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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species I in the reply filed on 04/27/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 4, 6-20, and 25-29 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Species II-VIII, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 04/27/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 21-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shinohara et al. [U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0180909].
Regarding Claim 1, Shinohara et al. shows a composite inductor (Figs. 1-6), comprising:
a coil structure (3) having a through hole (see Figs. 2-3, element 3 have a through hole); and
a magnetic packaging structure (2) containing at least a first magnetic body (7) and a second magnetic body (6); wherein the coil structure (3) is embedded in the magnetic packaging structure (see Figs. 1-6, Paragraph [0019]), and based on a total thickness of the magnetic packaging structure being 100% (see Figs. 1-6, Paragraphs [0065]-[0068]), a thickness of each of the first magnetic body (7) and the second magnetic body (6) is greater than or equal to 16% (see Figs. 1-6, Paragraphs [0065]-[0068], in one example, element 7 can be more than about 1.0 times and less than 1.2 times of element 6, therefore if element 6 is 250 μm then element 7 can be 300 μm so that the total thickness is 550 μm and a thickness of each of element 6 and element 7 is greater than or equal to 16%).
Regarding Claim 2, Shinohara et al. shows a relative magnetic permeability of the second magnetic body (6) is higher than a relative magnetic permeability of the first magnetic body (7, Paragraph [0021]).
Regarding Claim 3, Shinohara et al. shows the first magnetic body (7) is used as a magnetic substrate (see Figs. 1-6, element 7 is used as a magnetic substrate), and the second magnetic body (6) is disposed on the first magnetic body (see Figs. 1-6).
Regarding Claim 21, Shinohara et al. shows the total thickness of the magnetic packaging structure (2) is higher than or equal to 0.1 mm (see Figs. 1-6, Paragraphs [0065]-[0068], in one example, element 7 can be more than about 1.0 times and less than 1.2 times of element 6, therefore if element 6 is 250 μm then element 7 can be 300 μm so that the total thickness is 550 μm and a thickness of element 2 is higher than or equal to 0.1 mm).
Regarding Claim 22, Shinohara et al. shows the magnetic packaging structure (2) is integrally formed (see Figs. 1-6, elements 6, 7 are integrally formed resulting in element 2) by compression molding (this is a method step).
In accordance to MPEP 2113, the method of forming the device is not germane to the issue of patentability of the device itself. Therefore, this limitation has not been given patentable weight. Please note that even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product, i.e. the magnetic packaging structure is integrally formed, does not depend on its method of production, i.e. compression molding. In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Federal Circuit 1985).
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.
Claim(s) 5 and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shinohara et al. in view of Liao et al. [U.S. Pub. No. 2009/0231077].
Regarding Claim 5, Shinohara et al. shows the claimed invention as applied above but does not show the relative magnetic permeability of the first magnetic body ranges from 20 to less than 25, and the relative magnetic permeability of the second magnetic body ranges from 25 to less than 30.
Liao et al. shows an inductor (Fig. 3A or Figs. 5E-5F) teaching and suggesting the relative magnetic permeability of the first magnetic body (321) ranges from 20 to less than 25 (Paragraph [0035]), and the relative magnetic permeability of the second magnetic body (322) ranges from 25 to less than 30 (Paragraph [0035]).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have the relative magnetic permeability of the first magnetic body ranges from 20 to less than 25, and the relative magnetic permeability of the second magnetic body ranges from 25 to less than 30 as taught by Liao et al. for the inductor as disclosed by Shinohara et al. to achieve an increase inductance and lower cost (Table 2, Paragraph [0035]).
Regarding Claim 23, Shinohara et al. shows the claimed invention as applied above.
In addition, Liao et al. shows a material used for forming the first magnetic body (321) includes a magnetic powder (Paragraph [0030], Table 1) and a binder material (Paragraph [0030], Table 1, resin), the magnetic powder includes one of iron (Table 1, Paragraph [0035]), iron-nickel alloys, iron-cobalt alloys, iron-silicon alloys, iron-vanadium alloys, iron-silicon-chromium alloys, iron-silicon-aluminum alloys, iron-cobalt-vanadium alloys, iron-based amorphous alloys, iron-based nanocrystalline alloys, nickel-zinc ferrite, nickel-copper-zinc ferrite, and manganese-zinc ferrite, and a median diameter of the magnetic powder ranges from 4 μm to 5 μm (Table 1, Paragraph [0035]).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have a median diameter of the magnetic powder ranges from 4 μm to 5 μm as taught by Liao et al. for the inductor as disclosed by Shinohara et al. to achieve an increase inductance and lower cost (Table 2, Paragraph [0035]).
