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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 4/3/23 has been considered by the examiner.
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 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.
Language from the reference(s) is shown in quotations. Limitations from the claims are shown in quotations within parentheses. Examiner explanations are shown in italics.
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.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oshima et al. (JP 2020031140 A), as machine translated with spot translation of table headers.
Regarding claim 1, Oshima teaches “a dust core and a method of manufacturing the dust core” (which reads upon “a dust core”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0001]). Oshima teaches “mixing an inorganic insulating powder with a soft magnetic powder to attach the inorganic insulating powder” (which reads upon “comprising magnetic powder particles”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0016]). Oshima teaches “mixing a silicone resin with the soft magnetic powder on which the silicone oligomer layer is formed to form a silicone resin layer” (which reads upon “that are bound together through a binder layer”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0016]). Oshima teaches that “the initial magnetic permeability μ0 is 20 or more, and when the magnetic permeability at 21 kA / m is μ, μ / μ0 is 0.65 or more” (which reads upon “wherein when a magnetic permeability in a state where a magnetic flux density generated by a direct current is 0T is represented by μB=0T and a magnetic permeability in a state where the magnetic flux density generated by a direct current is 0.5T is represented by μB=0.5T, a value expressed by μB=0.5T/μB=0T is 0.65 or higher”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0042]). The initial magnetic permeability μ0, reads on μB=0T. Oshima teaches the magnetic permeability at 21 kA / m is μ, which reads on a magnetic permeability in a state where the magnetic flux density generated by a direct current. Oshima does not teach that the magnetic flux density generated by a direct current is 0.5T, rather that the current used to generate the magnetic flux density is 21kA. Since the Office does not have a laboratory to test the reference alloy, it is applicant’s burden to show that the reference dust core does not possess the properties as claimed in the instant claims. See In re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977); In re Marosi, 218 USPQ 289, 292-293 (Fed. Cir. 1983); In re Fitzgerald et al., 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980).
Additionally, or alternatively, Oshima discloses the claimed invention except for that μB=0.5T/μB=0T is 0.65 or higher. It should be noted that magnetic permeability is a result effective variable. Oshima teaches that “with the silicone oligomer layer and the silicone resin layer, these layers can be prevented from being destroyed or lost by thermal decomposition in the heat treatment step, a gap between the Fe-Si alloy powders can be secured, and the magnetic permeability can be reduced” (paragraph [0043]). Oshima teaches that “on the other hand, when the silicone oligomer and the silicone resin are added in the above-described amounts, the magnetic permeability can be reduced, but the loss may increase” (paragraph [0044]). Oshima teaches that “even in such a case, loss can be reduced by setting the Si content of the Fe-Si alloy powder to 3.5 wt% to 6.5 wt% with respect to the Fe-Si alloy powder and that with the soft magnetic material of the present embodiment, a dust core having low magnetic permeability and low loss can be obtained” (paragraph [0044]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to create a duct core with the claimed ratio of magnetic permeabilities since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). In the present invention, one would have been motivated to optimize the balance between low magnetic permeability and low iron loss.
Regarding claim 2, modified Oshima teaches the dust core of claim 1 as stated above. Oshima teaches that “the permeability change rate μ / μ0 is 0.71 to 0.77” (paragraph [0058]; 0.77 rounds to 0.8 as claimed).
Regarding claim 3, modified Oshima teaches the dust core of claim 1 as stated above. Oshima teaches that the total additives to Example 4 are 8.42 wt % (paragraph [0052] and Table 1; accordingly, the Fe-Si alloy powder was 91.58 wt %).
Regarding claims 4-5, modified Oshima teaches the dust core of claim 1 as stated above. Oshima teaches that “the iron loss Pcv of Examples 1 to 16 is 106 to 127, which is low loss” (paragraph [0058]). Oshima evaluates Pcv at 10KHz and 100 mT, rather than 1 MHz and 50 mT, as claimed. Since the Office does not have a laboratory to test the reference alloy, it is applicant’s burden to show that the reference dust core does not possess the properties as claimed in the instant claims. See In re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977); In re Marosi, 218 USPQ 289, 292-293 (Fed. Cir. 1983); In re Fitzgerald et al., 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980).
Claims 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oshima et al. (JP 2020031140 A), as machine translated, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nakamura (US 20210280347 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Oshima teaches the dust core of claim 1 as stated above.
Oshima is silent regarding wherein the magnetic powder is metal glass powder or nanocrystalline powder.
Nakamura is similarly concerned with a powder magnetic core (paragraph [0002]). Nakamura teaches that “an insulating material coated soft magnetic particle 1 according to the present embodiment includes a core particle 2 including a base portion 2 a and an oxide film 2 b, and an insulating film 3 b” (paragraph [0025]). Nakamura teaches that “a crystallinity of the soft magnetic material is not particularly limited, and may be crystalline, amorphous, or microcrystalline (nanocrystalline)” (which reads upon “wherein the magnetic powder is metal glass powder or nanocrystalline powder”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0036]). Nakamura teaches that “there has been a demand for an insulating material coated soft magnetic powder that is more excellent in moldability and has improved magnetic properties than those in the related art” (paragraph [0006]). Nakamura teaches that “in the powder magnetic core produced from the insulating material coated soft magnetic powder, the eddy current loss is reduced and the magnetic properties such as a magnetic permeability and a magnetic flux density are improved” (paragraph [0031]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the dust core of Oshima to use nanocrystalline soft magnetic material, as taught by Nakamura such that the eddy current loss is reduced and the magnetic properties such as a magnetic permeability and a magnetic flux density are improved. Additionally, the selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960), Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945), and MPEP § 2144.07.
