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, 5 and 7 are amended. Claim 2 is cancelled. Claims 1 and 3-7 are pending.
Status of Previous Rejections
The rejection of claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) has been withdrawn in view of the amendment.
The Rejections of claims 1 and 3-7 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishida et al. (US 2020/0312501) in view of Tonoyama et al. (US 2020/0135371) are maintained.
The rejections of claims 1 and 3-7 on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-5 of copending Application No. 18/358433 or over claims 1-5 of copending Application No. 18/358513 have been withdrawn in view of the amendment.
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 and 3-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishida et al. (US 2020/0312501, and further in view of Tonoyama et al. (US 2020/0135371).
Regarding Claims 1 and 6-7, Ishida et al. teaches a magnetic core containing metal magnetic particles, wherein the metal magnetic particles include first large particles having a diameter of 1.3-5.0 µm (with specific examples having D50 of 4.56 µm, 5.06 µm and 5.6 µm) and the second large particles having diameter of 20-30 µm, and an insulation coating of the first large particles has a thickness of 3-10 nm and an insulation coating of the second particles is 40-100 nm (Abstract, [0021] to [0041], [0073], [0075], [0088], [0089], and Table 1). The first large particles and the second large particles disclosed by Ishida et al. meet the recited second larger particles and the first large particles in claims 1 and 7, respectively. T1/T2 is calculated to be in the range of 2 to 10 (calculated by 20/10 to 30/3), which meets the recited T1/T2 in claims 1 and 7.
Ishida et al. discloses that material of the first and second large particles may be any of a crystalline material, an amorphous material, or a mixed material (including a nanocrystalline material) in which a crystalline phase (including a nanocrystalline phase) and an amorphous phase are mixed and the first and the second large particles may be made of the same types of materials [0033]. Thus, Ishida discloses an embodiment that both the first large particles and the second large particles are made of nanocrystalline material containing a mixture of a nanocrystalline phase and an amorphous phase, which meets the limitation that the first large particles comprise an amorphous structure and the second large particles comprise a nanocrystalline structure as recited in claims 1 and 7.
Ishida et al. teaches a magnetic inductor comprising the magnetic core (Fig. 1; [0061] to [0071]), which meets the magnetic component limitation recited in claims 6 and 7.
Ishida et al. does not explicitly teach a total area ratio occupied by the metal magnetic particles on a cross-section of the magnetic core is 75% or more.
Tonoyama is similarly directed to a magnetic material including magnetic particles of different sizes coated with an insulation coating, including large particles with a size of 10-60 µm, intermediate particles of a size of 2-10 µm and a small particles having a size of 0.1-2 µm and the magnetic powder made of the magnetic powder has excellent magnetic permeability ([0005] to [0012]). Tonoyama indicates that the large particles may comprise 39-86% of a cross section of the core and the intermediate particles may comprise 8-39% of that cross section, and the small particles may comprise 7-30% of the cross section ([0093], [0095], and [0097]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make a magnetic core containing 39-86% of a cross section occupied by large particles, 8-39% of the cross section occupied by intermediate sized particles and 7-30% of the cross section occupied by small particles as taught by Tonoyama in the process of Ishida in order to make a magnetic core having high magnetic permeability as disclosed by Tonoyama. The total area ratio occupied by the magnetic particles overlap the recited area ratio in claims 1 and 7. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2144.05 I. Thus, claims 1 and 6-7 are obvious over Ishida in view of Tonoyama.
Regarding claim 3, Ishida et al. teaches an average thickness of the insulation coating of the first large particles (T1) is 40 nm to 100 nm ([0024]), which overlaps the recited thickness in claim 3. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2144.05 I. Thus, claim 3 is obvious over Ishida in view of Tonoyama.
Regarding claims 4 and 5, Ishida discloses that a third particles having D50 that is different from the particle diameter D50 of the first and the second particles ([0041]).