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shinohara et al. in view of Shinohara et al. [U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0308629] (hereinafter as “Shinohara ‘629”).
Regarding Claim 22, Shinohara et al. shows the claimed invention as applied above.
In addition, Shinohara ‘629 shows an inductor (Figs. 1-3) disclosing the magnetic packaging structure (2) is integrally formed by compression molding (Paragraph [0025]).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have the magnetic packaging structure is integrally formed by compression molding as taught by Shinohara ‘629 for the inductor as disclosed by Shinohara et al. to achieve the product of the magnetic packaging structure with desirable magnetic characteristics and inductance values (Paragraph [0025]).
Claim(s) 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shinohara et al.
Regarding Claim 23, Shinohara et al. shows a material used for forming the first magnetic body (7) includes a magnetic powder (Paragraph [0037]) and a binder material (Paragraph [0037], resin), the magnetic powder includes one of iron (Paragraphs [0043]-[0044]), iron-nickel alloys, iron-cobalt alloys, iron-silicon alloys, iron-vanadium alloys, iron-silicon-chromium alloys (Paragraphs [0043]-[0044]), iron-silicon-aluminum alloys, iron-cobalt-vanadium alloys, iron-based amorphous alloys, iron-based nanocrystalline alloys, nickel-zinc ferrite, nickel-copper-zinc ferrite, and manganese-zinc ferrite, and a median diameter of the magnetic powder ranges from 4 μm to 5 μm (Paragraph [0045]).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have a median diameter of the magnetic powder ranges from 4 μm to 5 μm, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art to achieve easier handling and desirable relative magnetic permeability (Paragraph [0045]). In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claim(s) 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shinohara et al. in view of Matsui et al. [U.S. Pub. No. 2022/0328241].
Regarding Claim 24, Shinohara et al. shows a material used for forming the second magnetic body (6) includes a magnetic powder (Paragraph [0024]) and a binder material (Paragraph [0024], resin), the magnetic powder includes at least two of iron (Paragraph [0027]), iron-nickel alloys, iron-cobalt alloys, iron-silicon alloys, iron-vanadium alloys, iron-silicon-chromium alloys (Paragraph [0027]), iron-silicon-aluminum alloys, iron-cobalt-vanadium alloys, iron-based amorphous alloys, iron-based nanocrystalline alloys, nickel-zinc ferrite, nickel-copper-zinc ferrite, and manganese-zinc ferrite, the magnetic powder includes a first magnetic powder (second metal magnetic particles) that has a median diameter ranging from 1 μm to 2 μm (second metal magnetic particles, Paragraph [0027]) and a second magnetic powder (first metal magnetic particles) that has a median diameter ranging from 14 μm to 16 μm (first metal magnetic particles, Paragraph [0027]).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have a first magnetic powder that has a median diameter ranging from 1 μm to 2 μm and a second magnetic powder that has a median diameter ranging from 14 μm to 16 μm, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art to achieve easier handling, increase filling ratio and improve magnetic characteristics (Paragraph [0027]). In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Shinohara et al. does not explicitly disclose having a weight ratio of the first magnetic powder to the second magnetic powder ranges from 10:90 to 30:70.
Matsui et al. shows a coil component (Fig. 3) teaching and suggesting a weight ratio of the first magnetic powder (41) to the second magnetic powder (31) ranges from 10:90 to 30:70 (a weight ratio of element 31 to element 41 is 60:40 to 80:20, therefore a weight ratio of element 41 to element 31 is 20:80 to 40:60, Paragraph [0052]).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have a weight ratio of the first magnetic powder to the second magnetic powder ranges from 10:90 to 30:70 as taught by Matsui et al. for the inductor as disclosed by Shinohara et al. to increase magnetic permeability as desired (Paragraph [0052]).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have a weight ratio of the first magnetic powder to the second magnetic powder ranges from 10:90 to 30:70, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art to increase magnetic permeability as desired. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claim(s) 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shinohara et al. in view of Lin et al. [U.S. Pub. No. 2016/0086715].
