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 1-3 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 the last 2 lines. 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) in view of Ogawa (US2006/0000524), and further in view of Endo (IEEE Transactions on Magnetics, Vol. 35, No. 5, 1999, Page 3385-3387).
Regarding claims 1-3, Otsuka teaches an amorphous alloy soft magnetic powder comprising Fe79(Si0.5B0.5)19C2, Fe80(Si0.3B0.7)18C2, and Fe81(Si0.3B0.7)17C2 (Abstract; Table 1), which meets the recited amount of Fe, Si, and B in claim 1. The amount of C disclosed by Otsuka is less than the recited C amount.
Ogawa teaches a Fe-Si-B-C amorphous alloy and discloses 0.01-3 at% C is effective for improving squareness ratio and saturation magnetic flux density (Abstract; [0021]). Thus, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to increase the amount of C as taught by Ogawa in the alloy of Otsuka in order to make a Fe-Si-B-C alloy having improved squareness ratio and saturation magnetic flux density as disclosed by Ogawa. The C amount disclosed by Ogawa overlaps the recited C amount in claim 1. 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, the recited composition in claim 1 is a prima facie case of obviousness over Otsuka in view of Ogawa.
Otsuka in view of Ogawa does not explicitly disclose a XAFS measurement on the structure of the amorphous powder particles and does not disclose the structure characteristics recited in claims 1-3. However, the structure characteristics of an amorphous alloy powder recited in claims 1-3 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.
Endo teaches a process of making an amorphous alloy soft magnetic powder comprising Fe-Si-B-C by a Spinning Water Atomization process (See Page 3385, Experimental Procedure), which is analogous to the method of Otsuka. Endo discloses that increasing gas jet pressure from 1.5 MPa to 7 MPa reduces particle size (Fig. 3). Thus, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use higher gas jet pressure as taught by Endo in the process of Otsuka in order to make an amorphous powder having finer particle size as disclosed by Endo. Endo discloses examples of gas jet pressure of 3 MPa and 7 MPa (Fig. 3), which are within the gas jet pressure range disclosed instant Specification.
In view of the fact that Otsuka in view of Ogawa and Endo 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 Ogawa and Endo to meet the structure characteristics as recited in claims 1-3. “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 4, Otsuka discloses that the particle size is up to 100 µm (Page 3892), which overlap the recited particle size in claim 4. 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, the recited grain size is a prima facie case of obviousness over Otsuka in view of Ogawa and Endo.
Otsuka in view of Ogawa and Endo does not teach the recited tap density. However, in view of the fact that Otsuka in view of Ogawa and Endo 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 Ogawa and Endo to meet the tap density limitation recited in claim 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 Fe79(Si0.5B0.5)19C2, Fe80(Si0.3B0.7)18C2, and Fe81(Si0.3B0.7)17C2 powder has a coercive force of 38.2-44.6 kA/m (Table 1), which meets the recited coercive force in claim 5. Otsuka discloses that the magnetic permeability of Fe79(Si0.5B0.5)19C2, Fe80(Si0.3B0.7)18C2, and Fe81(Si0.3B0.7)17C2 powder is 78-86 in the frequency range up to 1 MHz (Page 3893, right column, last paragraph), which meets the recited permeability in claim 5. Since Otsuka in view of Ogawa and Endo 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 Ogawa and Endo to meet the property limitation 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 Fe-Si-B-C powder and that the Fe-based powder magnetic core is 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.
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) in view of CN’249 (CN109338249), and further in view of Endo (IEEE Transactions on Magnetics, Vol. 35, No. 5, 1999, Page 3385-3387).
Regarding claims 1-3, Otsuka teaches an amorphous alloy soft magnetic powder comprising Fe79(Si0.5B0.5)19C2, Fe80(Si0.3B0.7)18C2, and Fe81(Si0.3B0.7)17C2 (Abstract; Table 1), which meets the recited amount of Fe, Si, and B in claim 1. The amount of C disclosed by Otsuka is less than the recited C amount.
