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 .
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 7-8, 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanada in US20200312500.
Regarding Claim 1: Tanada teaches the creation of a soft magnetic material comprising a powder-particle aggregate having a particle size frequency distribution having a plurality of peak tops. The powder-particle aggregate of Tanada is an aggregate of composite particles with a resin material (See Figure 1) and containing a plurality of soft magnetic metal particles (See Paragraph 36). The powder-particle aggregate may contain a first powder, a second particle, and a third particle (See Figure 1 and paragraph 64), wherein the second and third particles are aggregated on the surface of the first powder. The first powder may have a single peak and the second powder may have more than one peak in its particle size distribution (See paragraph 64). When the second powder has more than one peak it may be considered to be multiple second powders. Each of the first, second, and third powders may be spherical (See Paragraph 37). A sphere necessarily has a circularity of or approaching 1. Each of the first, second or third particle powder may have an overlapping size with the ‘medium-sized particle’ powder claimed being a composite powder with resin. The first powder may have a size from 5 to 100 microns. The second powder, which may be provided as a second and third powder (See Paragraph 64), may have a size from 0.05 to 50 microns (See Paragraph 37). Thus each of the powders taught by Tanada have an overlapping range with the range of particle sizes claimed. Overlapping ranges have been held to present a prima facie case of obviousness over the prior art. Those of ordinary skill would only need to select one of the powders to have a size within the overlapping portion of the range to arrive at the invention as claimed.
Regarding Claim 7: All of Tanada’s particles have a structure as shown in Figures 1-2, wherein the core of the particle is provided with a layer of a resin and a single layer of second particles on the surface of the particle. Tanada teaches that the core particles have a size from 5 to 100 microns, the second particles have a size from 0.05 to 50 microns (See Paragraph 37). The thickness of the resin layer is 100 nm or less (See Paragraph 38). The maximum size of the particles as shown by Tanada would be equal to the maximum core particle size + 2*maximum second particle size + 2*maximum resin layer thickness. The maximum is thus 100+2*50+2*.1 or 200.1 microns. The D90 of the particles must be less than 200.1 microns in the powder-particle aggregate of Tanada as this is the maximum possible size of the composite particle of Tanada.
Regarding Claim 8: Tanada shows examples of the soft magnetic material (See Figure 1). The aggregate includes resins and soft magnetic material. The soft magnetic materials are the cross hatched areas in Figure 1. The resinous and binder materials are the shaded and dotted areas. The areas of the soft magnetic material appears to be greater than 60% in a cross section of the particle.
Regarding Claim 10: Tanada teaches that the composite particles contain a binder binding the plurality of soft magnetic metal particles together, wherein the binder is a first and second resin (3, 4 Figure 1). The resin is selected from similar resins instantly disclosed (See Instant Disclosure Paragraph 51-52). As the binder is a polymer while the soft magnetic metal particles are Iron, those of ordinary skill would expect the hardness of the binder to be less than 0.25 that of the iron. The materials of said binder and metal are chosen from the same range of components as set forth and would have an overlapping ratio of hardnesses.
Tanada teaches that the metal particles may be amorphous soft magnetic particles (See Paragraph 36).
Tanada teaches that the metal particles are provided having different size ranges. The first size range is from 5 to 100 microns. The second size range is from 0.05 to 50 microns. As no particle is greater than 100 microns, the D90 of the particles must also be less than 100 microns. The particle size distribution of the metal particles thus meets the claim distribution D90p.
Regarding Claim 11: Tanada teaches the creation of an inductor from the soft magnetic material as discussed (See paragraph 53).
Claim(s) 2-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanada as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Shinkai in JP2018113436 (citations refer to the machine translation provided herewith).
Regarding Claim 2: Tanada teaches a soft magnetic material comprising a powder-particle aggregate meeting the limitations of instant claim 1, wherein the soft magnetic material of Tanada is useful in the creation of an inductor (See background and paragraph 86). The particle size frequency distribution of the particles making up said aggregate have a plurality of peaks and contains medium sized particle powders having the claimed size and a spherical shape. The particles making up said aggregate may be composite particles containing a plurality of soft magnetic metal particles (See above). Tanada teaches that the powder particle aggregates are created by mixing a first, second, and optionally a third magnetic particle (See Paragraph 64; the second particle may have two or more peaks corresponding to two powders having different sizes) with a resin (See Paragraph 37 and 44-46). The first, second and optionally third magnetic particle may have a first, second, and optionally third particle size (See Paragraph 37 and 64). Each of the first, second and third particle size having a peak associated with the particles in the distribution thereof (See Paragraph 64).
