) and Yamashita (JP2014090158A_Machine Translation provided herewith).
With respect to claim 7, Yu as applied to claim 1 above further teaches the preparation of magnetic powder for pressing (Pa [0056]), but does not explicitly teach that the magnetic powder is prepared by the following method: subjecting a soft magnetic powder to insulation coating, secondary coating and pelletizing treatment in sequence to obtain the magnetic powder; the soft magnetic powder is obtained by combining powders with two different particle sizes, wherein the powder with a larger particle size has a D50 of 6-50 pm, and the powder with a smaller particle size has a D50 of 1-6 pm; and, the powder comprises FeSiCr, FeSi, FeNi, FeSiAl, a carbonyl iron powder, a carbonyl iron nickel powder, FeNiMo, a Fe-based amorphous nanocrystalline material, a Co- based amorphous nanocrystalline soft magnetic material or a Ni-based amorphous nanocrystalline soft magnetic material.
In the same field of endeavor, a preparation method of an iron-silicon-chromium material used for integrated inductance, Guo teaches that the method includes the following steps: a) raw material selection; b) insulation coating; c) secondary coating; d) granulation (Pa [0014]), and through material selection and the adoption of a special insulating coating method, the performance level of gas-atomized powder is achieved, and the powder has low cost and excellent insulation performance (Pa [0007]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the combination with the teachings of Guo to substitute Guo’s preparation method of an iron-silicon-chromium material for Yu’s preparation of magnetic powder for the purpose of benefits of low cost and excellent insulation performance.
Furthermore, in the same field of endeavor, method for manufacturing inductor element, Yamashita teaches that the particle size of the magnetic powder is preferably 0.5 to 50 μm (Pa [0039]), and the particle size (average particle size) of the magnetic powder in the granule 4Aa that is filled first may be smaller than the particle size (average particle size) of the magnetic powder in the granule 4Bb that is filled later (Pa [0058]), by configuring it as described above, the density of the magnetic powder in the inner circumference of the winding portion 6 can be further increased compared to the outer circumference, furthermore, the initial permeability of the inductor element increases, making short-circuit failures less likely to occur (Pa [0059]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the combination with the teachings of Yamashita to provide two different particle sizes of powders in order to further increase the density of the magnetic powder in the inner circumference of the winding portion compared to the outer circumference such that the initial permeability of the inductor element increases, making short-circuit failures less likely to occur.
With respect to claims 8 and 13, Guo as applied in the combination regarding claim 7 above further teaches that a coating process used for the insulation coating comprises phosphating, acidification; the phosphating comprises: mixing and stirring the soft magnetic powder and a diluted phosphoric acid, and performing drying to obtain a phosphated soft magnetic powder; that phosphoric acid is dilute with acetone; the phosphoric acid and acetone have a mass ratio of 1:(60-70); the phosphoric acid and acetone are mixed and stirred for 1-6 min, and then stand for 5-10 min for later use; the soft magnetic powder and the diluted phosphoric acid are mixed and stirred for 30-60 min; the drying is performed at 90-110°C; and the drying is performed for 1-1.5 h (“b) Insulation coating: Surface treatment is performed by adding 0.2-1.0 wt% of phosphoric acid from water-atomized iron-silicon-chromium raw powder”, Pa [0012]; “Preferably, in step b), the phosphoric acid is diluted with acetone before being added. The weight ratio of phosphoric acid to acetone is 1:60-65. After mixing the phosphoric acid and acetone, the mixture is stirred for 1-6 minutes and then allowed to stand for 5-10 minutes after complete dilution. As a preferred option, the specific process for surface treatment in step b) is as follows: mix water-atomized iron-silicon-chromium raw powder with phosphoric acid and stir for 30 to 60 minutes. After stirring evenly, air dry in a ventilated environment for 2 to 4 hours and pass through a 40 to 60 mesh sieve. Finally, bake at 90 to 110°C for 1 to 1.5 hours.”, Pa [0015]-[0016]). In the case where claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. (See MPEP 2144.05 (I)).
With respect to claim 9, Guo as applied in the combination regarding claim 7 above further teaches that the secondary coating comprises: mixing and stirring a coating material and the soft magnetic powder after the insulation coating; the coating material is 2-10 wt% of the soft magnetic powder; the coating material comprises a phenolic resin, an epoxy resin or a silicon resin; and the coating material and the soft magnetic powder are mixed and stirred for 40-60 min (“c) Secondary coating: The water-atomized iron-silicon-chromium raw powder that has been insulated and coated is coated with a coating material to obtain a secondary coated powder. The coating amount of the coating material is 2 to 8 wt% of the weight of the water-atomized iron-silicon-chromium raw powder”, Pa [0013]; “the coating material in step c) is at least one of epoxy resin, silicone resin or liquid adhesive.”, Pa [0017]; “the specific process for the secondary coating in step c) is to mix the coating material with the water-atomized iron-silicon-chromium raw powder that has been insulated and coated, and then stir for 60 to 90 minutes.”, Pa [0020]). In the case where claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. (See MPEP 2144.05 (I)).
With respect to claim 10, Guo as applied in the combination regarding claim 7 above further teaches that the pelletizing treatment comprises: pelletizing the soft magnetic powder after the secondary coating, and drying and cooling the soft magnetic powder in sequence after the pelletizing to obtain the magnetic powder (“d) Granulation: Granulate the secondary coated powder. The powder should be dried for no less than 3 hours. After granulation, sieve out any lumps and bake at 50-70℃ for 0.8-1.2 hours. After naturally cooling to room temperature, sieve again, add the auxiliary materials and stir for 5-15 minutes. Sieve again to obtain the iron-silicon-chromium material for integrated inductors.”, Pa [0014]; “the auxiliary material in step d) is at least one of magnesium oxide, lubricating powder or release powder”, Pa [0021]; “in step d), granulation is performed using a 40-60 mesh granulator, and sieving after granulation and cooling is performed using a 30-50 mesh sieve.”, Pa [0023]), but is silent to airing. Guo further teaches air dry in a ventilated environment for 2 to 4 hours in step b) (Pa [0016]), thus one would have found it obvious to perform air dry in a ventilated environment after granulating for the purpose of drying the granulated secondary coated powder.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YUNJU KIM whose telephone number is (571)270-1146. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-4:00 EST M-Th; Flexing Fri.
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, Christina Johnson can be reached on 571-272-1176. 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.
/YUNJU KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1742
