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 Objections Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: The claim uses the term ‘the plurality of particle sizes’. There is insufficient antecedent basis for such a term. Appropriate correction is required. Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: The claim uses the term ‘the medium particle powder’. The claim has antecedent basis for the ‘medium-sized particle powder’ but not the medium particle powder as claimed. Appropriate correction is required. 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 appl icant regards as his invention. Claims 1-11 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. The claims are indefinite as they claim a statistical means for describing the particle size distribution (particle size frequency distribution) without claiming the basis for the frequency. Particle sizes can be reported on a number of frequency basis including number, weight, and volume. Wherein the particles have consistent density, weight and volume distributions may be the same; however, the results of a number and volume distribution may be vastly different and provide different data. The attached document to Microtrac shows such a difference, wherein grinding beads having 4 different sizes, wherein each size collectively has equal weight, are compared on a number and weight basis. Such data shows th at the basis for particle size frequency distributions gives vastly different results. As the claims are silent in terms of the frequency basis of the particle size distribution, the scope of the claims is unclear. For the sake of examination, the particle size distribution is given its broadest reasonable interpretation and may be considered on a number, volume, or weight basis. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Interpretation The term ‘medium sized’ in the claim is interpreted as being drawn to the size from 45-300 microns claimed. As the size of the particles having a ‘medium size’ is explicitly defined, the term is not considered to be relative or indefinite . 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) 1-3, 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 2: Tanada shows an exemplary powder-particle aggregate in Figure 1. The aggregate contains a number of individual particles. The particle size frequency distribution of such a material would have a plurality of peak tops associated with the number of individual particles contained therein. Such a distribution would be capable of being divided into individual peaks as set forth. The particle size frequency distribution of said particles would have a first peak in particle size associated with particle 2a . This first peak having a first peak top has a first particle size corresponding to a largest value among the plurality of particle sizes corresponding to the plurality of peak tops. The aggregate also contains a second peak having a second peak top associated with the larger particle s of 2b. This second peak has a second particle size corresponding to the second peak top having a second largest value after the first particle size amongst the plurality of particle sizes. The larger particles 2b have a number frequency of 6. The total number of particles in the aggregate is 26. The area of the peak of the second peak tot a total area of the plurality of peaks would be 6/26, which is greater than 0.2. Regarding Claim 3: Tanada teaches that the powder-particle aggregate may include a third particle size corresponding to a third peak top having a value smaller than the second particle size (See Paragraph 64). Those of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to provide these second and third particle sizes having a second and third peak in any amount in terms of either the number or volume basis of the particle size distribution. Those of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to provide these second or third particles such that the ratio of their peak area to the sum of total peak area is from greater than 0 to less than 1 (such as less than 0.15) . The area of said peak of the third particle size (A g ) may be less than the particle sizes of either of the other peaks (A a or A b ) . Those of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to provide said second and third particles in any amount such that said second particle is provided in a volume ratio of greater than 0.2 and the smallest particle is provided at a volume ratio of less than 0.15. 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. 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 havin g 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 D90 p . Regarding Claim 11: Tanada teaches the creation of an inductor from the soft magnetic material as discussed (See paragraph 53). 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 particle size distribution of the composite particles created. However, Kazuhisa also teaches the creation of powders for the creation of inductors ( Kazuhisa; See Paragraph be ginning 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 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. 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 D max /D min =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 D max /D min 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 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. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT MATTHEW E HOBAN whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-3585 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Jonathan Johnson can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 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