DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
This office action is a response to the amendment filed on 7/14/2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 1 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Klesyk et al. (PGPub 2008/0036566 A1) in view of Arnold et al. (PGPub 2005/0156362 A1), and further in view of Aramaki et al. (US PAT. 8,295,786).
Klesyk et al. teach a process of making an electronic component comprising: preparing a coil (22) including a conductive material covered with an insulting layer, the coil having first and second ends (paragraph [0037]; removing the insulating layer from the first and second ends of the coil, and thereafter applying solder to the first and second of the coil (paragraph [0055]); assembling the coil onto a T-shaped core (20, 120) as shown in Figs 1 and 8 (paragraph [0043]); placing the T-shaped core with the coil assembled thereon into a mold (paragraph [0057]); putting a mixture of a composite magnetic material and a resin into the mold by an injection molding (paragraph [0058]) and pressing the mixture so that the T-shaped core and the coil are embedded in the mixture as shown in Figs. 11-15 {0057} – [0058]); and heating the mixture in the mold to a predetermined temperature (paragraph [0058]).
However, Klesyk et al. silent a pressure applied to the mixture in the mold during the pressing. Arnold et al. teach a process of making an electrical device including a process of injecting a mixture into a mold with a pressure of 5-100 psi at a temperature of about 20-40 0C to from an electrical component (Fig. 14A, paragraphs [0091]-[0093]). Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify a process of fabricating an electronic component of Klesyk et al. by a pressure applied to the mixture in the mold as taught by Arnold et al. in order to produce the desired electrical component.
In addition, Klesyk et al., modified by Arnold et al., teach all limitations as set forth above, but silent a solvent for the mixture and a viscosity of the mixture. Aramaki et al. teach a process of making an electrical component including a mixture made by a magnetic powder, a resin and a solvent to form the soft magnetic composition having a viscosity of 70, 000 cps (equivalent with 70,000 mPa.s) (col. 11, lines 20-25 and col. 19, lines 14-19) and pressed the composition (col. 19, lines 29-33) in order to produce the desired magnetic composition. Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify a process of fabricating an electronic component of Klesyk et al., modified by Arnold et al., by providing a mixture of a magnetic powder, a resin and a solvent to form the magnetic composition having a viscosity of 70, 000 cps as taught by Aramaki et al. in order to produce the desired magnetic composition.
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Klesyk et al. in view of Arnold et al. and Aramaki et al., and further in view of Saito et al. (PGPub 2010/0155648 A1).
Klesyk et al., modified by Arnold et al. and Aramaki et al., teach all limitations as set forth above, but silent the predetermined temperature with a predetermined time (claim 4) and pre-heating the mixture to a temperature (claim 5). Saito et al. teach a process of making an electrical component including a process of pre-heating the mixture to a temperature of 60 to 100° C before the heating of the mixture in the mold to the predetermined temperature (as per claim 5, paragraph, [0014]), follow by heating the mixture 100-200° C to cure the mixture (as per claim 4, paragraph [0017]). Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify a process of fabricating an electronic component of Klesyk et al., modified by Arnold et al. and Aramaki et al., by the predetermined temperature with a predetermined time and pre-heating the mixture to a temperature as taught by Saito et al. in order to achieve an adequate covering effect and exhibit a relatively high fluidity to reduce an expansion/shrinkage stress thereof to be imposed on an electronic component.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/14/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the prior art of record, Aramaki, et al., fails to disclose the claimed invention such as “flat soft magnetic powder is not suitable for high-current applications such as inductors and electronic modules for the following reasons: Having a difficulty in high-density filling because the flat shapes are prone to gaps such that it would be difficult to make the high-density molding; and Increasing in eddy currents due to the large surface area. The eddy currents are likely to occur in an inside of the flat soft magnetic powder when a large current flows therein such that defects such as short circuits and heat generation would occur”. Examiner traverses the argument. It is wonder where the argument as set forth above came from. There is no indication in Aramaki, et al. Aramaki et al. disclose the mixture made by a magnetic powder, a resin and a solvent to form the soft magnetic composition having a viscosity. Also, applicant indicated that “the solid content reaches 95 wt%. Thus, the viscosity design is completely different between the present application and Aramaki”. Examiner traverses the argument that there is no limitation that the solid content in the claimed invention should reach 95 wt%. Applicant also argues that the prior art of record, Arnold et al., fails to teach the injection pressure at that time is in a range of 5 to 100 psi. Applicant indicated that “the pressure in Arnold is applied during the injection molding whereas a pressure in the claimed invention is applied after the mixture is injected into the mold”. Examiner traverses the argument. The process as shown in Fig. 14A in Arnold et al., shows that the mixture is injected into the mold, pressed (not shown), and formed a green body (paragraphs [0092]-[0093]). One of ordinary skill in the art clearly would understand that the pressure is used both during the injecting process and then the pressing process the mixture to form the green body. Therefore, Klesyk et al., modified by Arnold et al. and Aramaki et al., teach all limitations as set forth above, and examiner maintains his rejection.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 PAUL D KIM whose telephone number is (571)272-4565. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 6:00 AM-2:00 PM.
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, Aneeta Yodichkas can be reached on 571-272-9773. 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.
/PAUL D KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3729