Tanada is silent in terms of the proportion of the each of the first, second, and optionally third particles relative to one another in a volume based particle size distribution.
However, Shinkai also teaches the creation of soft magnetic materials useful in the creation of inductors (See technical field). Shinkai teaches that the powder used in the creation of an inductor may comprise soft magnetic metal powders of at least two sizes. Each of the sizes provided being associated with a peak in a volume based particle size frequency distribution (See Figure 1-3). Shinkai teaches that the first particle may have a size from 15 to 60 microns (See paragraph beginning “The peak particle size PA of the particle group”). Shinkai teaches that the second particle may have a size from 0.5 to 5 microns (See paragraph beginning “The peak particle size PB of the particle group”). Shinkai teaches that the particle size distribution may be separated into a plurality of individual peaks, wherein each peak corresponds to one of the particle sizes provided and the peak tops associated therewith (See Figure 1 showing the individual peaks associated with the peak tops of two particle sizes). Shinkai shows a first peak having a first peak top, wherein the first particle size corresponds to said first peak and has the largest value amongst the plurality of particle sizes (first particle corresponding to peak IA in Figure 1) and a second peak having a second peak top, corresponding to a second particle size’s peak top, which has the second largest value after the first particle size amongst the plurality of particle sizes (second particle corresponding to peak IB in Figure 1). Shinkai teaches that the peak area of each peak corresponds to Va and Vb. Shinkai teaches that Va/Vb is between 2 and 5.1 (See Paragraph beginning “The soft magnetic material of the embodiment includes a soft magnetic metal powder”). The ratio of the peak area Ab as claimed is thus Vb/(Va+Vb), wherein Vb is 1 and Va ranges between 2 and 5.1. The peak area Ab is then 0.164 to 0.33, which overlaps with the claimed range. Those of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to provide the first and second powder of Tanada in the proportions taught by Shinkai as both powders are intended to be used for inductors and the sizes of the first and second powders of Tanada correspond with the sizes taught by Shinkai. Those of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to provide the powders of Tanada such that the peak area Ab is between 0.164 to 0.33. Tanada in view of Shinkai thus teach an overlapping range of peak area Ab. Overlapping ranges have been held to create a prima facie case of obviousness over the prior art. Those of ordinary skill would have been motivated to provide the powders of Tanada in this proportion in order to create an inductor that has an increased filling rate and provides for a composite material having fewer voids (See Paragraph beginning Fig. 1 is an example of a particle size distribution).
Regarding Claim 3: As is set forth above, Tanada teaches that the composite may optionally contain a second and third powder having different sizes in addition to the first powder provided (See Paragraph 64). Such a powder would necessarily be associated with a third peak having a third peak top.
Tanada is silent in terms of the proportion of this powder added to the composite and the value of the peak area relative to the total area of the plurality of peaks.
However, Shinkai also teaches that the second powder may contain one or more powder populations that may provide a second and third peak in the volume based particle distribution. Shinkai teaches that these second and third powders may be associated with second and third peaks IB1 and IB2 (See Figure 2 and 3). Shinkai teaches that this third peak top (IB2) has a size corresponding to a size that is smaller than the second particle size (IB1). Shinkai teaches that the content of particles having a smaller size have less peak intensity than those having a greater particle size (See Paragraph beginning “The soft magnetic material of the embodiment”). Those of ordinary skill would have found it obvious to provide the third powder of Tanada in an amount such that the intensity of the peak associated with the particle size was less than that of the second powder as is taught by Shinkai. Those of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to provide the powder of Tanada in terms of the characteristics of Shinkai wherein, the third powder of Tanada has a peak area, Ag, greater than 0% of the total area and less than the peak area of the second powder as set forth, thus having a ratio Ag which is less than Aa or Ab as claimed. Thus Tanada in view of Shinkai teach an overlapping range of third powder incorporation rates, and a ratio of peak area Ag. Those of ordinary skill would have been motivated to provide the powders of Tanada in this proportion in order to create an inductor that has an increased filling rate and provides for a composite material having fewer voids (See Paragraph beginning Fig. 1 is an example of a particle size distribution).