Regarding Claim 24, Shinohara et al. shows a material used for forming the second magnetic body (6) includes a magnetic powder (Paragraph [0024]) and a binder material (Paragraph [0024], resin), the magnetic powder includes at least two of iron (Paragraph [0027]), iron-nickel alloys, iron-cobalt alloys, iron-silicon alloys, iron-vanadium alloys, iron-silicon-chromium alloys (Paragraph [0027]), iron-silicon-aluminum alloys, iron-cobalt-vanadium alloys, iron-based amorphous alloys, iron-based nanocrystalline alloys, nickel-zinc ferrite, nickel-copper-zinc ferrite, and manganese-zinc ferrite, the magnetic powder includes a first magnetic powder (second metal magnetic particles) that has a median diameter ranging from 1 μm to 2 μm (second metal magnetic particles, Paragraph [0027]) and a second magnetic powder (first metal magnetic particles) that has a median diameter ranging from 14 μm to 16 μm (first metal magnetic particles, Paragraph [0027]).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have a first magnetic powder that has a median diameter ranging from 1 μm to 2 μm and a second magnetic powder that has a median diameter ranging from 14 μm to 16 μm, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art to achieve easier handling, increase filling ratio and improve magnetic characteristics (Paragraph [0027]). In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Shinohara et al. does not explicitly disclose having a weight ratio of the first magnetic powder to the second magnetic powder ranges from 10:90 to 30:70.
Lin et al. shows a coil component (Fig. 3) teaching and suggesting a weight ratio of the first magnetic powder (20) to the second magnetic powder (10) ranges from 10:90 to 30:70 (a weight ratio of element 10 to element 20 is 9:1 to 7:3, therefore a weight ratio of element 20 to element 10 is 1:9 to 3:7 which is equivalent to 10:90 to 30:70, Paragraph [0045], Table 2, Table 3).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have a weight ratio of the first magnetic powder to the second magnetic powder ranges from 10:90 to 30:70 as taught by Lin et al. for the inductor as disclosed by Shinohara et al. to achieve higher permeability, lower power consumption, and lower core loss; and higher bulk density (Paragraphs [0033], [0057]).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have a weight ratio of the first magnetic powder to the second magnetic powder ranges from 10:90 to 30:70, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art to achieve higher permeability, lower power consumption, and lower core loss; and higher bulk density. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claim(s) 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shinohara et al. in view of Liao et al. [U.S. Pub. No. 2010/0289609] (hereinafter as “Liao ‘609”).
Regarding Claim 24, Shinohara et al. shows a material used for forming the second magnetic body (6) includes a magnetic powder (Paragraph [0024]) and a binder material (Paragraph [0024], resin), the magnetic powder includes at least two of iron (Paragraph [0027]), iron-nickel alloys, iron-cobalt alloys, iron-silicon alloys, iron-vanadium alloys, iron-silicon-chromium alloys (Paragraph [0027]), iron-silicon-aluminum alloys, iron-cobalt-vanadium alloys, iron-based amorphous alloys, iron-based nanocrystalline alloys, nickel-zinc ferrite, nickel-copper-zinc ferrite, and manganese-zinc ferrite, the magnetic powder includes a first magnetic powder (second metal magnetic particles) that has a median diameter ranging from 1 μm to 2 μm (second metal magnetic particles, Paragraph [0027]) and a second magnetic powder (first metal magnetic particles) that has a median diameter ranging from 14 μm to 16 μm (first metal magnetic particles, Paragraph [0027]).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have a first magnetic powder that has a median diameter ranging from 1 μm to 2 μm and a second magnetic powder that has a median diameter ranging from 14 μm to 16 μm, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art to achieve easier handling, increase filling ratio and improve magnetic characteristics (Paragraph [0027]). In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Shinohara et al. does not explicitly disclose having a weight ratio of the first magnetic powder to the second magnetic powder ranges from 10:90 to 30:70.
Liao ‘609 shows a coil component (Fig. 1) teaching and suggesting a weight ratio of the first magnetic powder (114) to the second magnetic powder (112) ranges from 10:90 to 30:70 (element 114 is 80wt% to 20wt% and element 112 is 20wt% to 80wt%, therefore a weight ratio of element 114 to element 112 is 80:20 to 20:80, Paragraph [0049]).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have a weight ratio of the first magnetic powder to the second magnetic powder ranges from 10:90 to 30:70 as taught by Liao ‘609 for the inductor as disclosed by Shinohara et al. to improve magnetic permeability as desired (Paragraph [0007]).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have a weight ratio of the first magnetic powder to the second magnetic powder ranges from 10:90 to 30:70, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art to improve magnetic permeability as desired. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, and 21-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Liao et al. [U.S. Pub. No. 2009/0231077] in view of Shinohara et al. [U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0180909].
