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 .
DETAILED ACTION
All the references cited in the International Search Report have been considered. None is anticipatory or meet the amended claims.
It is duly notified an ODP rejection has been applied in copending 18/278785 over this application.
Election/Restrictions
The applicant has elected Group III (claims 3 and 7-10) with traverse, but no argument has been submitted. Applicant’s election in the reply is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.03(a)).
The examiner withdraws the restriction requirement of claims 1-2 and 4.
This restriction is made FINAL. See previous action for the reasons of applying restriction.
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 of this title, 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 and 7 is (are) rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Takashima et al. (US 2017/004066) in view of Fukuo et al. (JP 2008-207988, machine translation provided).
As to claims 1-3 and 7, Takashima (abs., claims, examples, 2, 41-45, Fig.1) discloses a magnetic composite for producing mobile device comprising a metal-based substrate 110 (42) and a ferrite layer 130 provided on a surface of the base material, and the ferrite layer has a thickness (DF) of 100-200 µm or more (44). The thickness of the metal substrate (DR) being > 100-200 µm of the ferrite layer 130, as shown in Fig. 1:
PNG
media_image1.png
200
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Takashima is silent on the claimed ratio of I222/I311 of the claimed spinel type ferrite.
In the same area of endeavor of producing mobile device comprising ferrite, Fukuo (abs., examples, 6-7) teaches that controlling a ferrite to possess a ratio of I222/I311 to be 0.011 or less results to obtain reduced electric power loss even at high frequencies. The ferrite a-Fe2O3/MO (M=Ni, Cu, Mg, and/or Mn) meets the general formulation of spinel type of ferrite ( AB2X4). The disclosed mol% of each component would be expected to yield a wt% of a-Fe2O3 overlapping with the claimed range of instant claim 2. It has been found that where claimed ranges overlap ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists - see MPEP 2144.05.
Therefore, as to 1-3 and 7 is, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the magnetic composite disclosed by Takashima and replaced ferrite with the one in view of Fukuo, because the resultant magnetic composite would yield device performance improvement because of the ferrite having reduced electric power loss even at high frequencies.
Claim(s) 4 and 8-10 is (are) rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Takashima et al. (US 2017/004066) in view of Fukuo et al. (JP 2008-207988, machine translation provided) further in view of Ikeda et al. (WO2015141571, incorporating JP H11-1766) listed on IDS.
Disclosure of Takashima and Fukuo is adequately set forth in ¶1 and is incorporated herein by reference.
They are silent on the claimed ratio of Ra/DF.
In the same area of endeavor of producing ferrite coating, Ikeda (abs., 1-8, incorporating JP H11-1766) teaches a technique suppressing nodulle formation and particle generation by adjusting the surface roughness of sputtering targets to Ra≦1.0 μm to prevent damage such as chipping or snagging of the exposed non-magnetic phase during finishing (machining) processing, which can lead to careless detachment during sputtering or abnormal discharge, increasing the generation of particles (debris attached to the substrate),
Therefore, as to 4 and 8-10, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the magnetic composite disclosed by Takashima and Fukuo and utilized the aforenoted technique of Ikeda, because the resultant magnetic composite would yield device performance improvement by suppressing nodulle formation and particle generation to prevent damage. The resultant Ra/DF (100-200 µm, Takashima) would be expected to meet the claimed ranges of instant claims 4 and 8-10.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHANE FANG whose telephone number is (571)270-7378. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Thurs. 8am-6pm. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Randy Gulakowski can be reached on 571.572.1302. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SHANE FANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1766
Prosecution Insights