Ishida et al. discloses a histogram of the particle size distribution of its magnetic core, wherein some of the particles are less than 3 μm, which corresponds to the claimed particle group (Table 2). Ishida et al. discloses all of its particles are coated with an insulating layer and recognizes that such coatings can be same or different in composition to each other [0036]. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that Ishida et al.’s metal magnetic particles include a particle group with a diameter of less than 3 μm, and includes two or more kinds of small particles having different coatings in composition to each other. Ishida et al. recognizes that having different insulating coatings in composition to each other creates a surface potential that is different from each other so that the particles can be uniformly dispersed without agglomeration [0037].
Furthermore, Tonoyama discloses that magnetic powder for magnetic ore comprises a large particles having a size of 10-60 µm, an intermediate sized particles having a size of 2-10 µm and a small particles having a size of 0.1-2 µm and the magnetic powder made of the magnetic powder has excellent magnetic permeability ([0005] to [0010]), which meets the limitation that the magnetic core includes particles having diameter less than 3 µm as recited in claims 4 and 5.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/23/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
First, the applicants argued that the cited arts do not teach the recited T1/T2 and the recited structure of the first large particles and the second large particles.
In response, as set forth in the art rejection above, Ishida discloses that an insulation coating of the first large particles (i.e. the second large particles as recited in claim 1) has a thickness of 3-10 nm and an insulation coating of the second particles (i.e. the first large particles as recited in claim 1) is 40-100 nm ([0024]; [0027]). T1/T2 is calculated to be in the range of 2 to 10 (calculated by 20/10 to 30/3), which meets the recited T1/T2 in claim 1.
Ishida et al. discloses that material of the first and second large particles may be any of a crystalline material, an amorphous material, or a mixed material (including a nanocrystalline material) in which a crystalline phase (including a nanocrystalline phase) and an amorphous phase are mixed and the first and the second large particles may be made of the same types of materials [0033]. Thus, Ishida discloses an embodiment that both the first large particles and the second large particles are made of nanocrystalline material containing a mixture of a nanocrystalline phase and an amorphous phase, which meets the limitation that the first large particles comprise an amorphous structure and the second large particles comprise a nanocrystalline structure as recited in claim 1.
Second, the applicants argued that for the claimed magnetic core, the claims do not merely specify that the materials and the coating thicknesses are different between two types of large particles. In other words, for the claimed magnetic core, by "mixing the first large particles which include the relatively thick insulation coating and have the amorphous structure with the second large particles which include the relatively thin insulation coating and have the nanocrystal structure," "the core loss can be reduced while maintaining good DC bias characteristics." See T [0159] of the pending application, reproduced below for convenience.
In response, claim 1 recites the first large particles comprising an amorphous and the second large particles comprising a nanocrystal structure, which includes a scope that both the first and second large particles comprise a mixture of an amorphous phase and a nanocrystalline phase. Ishida discloses that the first and the second particles can be made of the same type of material made of a mixed material (including a nanocrystalline material) in which a crystalline phase (including a nanocrystalline phase) and an amorphous phase are mixed ([0033]), which meets the structure limitation recited in claim 1. As set forth above, T1/T is in the range of 2-10, which meets the recited range of T1/T2 in claim 1.
Third, the applicants argued that the magnetic core having the claimed structure and insulation coating thickness has improved magnetic permeability, DC bias characteristics and low core loss. Based on the teachings of Tonoyama in combination with Ishida, one of ordinary skill in the art would not recognize that the claimed combination can achieve these superior results and that, for instance as shown in the Comparative Examples of the pending application discussed above, when the particles with the amorphous structure have the thinner coating, inferior results are achieved.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show improved magnetic permeability, DC bias characteristics and low core loss, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Further, claim 1 recites that the first large particles comprise an amorphous and the second large particles comprise a nanocrystal structure. Claim 1 includes a scope that both the first and second large particles comprise a mixture of an amorphous phase and a nanocrystalline phase, because “comprise” is an open-ended transitional phrase that does not exclude other structure. The applicants’s arguments are based on that the first large particles consist of an amorphous and the second large particles consist of a nanocrystal structure. The evidence of nonobviousness is not commensurate in scope with the claims and thus the argument is not persuasive.
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
Prosecution Insights