DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-5 and 7-20 are pending, and claims 1-3, 5, 7-8, 14, and 17-20 are currently under review.
Claim 6 is cancelled.
Claims 4, 9-13, and 15-16 are withdrawn.
Claims 17-20 are newly added.
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 amendment filed 7/30/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-5 and 7-16 and newly submitted claim(s) 17-20 remain(s) pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the Claims have overcome some of the 112(b) rejections previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 6/02/2026.
Claim Objections
The status of every claim must be indicated after its claim number. See MPEP 1893.01(a)(4). The examiner notes that claims 4, 9-13, and 15-16 are not properly indicated as “withdrawn”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The term “high frequency” as claimed is interpreted to merely refer to a frequency region of 0.001 to 100 GHz as further recited in claim 1.
The term “main phase” is interpreted to refer to any phase of the magnetic material that includes R, Fe, M, and N and is also at least one of tretragonal, rhombohedral, hexagonal, or amorphous as expressly defined in [p.22 instant specification].
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 1-3, 5, 7-8, 14, 18-20 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 1 recites that the main phase is amorphous, which is indefinite because it is unclear whether the claim requires merely at least some degree of amorphous phases in said main phase, or some particular quantitative ratio of amorphous phases, or an entirely amorphous phase. The examiner interprets the claim to be met by any of the aforementioned interpretations.
The examiner notes that claim 17 further recites some degree of amorphous phase (ie. “homogeneous” in claim 17) which is sufficiently definite.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 7-8, 14, 18, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Imaoka et al. (US 2010/0068512).
Regarding claim 1, Imaoka et al. discloses a magnetic material having a main phase having a composition represented by compositional formula RxFe(100-x-y)Ny, wherein x ranges from 3 to 30 atomic percent, y ranges from 1 to 30 atomic percent, and up to 50 atomic percent of the Fe can be replaced by Ti, V, Mo, etc. [0035-0037]. The examiner notes that the overlap between the ranges of Imaoka et al. and that as claimed are prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2144.05(I). Imaoka et al. further teaches that the magnetic material can further include amorphous phases, which meets the aforementioned claim interpretation of a main phase that further includes at least some amorphous portions (ie. sub-phases) as taught by Imaoka et al. [0103]. Imaoka et al. further teaches utilizing the magnetic material in a frequency range of 0.005 to 33 GHz, which meets the claimed range and limitation of “high frequency” [0042].
Regarding claim 2, Imaoka et al. discloses the material of claim 1 (see previous). Imaoka et al. further teaches that up to 50 atomic percent of Fe can be replaced with Co or Ni [0037].
Regarding claim 3, Imaoka et al. discloses the material of claim 1 (see previous). Imaoka et al. further teaches that the rare earth component can include up to 50 atomic percent of Sm [0049].
Regarding claim 5, Imaoka et al. discloses the material of claim 1 (see previous). Imaoka et al. further teaches that the magnetic material has an in-plane magnetic anisotropy [0040].
Regarding claim 7, Imaoka et al. discloses the material of claim 1 (see previous). Imaoka et al. further teaches that up to 50 atomic percent of N can be replaced with H, C, P, Si, and S [0038].
Regarding claim 8, Imaoka et al. discloses the material of claim 1 (see previous). Imaoka et al. further teaches that the magnetic material is a magnetic powder having a size of 0.1 to 2000 micrometers [0123].
Regarding claim 14, Imaoka et al. discloses the material of claim 1 (see previous). Imaoka et al. further teaches that the magnetic material is magnetically oriented [0050].
Regarding claim 18, Imaoka et al. discloses the material of claim 1 (see previous). Imaoka et al. further teaches that the main phase makes up at least 75 percent of the material [0103].
Regarding claim 20, Imaoka et al. discloses the material of claim 1 (see previous). Imaoka et al. further teaches a resistivity of 200 to 8000 micro-ohm-cm [0143].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 17 and 19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claims 17 and 19 are directed to the magnetic material of claim 1, wherein the main phase is a homogenous amorphous phase and the magnetic material is magnetically isotropic. There is no prior art of record that teaches these features together.
The closest prior art of record is Imaoka et al. as relied upon in the above 103 rejections. However, Imaoka et al. does not teach or suggest the aforementioned claim features.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/30/2026 regarding the 112b rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that claim 6 has been cancelled and overcomes the previous 112b rejection. However, the features of claim 6 are now incorporated into amended claim 1, and claim 1 is indefinite for the same reasons as previously presented. Specifically, it is unclear whether the main phase must be entirely amorphous or whether the main phase merely needs to include at least some degree of amorphous portions to be considered “amorphous”. Applicant’s remarks do not further explain or rebut the examiner’s previous interpretation, such that the 112b rejections still stand insomuch as they pertain to amended claim 1.
Applicant's arguments filed 7/30/2026 regarding the 103 rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Imaoka et al. does not teach an amorphous phase as claimed. The examiner cannot concur. As interpreted above, the instant claim can be met by a main phase which merely includes some degree of amorphous portions according to broadest reasonable interpretation, which is met by the disclosure of Imaoka et al.
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 NICHOLAS A WANG whose telephone number is (408)918-7576. The examiner can normally be reached usually M-Th: 7-5.
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 5712721177. 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.
/NICHOLAS A WANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1734
Prosecution Insights