CN’249 teaches a Fe-Si-B-C amorphous alloy and discloses that when the C amount is increased from 2 at% to 3 at%, the Fe-Si-B-C alloy becomes fully amorphous (Abstract; [0013]; [0014]). Thus, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to increase the amount of C from 2at% to 3at% as taught by CN’249 in the alloy of Otsuka in order to make a Fe-Si-B-C alloy having fully amorphous structure as disclosed by CN’249. The C amount disclosed by CN’249 meets the recited C amount in claim 1.
Otsuka in view of CN’249 does not explicitly disclose a XAFS measurement on the structure of the amorphous powder particles and does not disclose the structure characteristics recited in claims 1-3. However, the structure characteristics of an amorphous alloy powder recited in claims 1-3 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.
Endo teaches a process of making an amorphous alloy soft magnetic powder comprising Fe-Si-B-C by a Spinning Water Atomization process (See Page 3385, Experimental Procedure), which is analogous to the method of Otsuka. Endo discloses that increasing gas jet pressure from 1.5 MPa to 7 MPa reduces particle size (Fig. 3). Thus, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use higher gas jet pressure as taught by Endo in the process of Otsuka in order to make an amorphous powder having finer particle size as disclosed by Endo. Endo discloses examples of gas jet pressure of 3 MPa and 7 MPa (Fig. 3), which are within the gas jet pressure range disclosed instant Specification.
In view of the fact that Otsuka in view of CN’249 and Endo 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 CN’249 and Endo to meet the structure characteristics as recited in claims 1-3. “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 4, Otsuka discloses that the particle size is up to 100 µm (Page 3892), which overlap the recited particle size in claim 4. 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, the recited grain size is a prima facie case of obviousness over Otsuka in view of CN’249 and Endo.
Otsuka in view of CN’249 and Endo does not teach the recited tap density. However, in view of the fact that Otsuka in view of CN’249 and Endo 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 CN’249 and Endo to meet the tap density limitation recited in claim 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 Fe79(Si0.5B0.5)19C2, Fe80(Si0.3B0.7)18C2, and Fe81(Si0.3B0.7)17C2 powder has a coercive force of 38.2-44.6 kA/m (Table 1), which meets the recited coercive force in claim 5. Otsuka discloses that the magnetic permeability of Fe79(Si0.5B0.5)19C2, Fe80(Si0.3B0.7)18C2, and Fe81(Si0.3B0.7)17C2 powder is 78-86 in the frequency range up to 1 MHz (Page 3893, right column, last paragraph), which meets the recited permeability in claim 5. Since Otsuka in view of CN’249 and Endo 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 CN’249 and Endo to meet the property limitation 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 Fe-Si-B-C powder and that the Fe-based powder magnetic core is 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 02/03/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicants argued that the cited arts do not teach the recited C amount.
In response, Ogawa teaches a Fe-Si-B-C amorphous alloy and discloses 0.01-3 at% C is effective for improving squareness ratio and saturation magnetic flux density (Abstract; [0021]). Thus, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to increase the amount of C as taught by Ogawa in the alloy of Otsuka in order to make a Fe-Si-B-C alloy having improved squareness ratio and saturation magnetic flux density as disclosed by Ogawa. The C amount disclosed by Ogawa overlaps the recited C amount in claim 1. 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, the recited composition in claim 1 is a prima facie case of obviousness over Otsuka in view of Ogawa.
Further, CN’249 teaches a Fe-Si-B-C amorphous alloy and discloses that when the C amount is increased from 2 at% to 3 at%, the Fe-Si-B-C alloy becomes fully amorphous (Abstract; [0013]; [0014]). Thus, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to increase the amount of C from 2at% to 3at% as taught by CN’249 in the alloy of Otsuka in order to make a Fe-Si-B-C alloy having fully amorphous structure as disclosed by CN’249. The C amount disclosed by CN’249 meets the recited C amount in claim 1.
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