Claim(s) 4-6 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanada as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kazuhisa in JP2020013943 (citations made to the machine translation provided herewith).
Regarding Claims 4-6: Tanada teaches a soft magnetic material comprising a powder-particle aggregate as claimed. The particle size frequency distribution of the particles making up said aggregate have a plurality of peaks and contains medium sized particle powders having the claimed size and shape. The particles making up said aggregate may be composite particles containing a plurality of soft magnetic metal particles (See above).
Tanada teaches the creation of particles to be used in the molding of an inductor, but is silent in terms of the volume based particle size distribution of the composite particles created.
However, Kazuhisa also teaches the creation of powders for the creation of inductors (Kazuhisa; See Paragraph beginning with ‘Although the member to be sealed 20’) through a molding process and teaches that a low-viscosity (easy flow) composition of the powder may be created by providing the powders used in certain sizes. Kazuhisa teaches that the d10 of such a powder should be less than 50 microns, the d50 should be less than 300 microns, and the d90 should be less than 500 microns (Kazuhisa; See Paragraph beginning with ‘D10 of the powder (A) is preferably’). Those of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to provide the soft magnetic material comprising powder-particle aggregates of composite material of Tanada in the same particle size distributions taught by Kazuhisa, providing a d10 that may be 50 microns, a d50 that may be 300 microns (between 200 and 650 microns, Re: claims 5-6), and a d90 that may be 500 microns (less than 850 microns; Re: Claim 7), rendering a d90/d10 of 10 (less than 20; Re: Claim 4). Those of ordinary skill in the art would interpret the d10, d50, and d90 values of Kazuhisa as being determined on a volume/weight based particle size distribution as is claimed. Those of ordinary skill in the art would believe that the particle size distribution of Kazuhisa is on a volume basis due to their teaching that the ratio of particle sizes is within a certain range of volume percentages (See Paragraph beginning ‘Here, the ratio of the powder having a particle size’) and the measurement means used by Kazuhisa, which is a Horiba laser diffraction/scattering type particle size distribution measuring device (See ‘Particle size Distribution’ section). Those of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to provide the soft magnetic material of Tanada in the volume based particle size distribution of Kazuhisa in order to provide a low-viscosity material that has good flow properties even at high particle loading contents (Kazuhisa; See end of Paragraph beginning with ‘D10 of the powder (A) is preferably’). The flowability of the material would improve the molding process in terms of material handling and process throughput (Kazuhisa; See Paragraph beginning ‘For example, when the powder (A) includes a plurality’). The reference to Tanada and Kazuhisa are highly combinable as they are both drawn to the molding of inductors from resin/metal composite particles.
Regarding Claim 9: Tanada teaches a soft magnetic material comprising a powder-particle aggregate as claimed. The particle size frequency distribution of the particles making up said aggregate have a plurality of peaks and contains medium sized particle powders having the claimed size and shape. The particles making up said aggregate may be composite particles containing a plurality of soft magnetic metal particles (See Above). As is set forth above, Tanada teaches that the composite particles provided in the powder-particle aggregate are spherical (See 37). A sphere has a Dmax/Dmin=1. Those of ordinary skill would have found it obvious to provide all of the first and second composite particles of Tanada in terms of spheres rendering the content of particles having a Dmax/Dmin of 100%.
Tanada teaches the creation of particles to be used in the molding of an inductor, but is silent in terms of the particle size distribution of the composite particles created.
