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 .
Claim Interpretation
Claim 1 recites the limitation “a first powder composed of an iron alloy containing Si at 975°C to 1175°C to obtain a calcined body”, and Claim 3 recites the limitation “A powder for magnetic cores that is composed of an iron alloy containing Si”. The phrase “composed of” is interpreted in the same manner as either “consisting of” or “consisting essentially of,” depending on the facts of the particular case, see MPEP 2111.03(IV). In paragraph [0019] the elements that may or may not be included in the composition, and the amounts in which they may be included are explained. Therefore, since the specified materials and those that do not materially affect the basic and novel characteristics are set forth, it will be interpreted as “consists essentially of”.
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 3 and 7 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.
The term “soft” in claim 3 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “soft” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree of softness, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim 7 recites that the dust core is “used in” an alternating magnetic field with a frequency of 1 to 3 kHz. The claim fails to provide any additional limitations with respect to the claimed dust core. While the claim lists an application that the device may be used for, the claim lists no active step or steps to be performed during the method. Therefore, claim 7 fails to properly further limit claim 6 from which it depends.
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 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP2004288983 of Hattori in view of US20060091352 of Nagaoka.
Claim 1 discloses a method for manufacturing a powder for magnetic cores that comprises an iron alloy containing silicon, a calcination step at 975°C to 1175°C, a cracking step, and a powder annealing step. Hattori discloses a dust core and method for manufacturing in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Hattori teaches a powder composed of Iron and silicon, Pg.[1]. Hattori also discloses an annealing step, Pg.[6]. Hattori does not teach a calcination process or a cracking process.
Nagaoka discloses a Ferrite magnetic material and process for producing the same, in a similar field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Nagaoka teaches a powder that may contain Si and has improved magnetic properties by adding 40% or more of the total amount of Si before the calcination step, Para.[0023]. Nagaoka also teaches a temperature range for calcination of 1000°C to 1350°C, Para.[0122], and that the residual magnetic flux density and coercive force were changed as the conditions of calcination and sintering were changed, Para.[0145]. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists, see MPEP 2144.05. Therefore, based on the calcination teachings of Nagaoka, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to calcinate the powder disclosed in Hattori in the claimed temperature range in order to obtain a calcined body with improved magnetic flux density and coercive force.
Nagaoka teaches that the obtained calcined powders were pulverized for 10 minutes, Para.[0142]. Nagaoka discloses that since the calcined body is generally in granules, it is preferable to perform dry condition pulverizing first in order to perform milling or disintegration of these, Para.[0126]. In this instance, “pulverizing” is considered equivalent to “cracking”. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to employ a pulverizing or cracking step to disintegrate the claimed calcined body to obtain the desired powder. Thus, Hattori in view of Nagaoka teaches all limitations of claim 1. Claim 2 is also rejected as it depends on claim 1.
Claim 2 further limits claim 1 by stating that the annealing step includes heating the second powder at 550°C to 850°C. Hattori discloses an annealing step in the temperature range of 500°C to 700°C, Pg.[6]. Hattori teaches that this heating process mainly removes residual stress or residual strain applied to the soft magnetic powder, and that the heating temperature at this time is preferably set in a range in which the insulating film is not destroyed according to the heat resistance of the insulating film, Pg.[6]. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists, see MPEP 2144.05. Thus, it would be obvious to anneal the powder in the claimed temperature range in order to remove residual stresses and to avoid destroying the insulation. Therefore, Hattori in view of Nagaoka teaches all limitations of claim 2.
Claims 3-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP2004288983 of Hattori in view of US20170025214 of Nishimura further in view of JP2009290024 of Murase.
Claim 3 discloses a powder for magnetic cores that is composed of an iron alloy containing Si, with an average particle diameter of 50µm to 250µm, an average crystal particle diameter of 30µm to 100µm, and an average particle hardness of 100 to 190 Hv. Hattori discloses a dust core and method for manufacturing in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Hattori teaches a powder composed of Iron and silicon, Pg.[1]. Hattori also teaches an average particle diameter of 30µm to 70µm, Pg.[6]. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists, see MPEP 2144.05. Hattori does not teach an average crystal particle diameter or an average particle hardness.
Nishimura discloses a magnetic core, coil component and magnetic core manufacturing method in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Nishimura teaches a preferred “average grain diameter”, which is synonymous with “average crystal particle diameter”, of 1µm to 100µm, Para.[0060]. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists, see MPEP 2144.05. Nishimura teaches that when the grains have such a small grain diameter, the magnetic core can be improved in strength, and is decreased in eddy current loss to be improved in magnetic core loss, Para.[0060]. Thus, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to produce a powder disclosed in Hattori, with an average crystal particle diameter in the range disclosed in Nishimura, to obtain a core with improved strength and decreased eddy current loss.