Regarding Claim 1, Liao et al. shows a composite inductor (Fig. 3A or Figs. 5E-5F), comprising:
a coil structure (310) having a through hole (see Fig. 3A or Figs. 5E-5F, element 310 have a through hole); and
a magnetic packaging structure (320) containing at least a first magnetic body (321) and a second magnetic body (322); wherein the coil structure (310) is embedded in the magnetic packaging structure (320, see Fig. 3A or Figs. 5E-5F), and based on a total thickness of the magnetic packaging structure being 100%, a thickness of each of the first magnetic body (321) and the second magnetic body (322) is greater than or equal to 16% (see Fig. 3A, element 321 and element 322 is about the same thickness so therefore a thickness of each of element 321 and element 322 is greater than or equal to 16%).
In the event that Liao et al. does not anticipate, it would have been obvious to have based on a total thickness of the magnetic packaging structure being 100%, a thickness of each of the first magnetic body and the second magnetic body is greater than or equal to 16% to simplified design to achieve an increase in inductance while decreasing the cost of making the inductor (Paragraphs [0007], [0032]).
In addition, Shinohara et al. shows a composite inductor (Figs. 1-6), comprising: a coil structure (3) having a through hole (see Figs. 2-3, element 3 have a through hole); and a magnetic packaging structure (2) containing at least a first magnetic body (7) and a second magnetic body (6); wherein the coil structure (3) is embedded in the magnetic packaging structure (see Figs. 1-6, Paragraph [0019]), and based on a total thickness of the magnetic packaging structure being 100% (see Figs. 1-6, Paragraphs [0065]-[0068]), a thickness of each of the first magnetic body (7) and the second magnetic body (6) is greater than or equal to 16% (see Figs. 1-6, Paragraphs [0065]-[0068], in one example, element 7 can be more than about 1.0 times and less than 1.2 times of element 6, therefore if element 6 is 250 μm then element 7 can be 300 μm so that the total thickness is 550 μm and a thickness of each of element 6 and element 7 is greater than or equal to 16%).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have t based on a total thickness of the magnetic packaging structure being 100%, a thickness of each of the first magnetic body and the second magnetic body is greater than or equal to 16% as taught by Shinohara et al. for the inductor as disclosed by Liao et al. to achieve an increase in relative magnetic permeability and inductance; and improve temperature characteristic (Paragraphs [0065]-[0068]).
Regarding Claim 2, Liao et al. shows a relative magnetic permeability of the second magnetic body (322) is higher than a relative magnetic permeability of the first magnetic body (321, Paragraph [0035]).
Regarding Claim 3, Liao et al. shows the first magnetic body (321) is used as a magnetic substrate (see Fig. 3A, element 321 is used as a magnetic substrate), and the second magnetic body (322) is disposed on the first magnetic body (see Fig. 3A).
Regarding Claim 5, Liao et al. shows the relative magnetic permeability of the first magnetic body (321) ranges from 20 to less than 25 (Paragraph [0035]), and the relative magnetic permeability of the second magnetic body (322) ranges from 25 to less than 30 (Paragraph [0035]).
Regarding Claim 21, Liao et al. shows the total thickness of the magnetic packaging structure (320) is higher than or equal to 0.1 mm (Paragraph [0036]).
Shinohara et al. shows the total thickness of the magnetic packaging structure (2) is higher than or equal to 0.1 mm (see Figs. 1-6, Paragraphs [0065]-[0068], in one example, element 7 can be more than about 1.0 times and less than 1.2 times of element 6, therefore if element 6 is 250 μm then element 7 can be 300 μm so that the total thickness is 550 μm and a thickness of element 2 is higher than or equal to 0.1 mm).
Regarding Claim 22, Liao et al. shows the magnetic packaging structure (320) is integrally formed (see Fig. 3A, elements 321, 322 are integrally formed resulting in element 320) by compression molding (this is a method step).
In accordance to MPEP 2113, the method of forming the device is not germane to the issue of patentability of the device itself. Therefore, this limitation has not been given patentable weight. Please note that even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product, i.e. the magnetic packaging structure is integrally formed, does not depend on its method of production, i.e. compression molding. In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Federal Circuit 1985).