However, Kazuhisa also teaches the creation of powders for the creation of inductors (Kazuhisa; See Paragraph beginning with ‘Although the member to be sealed 20’) through a molding process and teaches that a low-viscosity (easy flow) composition of the powder may be created by providing the powders used in certain sizes. Kazuhisa teaches that the d10 of such a powder should be less than 50 microns, the d50 should be less than 300 microns, and the d90 should be less than 500 microns (Kazuhisa; See Paragraph beginning with ‘D10 of the powder (A) is preferably’). Those of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to provide the soft magnetic material comprising powder-particle aggregates of composite material of Tanada in the same volume based particle size distributions taught by Kazuhisa, providing a d10 that may be 50 microns, a d50 that may be 300 microns (between 200 and 460 microns), and a d90 that may be 500 microns, rendering a d90/d10 of 10 (between 5 and 11). Those of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to provide the soft magnetic material of Tanada in the particle size distribution of Kazuhisa in order to provide a low-viscosity material that has good flow properties even at high particle loading contents (Kazuhisa; See end of Paragraph beginning with ‘D10 of the powder (A) is preferably’). The flowability of the material would improve the molding process in terms of material handling and process throughput (Kazuhisa; See Paragraph beginning ‘For example, when the powder (A) includes a plurality’). The reference to Tanada and Kazuhisa are highly combinable as they are both drawn to the molding of inductors from resin/metal composite particles.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/30/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s amendments to the claims and explanation of the antecedence in claim 2 are noted. The rejections under USC 112 and objections are withdrawn based on these amendments and explanation. Applicant argues in terms of the newly added limitations, which set forth that the particle size frequency distribution is in terms of a volume-based frequency. Applicant argues that the prior art to Tanada teaches the determination of an average particle size by a number or area based distribution and not a volume-based distribution and points to paragraph 64 of the prior art. While this is noted and it is relevant to claims that require statistical values within a distribution (as the use of a particular basis for determining ,d10, d50, d90 are not necessarily anticipated/obviated by a d10/d50/d90 of a distribution measured in a different way), the scope of claim 1 only requires that the particle size distribution has a plurality of peak tops and a medium sized particle having a size from 45-300 microns. The presence of peaks and the range of particle sizes (span) are not dependent on the basis for determining the size frequency. Tanada also teaches a range of particle sizes overlapping the size of the medium-sized particle size claimed. Tanada teaches a distribution based on a first and second magnetic particles having different sizes. The first and second magnetic particles would necessarily provide a separate particle size distribution having at least a peak, therein. Such a peak would be present regardless of the basis for measurement of said peak (the basis would alter the position and height of said peak but not its presence). Thus the rejection of Tanada over claim 1 is maintained as all of the features of the claimed material are taught by Tanada. The rejection over claims 2-3 is withdrawn as claiming the basis for the particle size distribution alters the interpretation of these claims. The size distribution of the material shown in Figure 1 was determined on a volume basis. The following was determined:
size
dia in pix
r
indiv vol
freq
chann vol
volume frequency
L
234
1
4.18879
1
4.18879
0.923687806
M
51
0.217949
0.043366
6
0.260197
0.057377209
S
24
0.102564
0.004519
19
0.085867
0.018934985
sum vol
4.534855
While this Figure met the limitations of claims 2-3 on a number basis previously, the claim limitations are no longer met as the basis for determining these values is now on a volume basis. The claimed ratio Aβ in the material of Tanada is 0.0574/0.9237=0.062, which is less than the value claimed. On this basis, the rejection of Tanada over claims 2-3 is withdrawn. Claims 2-3 are now rejected over Tanada in view of Shinkai, who teaches suitable proportions of combining small and large particles in the creation of inductor cores.
Applicant goes on to discuss the objective of the instant invention and that of Tanada. Applicant sets forth that the instant claims seek to control particle size and volume-based frequency in order to provide fluidity. Tanada provides a material with reduced aggregation of the primary particles by providing primary particles having smaller particles aggregated on their surface. The objective of Tanada does not seem in opposition to that of applicant. Particularly, Kazuhisa teaches that controlling the volume based particle size distribution of iron particles in the creation of cores may be used to increase flowability. Kazuhisa also teaches the use of at least two particle sizes for the creation of such a particle size distribution as well.
Applicant does not particularly traverse the rejection based on Tanada in view of Kazuhisa. Applicant’s traverse of this rejection is on the basis of the primary reference to Tanada. Applicant argues that Kazuhisa does not teach the deficiencies of Tanada. The arguments in terms of Tanada have been addressed above.
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 MATTHEW E HOBAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3585. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30am-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, Jonathan Johnson can be reached at 571-272-1177. 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.
/Matthew E. Hoban/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1734
Prosecution Insights