Murase discloses a method for manufacturing pressed powder magnetic cores with low hysteresis loss in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Murase teaches a molded body with a hardness of 110 to 160 Hv on average, and that when the Vickers hardness is less than 110, recrystallization necessary for crystal coarsening does not occur, and when it exceeds 160, the crystal grain size after recrystallization becomes finer, Para.[0021]. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists, see MPEP 2144.05. Murase also discloses that coarse crystal grain size is maintained to achieve low hysteresis loss, Para.[0005]. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to produce the powder disclosed in Hattori, with an average particle hardness in the range disclosed in Murase, in order to achieve the recrystallization necessary for crystal coarsening which is required to obtain a core with low hysteresis loss.
Therefore, Hattori in view of Nishimura further in view of Murase reads on all limitations of claim 3. Claims 4-7 are also rejected as they depend on claim 3.
Claim 4 further limits claim 3 by stating that the iron alloy contains 1% to 4% Si by mass. Hattori discloses a dust core and method for manufacturing in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Hattori teaches that Si is an element effective in increasing the electrical resistivity (specific resistance) of the powder particles and reducing the eddy current loss of the dust core. If the amount of Si is less than 2% by mass, the effect is small. On the other hand, if the amount of Si exceeds 5% by mass, the magnetic flux density, magnetic permeability, direct current superposition characteristics and the like of the dust core are reduced, which is not preferable, Pg.[2]. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists, see MPEP 2144.05. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add Si in the amounts disclosed in Hattori to the magnetic core powder in order to increase the electrical resistivity and reduce the eddy current loss of the dust core while minimizing the reduction of the magnetic flux density, magnetic permeability, and direct current superposition characteristics. Thus, Hattori in view of Nishimura further in view of Murase reads on all limitations of claim 4.
Claim 5 further limits claim 3 by requiring that the soft magnetic particles be coated with insulation. Hattori discloses a dust core and method for manufacturing in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Hattori teaches that magnetic cores made of melted materials such as electrical steel sheets and laminated materials have been used so far, but from the viewpoint of improving the performance and formability of magnetic cores, soft magnetic powder coated with an insulating film is pressed, Pg.[1]. Thus, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to coat the magnetic core powder with insulation in order to improve the performance and formability of the resulting core. Therefore, Hattori in view of Nishimura further in view of Murase reads on all limitations of claim 5.
Claim 6 further limits claim 3 by reciting a dust core obtained from the previously claimed powder. . Hattori discloses a dust core and method for manufacturing in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Hattori describes related art and teaches that there are many transformers (converters, transformers), inverters, electric motors (motors), generators, various actuators, etc. that use electromagnetism, especially alternating magnetic fields. The alternating magnetic field is usually generated by providing a coil around a magnetic core (soft magnetic material), and the influence of the magnetic core and the coil on the performance of the electromagnetic device is large, Pg.[1]. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the magnetic core powder to obtain a dust core. Thus, Hattori in view of Nishimura further in view of Murase reads on all limitations of claim 6. Claim 7 is also rejected as it depends on claim 6.
Claim 7 further limits claim 6 by stating that the dust core is used in an alternating magnetic field with a frequency of 1 to 3 kHz. Hattori discloses a dust core and method for manufacturing in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Hattori teaches that the dust core of the present invention can be used for various electromagnetic devices such as voltage converters, inverters, motors, actuators, transformers, induction heaters (IH), speakers and the like. In particular, it is suitable for devices used in a low and medium frequency range such as 1 to 50 kHz and 1 to 30 kHz, Pg.[6]. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists, see MPEP 2144.05. Hattori discloses that by using this dust core, various devices can be improved in performance and energy saving. In addition, various devices can be miniaturized, Pg.[6]. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the dust core obtained from the magnetic core powder in an application with an alternating magnetic field with a frequency of 1 to 3 kHz, in order to improve performance, save energy, and miniaturize the device. Thus, Hattori in view of Nishimura further in view of Murase reads on all limitations of claim 7.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACOB BENJAMIN STILES whose telephone number is (571)272-0598. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30am - 5:00pm.
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, Keith Hendricks can be reached at (571) 272-1401. 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.
/Keith D. Hendricks/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1733
/JACOB BENJAMIN STILES/Examiner, Art Unit 1733