Regarding Claim 23, Liao et al. shows a material used for forming the first magnetic body (321) includes a magnetic powder (Paragraph [0030], Table 1) and a binder material (Paragraph [0030], Table 1, resin), the magnetic powder includes one of iron (Table 1, Paragraph [0035]), iron-nickel alloys, iron-cobalt alloys, iron-silicon alloys, iron-vanadium alloys, iron-silicon-chromium alloys, iron-silicon-aluminum alloys, iron-cobalt-vanadium alloys, iron-based amorphous alloys, iron-based nanocrystalline alloys, nickel-zinc ferrite, nickel-copper-zinc ferrite, and manganese-zinc ferrite, and a median diameter of the magnetic powder ranges from 4 μm to 5 μm (Table 1, Paragraph [0035]).
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liao et al. in view of Shinohara et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Shinohara et al. [U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0308629] (hereinafter as “Shinohara ‘629”).
Regarding Claim 22, Liao et al. in view of Shinohara et al. shows the claimed invention as applied above.
In addition, Shinohara ‘629 shows an inductor (Figs. 1-3) disclosing the magnetic packaging structure (2) is integrally formed by compression molding (Paragraph [0025]).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have the magnetic packaging structure is integrally formed by compression molding as taught by Shinohara ‘629 for the inductor as disclosed by Liao et al. in view of Shinohara et al. to achieve the product of the magnetic packaging structure with desirable magnetic characteristics and inductance values (Paragraph [0025]).
Claim(s) 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liao et al. in view of Shinohara et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Matsui et al. [U.S. Pub. No. 2022/0328241].
Regarding Claim 24, Shinohara et al. shows a material used for forming the second magnetic body (6) includes a magnetic powder (Paragraph [0024]) and a binder material (Paragraph [0024], resin), the magnetic powder includes at least two of iron (Paragraph [0027]), iron-nickel alloys, iron-cobalt alloys, iron-silicon alloys, iron-vanadium alloys, iron-silicon-chromium alloys (Paragraph [0027]), iron-silicon-aluminum alloys, iron-cobalt-vanadium alloys, iron-based amorphous alloys, iron-based nanocrystalline alloys, nickel-zinc ferrite, nickel-copper-zinc ferrite, and manganese-zinc ferrite, the magnetic powder includes a first magnetic powder (second metal magnetic particles) that has a median diameter ranging from 1 μm to 2 μm (second metal magnetic particles, Paragraph [0027]) and a second magnetic powder (first metal magnetic particles) that has a median diameter ranging from 14 μm to 16 μm (first metal magnetic particles, Paragraph [0027]).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have a first magnetic powder that has a median diameter ranging from 1 μm to 2 μm and a second magnetic powder that has a median diameter ranging from 14 μm to 16 μm, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art to achieve easier handling, increase filling ratio and improve magnetic characteristics (Paragraph [0027]). In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Liao et al. in view of Shinohara et al. does not explicitly disclose having a weight ratio of the first magnetic powder to the second magnetic powder ranges from 10:90 to 30:70.
Matsui et al. shows a coil component (Fig. 3) teaching and suggesting a weight ratio of the first magnetic powder (41) to the second magnetic powder (31) ranges from 10:90 to 30:70 (a weight ratio of element 31 to element 41 is 60:40 to 80:20, therefore a weight ratio of element 41 to element 31 is 20:80 to 40:60, Paragraph [0052]).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have a weight ratio of the first magnetic powder to the second magnetic powder ranges from 10:90 to 30:70 as taught by Matsui et al. for the inductor as disclosed by Liao et al. in view of Shinohara et al. to increase magnetic permeability as desired (Paragraph [0052]).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have a weight ratio of the first magnetic powder to the second magnetic powder ranges from 10:90 to 30:70, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art to increase magnetic permeability as desired. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claim(s) 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liao et al. in view of Shinohara et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lin et al. [U.S. Pub. No. 2016/0086715].
