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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 5/13/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim Objections
Claims 4, 6 and 9 are objected to because of the following informalities: in claim 4, penultimate line, “90-110°C” should read --“90-110 °C--; in claim 6, line 9, “50-70°C” should read --50-70 °C--; in claim 9, line 5, “90-180°C” should read --90-180 °C--; in claim 9, penultimate line, “650-850°C” should read --650-850 °C--; in claim 9, “Mpa/cm2” (line 3) and “MPa/cm2” (line 4) should both read --MPa/cm2--. 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.
Claims 4-9 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.
Regarding claims 4-9, the phrase “preferably” (multiple instances) renders the claims indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 9 recites the broad recitation “greater than or equal to 800 Mpa/cm2”, and the claim also recites “2000 MPa/cm2” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Regarding claim 6, it is unclear what is meant by “basking”, in the context of the application. The examiner believes this may be a mistranslation, and requests clarification of the meaning of the term. For purposes of applying prior art, this term is deemed to be met by a drying step.
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(s) 1-3, 5, 6 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamashita (JP201490158A) in view of Sato (JP2010123864A).
Yamashita discloses the claimed invention as follows (limitations not disclosed by Yamashita are crossed out, below):
Claim 1. A preparation method of an integrated co-fired inductor, comprising:
filling magnetic powder (4Aa and 4Bb, Fig. 6A) into a mold cavity (20, Fig. 6A) in batches, wherein adjacent two layers (4Aa and 4Bb, Fig. 6A) of magnetic powder are of different types (see [0053]),
embedding at least one wire (6, Fig. 6A) into one layer of magnetic powder,
extending two ends (6a and 6b) of the wire out of the mold cavity,
sequentially performing compression molding (see [0054]-[0056]) and heat treatment (see “the subsequent steps are the same as in the first embodiment” in [0056] and “heat-treated to cure the binder resin” in [0046]) to obtain a magnetic core (see Fig. 6E), and
bending (see “the subsequent steps are the same as in the first embodiment” in [0056]; see [0046] and Fig. 2)
Claim 2. The preparation method according to claim 1, wherein the magnetic powder is prepared by sequentially performing insulation coating (silane coupling agent dissolved in water is mixed with magnetic powder, and heated to form an insulating film; see [0075]), secondary coating (epoxy resin diluted in acetone added to magnetic powder; see [0075]) and pelletizing treatment (passing through mesh and dried at room temperature; see [0075]) on soft magnetic powder (see “Fe-Si-Cr” in [0075] and [0076]; see various soft magnetic materials in [0027]) to obtain the magnetic powder.
Claim 3. The preparation method according to claim 2, wherein the soft magnetic powder comprises FeSiCr, FeSi, FeNi, FeSiAl, carbonyl iron powder, 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. See [0075] and [0076].
Claim 5. The preparation method according to claim 2, wherein the secondary coating comprises: mixing and stirring a coating material and the soft magnetic powder obtained after insulation coating. The “epoxy resin diluted in acetone was added relative to the weight of the magnetic powder and stirred” to create a mixture. See [0075] and [0076].
Claim 6. The preparation method according to claim 2, wherein the pelletizing treatment comprises: pelletizing the soft magnetic powder obtained after the secondary coating (see [0075] and [0076]), and basking (see rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b)), drying (see [0075] and [0076])
Claim 9. The preparation method according to claim 1, wherein the compression molding is performed by hot pressing or cold pressing. As evident from [0054]-[0056] and [0066], the compression molding is not performed while heating. Therefore, the compression molding is cold pressing. Moreover, both possibilities are being claimed (both hot and cold), i.e., the claim limitations are met since Yamashita discloses compression molding.
Yamashita does not disclose tinning the wire ends. However, such a procedure is conventional. Sato, for example, teaches tin-plating the wire portions 3c extending from the magnetic core of an inductor, to prevent oxidation (see [0020] and Fig. 1) of Sato.
The material for the wire in both Yamashita and Sato can be copper ([0026] in Yamashita; [0018]). In order to prevent oxidation of the copper wire end portions exposed outside of the magnetic core of Yamashita, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to apply a tin plating to the wire ends.
Regarding claim 6, as discussed in the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), the term “basking” is interpreted as being related to drying and is deemed to be met by a teaching of drying. Yamashita discloses the mixture is passed through a mesh and dried at room temperature for 24 hours (see [0075] and [0076]). However, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to perform heating at a higher temperature, to shorten the drying time, followed by a cooling step to bring the product back to room temperature for further handling. It is deemed obvious and predictable that increasing temperature reduces drying time.
Claims 4, 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamashita in view of Sato, further in view of Shimomura (US2010/0253463A1).
Yamashita in view of Sato renders obvious the claimed invention, except for a coating process used for the insulation coating comprises phosphating, acidifying, oxidizing or nitriding as claimed in claim 4, the first magnetic powder, second magnetic powder and the first magnetic powder being sequentially filled into the mold cavity in three batches as claimed in claim 7, and the wire being a bare wire as claimed in claim 8.
Shimomura discloses a method of manufacturing an inductor (refer to Figs. 1-5C), wherein a bare copper wire 11 (see [0069]) is put into a mold 19 and magnetic powder 14 is pressure-molded. See [0070]-[0072]. The magnetic powder comprises metallic magnetic powder with an oxide layer formed thereon by oxidation (see [0061]).
Regarding claim 4, Yamashita discloses the insulating coating can be resin coatings or metal oxide coatings (see [0039]. Moreover, the metallic magnetic materials are some of the same listed by Yamashita (e.g. FeSiAl and FeNi; see [0060] and [0061] in Shimomura; see [0027] in Yamashita). Therefore, in view of the teachings of Shimomura, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to utilize an oxide coating as the insulating coating of modified Yamashita, as a choice between the two disclosed options, and to form an oxide coating by oxidation (e.g. heat treatment) since Shimomura shows this to be a conventional process of obtaining an oxide coating on the metallic magnetic powder particles.
Regarding claim 7, Shimomura also discloses an embodiment in which there are multiple layers of magnetic material (33, 34; see Fig. 8B) of different properties (e.g. different density; see [0091] and [0092]) forming the magnetic core, the layers being disposed mirror-symmetrically with respect to the coiled conductor 11. In view of the teachings of Shimomura, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to add an additional layer of magnetic powder 4Aa above the layer of powder 4Bb of modified Yamashita, and to utilize a mold having a punch 18 at both the top and the bottom, such that the resulting core has symmetrical magnetic properties.
Regarding claim 8, Shimomura provides coiled conductor 11 as a single layer, with no insulation, thereby avoiding the prior art problem of a short-circuit between parts of the coil during compression-molding (see [0073]). Since Yamashita does not require a specific coil geometry, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to utilize the technique of modified Yamashita to form an inductor in which the wire is a single layer, and to use an uninsulated conductor for the wire, as taught by Shimomura, with predictable results.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: US20070285911A1 discloses tin-plating wire ends 51a of the coil (see [0036]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LIVIUS R CAZAN whose telephone number is (571)272-8032. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday noon-8:30 pm ET.
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, Thomas Hong can be reached at 571-272-0993. 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.
/LIVIUS R. CAZAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3729
Prosecution Insights