Regarding claims 7-9, Oshima teaches the dust core of claim 1 as stated above. Oshima teaches that “a predetermined amount of silicone resin is added to the soft magnetic powder” (which reads upon “wherein the binder layer contains a resin material”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0035]). Oshima teaches that “as the silicone resin, a methyl resin, a methylphenyl resin, a propylphenyl resin, an epoxy resin modified resin, an alkyd resin modified resin, a polyester resin modified resin, a rubber resin, or the like can be used” (paragraph [0036]).
Oshima is silent regarding wherein the binder layer contains a low-melting-point glass.
Nakamura is similarly concerned with a powder magnetic core (paragraph [0002]). Nakamura teaches that “an insulating material coated soft magnetic particle 1 according to the present embodiment includes a core particle 2 including a base portion 2 a and an oxide film 2 b, and an insulating film 3 b” (paragraph [0025]). Nakamura teaches that “When the nanoparticles 3 a contain an oxide, the oxide film 2 b preferably contains a glass forming component or a glass stabilizing component” (paragraph [0041]). Nakamura teaches that “an interaction such as vitrification occurs between the glass forming component or the glass stabilizing component and the nanoparticles 3 a, and the oxide film 2 b and the nanoparticles 3 a strongly adhere to each other” (which reads upon “wherein the binder layer contains a low-melting-point glass”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0041]). Nakamura teaches that “components contained in such glass particles include Bi2O3, B2O3, SiO2, Al2O3, ZnO, SnO, P2O5, PbO, Li2O, Na2O, K2O, MgO, CaO, SrO, BaO, Gd2O3, Y2O3, La2O3 and Yb2O3, and one or more of the components are adopted” (which reads upon “wherein the low-melting-point glass is a phosphate-based glass or a tin phosphate-based glass”, as recited in instant claim 8; paragraph [0072]). Nakamura teaches that “the binding material used in the powder magnetic core 11 include organic materials such as silicone-based resins, epoxy-based resins, phenol-based resins, polyamide-based resins, polyimide-based resins, and polyphenylene sulfide-based resins, and inorganic materials such as phosphates such as magnesium phosphate, calcium phosphate, zinc phosphate, manganese phosphate, and cadmium phosphate, and silicates such as sodium silicate (water glass)” (which reads upon instant claim 9; paragraph [0204]). Nakamura teaches that “there has been a demand for an insulating material coated soft magnetic powder that is more excellent in moldability and has improved magnetic properties than those in the related art” (paragraph [0006]). Nakamura teaches that “in the powder magnetic core produced from the insulating material coated soft magnetic powder, the eddy current loss is reduced and the magnetic properties such as a magnetic permeability and a magnetic flux density are improved” (paragraph [0031]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the dust core of Oshima to use a glass material in addition to the resin material as a binder, as taught by Nakamura such that the particles strongly adhere to each other. Additionally, the selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960), Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945), and MPEP § 2144.07.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oshima et al. (JP 2020031140 A), as machine translated, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nobe et al. (US 20220177694 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Oshima teaches the dust core of claim 1 as stated above.
Oshima is silent regarding an inductor comprising the dust core according to Claim 1 and a coil.
Nobe is similarly concerned with a resin composition for forming a magnetic member and a method for manufacturing a magnetic member (paragraph [0001]). Nobe teaches that “since molding can be performed under relatively low pressure and low temperature conditions by using transfer molding, in a magnetic member formed by using a resin composition for forming a magnetic member including iron-based amorphous particles, magnetic characteristics such as iron loss and relative magnetic permeability can be improved” (paragraph [0023]). Nobe teaches that “the resin composition according to the present embodiment includes magnetic particles” (which reads upon “magnetic powder particles that are bound together through a binder layer”, as recited in instant claim 1; paragraph [0198]). Nobe teaches that “a magnetic member can be obtained by injecting a molten product of the above-described resin composition into a mold using a transfer molding apparatus, and curing the molten product” (paragraph [0289]). Nobe teaches that “the molded product is preferably used as a magnetic core of a coil (also called a reactor or an inductor depending on the application or purpose)” (which reads upon “an inductor comprising the dust core according to Claim 1 and a coil”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0289]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the dust core of Oshima to produce an inductor, as taught by Nobe to integrate the core into a further product.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to REBECCA JANSSEN whose telephone number is (571)272-5434. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Thurs 10-7 and alternating Fri 10-6.
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. The Examiner requests that interviews not be scheduled during the last week of each fiscal quarter or the last half of September, which is the end of the fiscal year. Q2: 3/30-4/3/26; Q3: 6/22-6/26/26; Q4: 9/21-9/30/26.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Keith Hendricks can be reached on (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 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.
/REBECCA JANSSEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1733