Regarding Claim 24, Shinohara et al. shows a material used for forming the second magnetic body (6) includes a magnetic powder (Paragraph [0024]) and a binder material (Paragraph [0024], resin), the magnetic powder includes at least two of iron (Paragraph [0027]), iron-nickel alloys, iron-cobalt alloys, iron-silicon alloys, iron-vanadium alloys, iron-silicon-chromium alloys (Paragraph [0027]), iron-silicon-aluminum alloys, iron-cobalt-vanadium alloys, iron-based amorphous alloys, iron-based nanocrystalline alloys, nickel-zinc ferrite, nickel-copper-zinc ferrite, and manganese-zinc ferrite, the magnetic powder includes a first magnetic powder (second metal magnetic particles) that has a median diameter ranging from 1 μm to 2 μm (second metal magnetic particles, Paragraph [0027]) and a second magnetic powder (first metal magnetic particles) that has a median diameter ranging from 14 μm to 16 μm (first metal magnetic particles, Paragraph [0027]).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have a first magnetic powder that has a median diameter ranging from 1 μm to 2 μm and a second magnetic powder that has a median diameter ranging from 14 μm to 16 μm, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art to achieve easier handling, increase filling ratio and improve magnetic characteristics (Paragraph [0027]). In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Liao et al. in view of Shinohara et al. does not explicitly disclose having a weight ratio of the first magnetic powder to the second magnetic powder ranges from 10:90 to 30:70.
Lin et al. shows a coil component (Fig. 3) teaching and suggesting a weight ratio of the first magnetic powder (20) to the second magnetic powder (10) ranges from 10:90 to 30:70 (a weight ratio of element 10 to element 20 is 9:1 to 7:3, therefore a weight ratio of element 20 to element 10 is 1:9 to 3:7 which is equivalent to 10:90 to 30:70, Paragraph [0045], Table 2, Table 3).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have a weight ratio of the first magnetic powder to the second magnetic powder ranges from 10:90 to 30:70 as taught by Lin et al. for the inductor as disclosed by Liao et al. in view of Shinohara et al. to achieve higher permeability, lower power consumption, and lower core loss; and higher bulk density (Paragraphs [0033], [0057]).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have a weight ratio of the first magnetic powder to the second magnetic powder ranges from 10:90 to 30:70, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art to achieve higher permeability, lower power consumption, and lower core loss; and higher bulk density. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claim(s) 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liao et al. in view of Shinohara et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Liao et al. [U.S. Pub. No. 2010/0289609] (hereinafter as “Liao ‘609”).
Regarding Claim 24, Shinohara et al. shows a material used for forming the second magnetic body (6) includes a magnetic powder (Paragraph [0024]) and a binder material (Paragraph [0024], resin), the magnetic powder includes at least two of iron (Paragraph [0027]), iron-nickel alloys, iron-cobalt alloys, iron-silicon alloys, iron-vanadium alloys, iron-silicon-chromium alloys (Paragraph [0027]), iron-silicon-aluminum alloys, iron-cobalt-vanadium alloys, iron-based amorphous alloys, iron-based nanocrystalline alloys, nickel-zinc ferrite, nickel-copper-zinc ferrite, and manganese-zinc ferrite, the magnetic powder includes a first magnetic powder (second metal magnetic particles) that has a median diameter ranging from 1 μm to 2 μm (second metal magnetic particles, Paragraph [0027]) and a second magnetic powder (first metal magnetic particles) that has a median diameter ranging from 14 μm to 16 μm (first metal magnetic particles, Paragraph [0027]).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have a first magnetic powder that has a median diameter ranging from 1 μm to 2 μm and a second magnetic powder that has a median diameter ranging from 14 μm to 16 μm, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art to achieve easier handling, increase filling ratio and improve magnetic characteristics (Paragraph [0027]). In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Liao et al. in view of Shinohara et al. does not explicitly disclose having a weight ratio of the first magnetic powder to the second magnetic powder ranges from 10:90 to 30:70.
Liao ‘609 shows a coil component (Fig. 1) teaching and suggesting a weight ratio of the first magnetic powder (114) to the second magnetic powder (112) ranges from 10:90 to 30:70 (element 114 is 80wt% to 20wt% and element 112 is 20wt% to 80wt%, therefore a weight ratio of element 114 to element 112 is 80:20 to 20:80, Paragraph [0049]).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have a weight ratio of the first magnetic powder to the second magnetic powder ranges from 10:90 to 30:70 as taught by Liao ‘609 for the inductor as disclosed by Liao et al. in view of Shinohara et al. to improve magnetic permeability as desired (Paragraph [0007]).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have a weight ratio of the first magnetic powder to the second magnetic powder ranges from 10:90 to 30:70, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art to improve magnetic permeability as desired. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TSZFUNG J CHAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7981. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 8:00AM-6:00PM.
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, Shawki Ismail can be reached at (571)272-3985. 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.
/TSZFUNG J CHAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2837
Prosecution Insights