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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-4 are amended. Claims 1-8 are pending.
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 1-8 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 “a shape that is not upwardly convex such as a shoulder structure” in line 17-18. The phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Further, the scope of “a shape that is not upwardly convex” is not clear. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Otsuka (IEEE Transactions on Magnetics, Vol. 44, No. 11, 2008, Page 3891-3894), and further in view of Endo2 (Journal of the Japan Society of Powder and Powder Metallurgy, Vol. 48, No. 8, 2001, Page 697-702).
Regarding claims 1-4, Otsuka teaches an amorphous alloy soft magnetic powder comprising (Fe0.97Cr0.03)76(Si0.5B0.5)22C2 (Abstract; Fig. 6), which meets the recited composition in claim 1. Otsuka discloses that a powder magnetic core made from (Fe0.97Cr0.03)76(Si0.5B0.5)22C2 powder has very low core loss and that the powder magnetic core is widely used in switching power supplies of various electronic equipment (Page 3891, left column, 1st paragraph; Page 3891, right column, last paragraph).
Otsuka does not explicitly disclose a XAFS measurement on the structure of the amorphous powder particles. However, the structure characteristics of an amorphous alloy powder recited in claims 1-4 depend on the alloy composition and the method of making the alloy powder.
Otsuka discloses a method of making the amorphous alloy powder by a Spinning Water Atomization process under a coolant pressure of 17.5 MPa and at a cooling rate of over 106 K/s (Abstract; Page 3892, left column, 2nd paragraph), which are within the ranges of coolant pressure and cooling rate during a Spinning Water Atomization process disclosed in instant Specification (See paragraph [0111] to [0133]). The difference between the method of Otsuka and the instant Specification is that Otsuka is silent on gas jet pressure during the Spinning Water Atomization process.
Endo2 teaches a process of making an amorphous alloy soft magnetic powder comprising (Fe0.97Cr0.03)76(Si0.5B0.5)22C2 by a Spinning Water Atomization process (See Page 698, Experimental Procedure), which is analogous to the method of Otsuka. Endo2 discloses that increasing gas jet pressure reduces particle size (Fig. 4). Thus, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use higher gas jet pressure as taught by Endo2 in the process of Otsuka in order to make an amorphous powder having finer particle size as disclosed by Endo2. Endo2 discloses an example that the gas jet pressure is 7 MPa and the particle size D50 is 41-42 µm (Fig. 4), which is within the gas pressure range disclosed in instant Specification and is close to the recited particle size in claim 1. A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP 2144.05 I. Further, Fig. 4 also shows when the gas pressure is increased to 8 MPa, the mean particles size D50 is 40 µm, which meets the recited particle size in claim 1.
In view of the fact that Otsuka in view of Endo2 teaches an amorphous alloy powder having composition that meets the recited composition in claim 1 and a method of making the amorphous alloy powder that meets the processing conditions disclosed in instant Specification, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect that the amorphous alloy powder disclosed by Otsuka in view of Endo2 to meet the structure characteristics as recited in claims 1-4. “Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established.” In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP 2112.01 I.
Regarding claim 5, Otsuka discloses that the (Fe0.97Cr0.03)76(Si0.5B0.5)22C2 powder has a coercive force of 88 kA/m (Fig. 6), which meets the recited coercive force in claim 5. Otsuka is silent on the magnetic permeability of (Fe0.97Cr0.03)76(Si0.5B0.5)22C2 powder. However, in view of the fact that Otsuka in view of Endo2 teaches an amorphous alloy powder having composition that meets the recited composition in claim 1 and a method of making the amorphous alloy powder that meets the processing conditions disclosed in instant Specification, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect that the amorphous alloy powder disclosed by Otsuka in view of Endo2 to meet the magnetic permeability recited in claim 5. “Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established.” In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP 2112.01 I.
Regarding claims 6-8, Otsuka discloses a powder magnetic core made from the (Fe0.97Cr0.03)76(Si0.5B0.5)22C2 powder and that the powder magnetic core is widely used in switching power supplies of various electronic equipment (Page 3891, left column, 1st paragraph; Page 3891, right column, last paragraph), which meets the limitation recited in claims 6-8.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/28/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicants argued that Otsuka teaches an average particle size D50 of 50.0 µm or more and 60.0 µm or less. See Table 1. Otsuka, therefore, teaches an average particle size D50 that is outside of the claimed range.
In response, Endo2 discloses that when gas jet pressure is 7 MPa (Fig. 4), the particle size D50 is 41-42 µm, which is close to the recited particle size in claim 1. A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP 2144.05 I. Further, Fig. 4 also shows when the gas pressure is increased to 8 MPa, the mean particles size D50 is 40 µm, which meets the recited particle size in claim 1. Thus, the recited particle size is obvious over Otsuka in view of Endo2.
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 Xiaowei Su whose telephone number is (571)272-3239. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-5:00.
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 5712721401. 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.
/XIAOWEI SU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1733