DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 327/26 has been entered. Claims 1-5 remain pending in the application. Applicant's amendments to the title have overcome the objections previously set forth in the Non-Final Rejection mailed 2/12/26. Applicant's amendments to the claims have overcome the 112(b) and (d) rejections previously set forth in the Non-Final Rejection mailed 2/12/26, except as noted below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "bending the extensions to dispose vertically with respect to the coil" in lines 3-4. Claim 1 recites the limitation "bending the extensions" in line 19. It is unclear if the bending takes place before disposing the coil in the cavity of the U-core with the extensions disposed externally of the cavity, or after, or both before and after disposing the coil in the cavity of the U-core with the extensions disposed externally of the cavity. Claims 2-5 are rejected due to their dependence on rejected claim 1.
Claim 2 was amended inconsistently. Claim 2 depends upon claim 1. Claim 1 recites the limitation “heating the assembled U-core, the coil, and the T-core at a third predetermined temperature and a third predetermined pressure for a third predetermined time to form a half-finished product”. In claim 2, the second predetermined temperature was changed to the third predetermined temperature. The second predetermined pressure was changed to the third predetermined pressure. The second predetermined time was not changed to the third predetermined time. It is unclear if the second predetermined time of claim 2 is intended to refer to the third predetermined time of claim 1, the time at which the assembly is heated to the third predetermined pressure for a third predetermined time, or the second predetermined time of claim 1, which is unrelated to the third predetermined pressure and the third predetermined time.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Language from the reference(s) is shown in quotations. Limitations from the claims are shown in quotations within parenthesis. Examiner explanations are shown in italics.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (CN 115631937 A), as machine translated, previously cited, in view of Su et al. (US 20210343460 A1), previously cited, Yu et al. (US 20250385042 A1), and Jin et al. (US 20240038421 A1), previously cited.
Regarding claim 1, Zhang teaches “a low-impedance inductor, its manufacturing method” (which reads upon “a process of manufacturing an inductor, comprising the steps of”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [n0001]). Zhang teaches “a resistance wire to wind a hollow coil, which is then placed inside a U-core” (which reads upon “winding a rectangular magnetic copper wire to form a coil, disposing the coil in the cavity of the U-core with the extensions disposed externally of the cavity”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [n0011]). Zhang teaches that “the two ends of the conductor coil are longitudinally embedded in the U-core to obtain a composition” (which reads upon “having two parallel extensions each extending in a horizontal direction”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [n0009]). Zhang teaches that “the edge of the base is reserved with a notch for placing the two ends of the conductor coil” (which reads upon “bending the extensions to extend vertically with respect to the coil inserting the projection through the coil with the cavity being covered by the platform; bending the extensions”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [n0008]). Zhang teaches that “the insulating layer on the surface of the copper wire is removed by laser stripping to expose the conductor” (which reads upon “and removing an insulation layer of the magnetic copper wire from the extensions”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [n0050]). Zhang teaches that “(1) Mix magnetic powder and glue, and press them into T-core and U-core after coating and granulation treatment” (which reads upon “using a composite material to prepare a T-core and a U-core by adding [glue] to a solution to form a first mixture, agitating the first mixture to form a second mixture, processing the second mixture at a first temperature and pressure for a first time to form a plurality of particles”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [n0008]). Zhang teaches that “the adhesive includes epoxy resin adhesive” (which reads upon “epoxy resin”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [n0015]; the glue in [n0008] is assumed to be translated as both glue and adhesive, which are synonyms). Zhang teaches that “the magnetic powder in step (1) includes amorphous powder and/or alloy powder, and is more preferably amorphous powder and alloy powder” (which reads upon “adding [alloy powder] and amorphous powder to the first mixture”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [n0012]). Zhang teaches that “the alloy powder includes any one or a combination of at least two of the following: iron alloy powder” (which reads upon “iron powder”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [n0014]). Zhang teaches to “fill the 180-mesh sieved powder into a cold press mold and press it into T-core 2 and U-core 3 with certain strength under a certain pressure” (which reads upon “pouring the third mixture into a mold, compacting the third mixture at a second predetermined temperature and a second predetermined pressure for a second predetermined time to form the T-core and the U- core wherein the T-core includes a platform and a projection extending downward from the platform and the U-core includes a cavity on a top”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [n0048] and FIGs. 2-3). Zhang teaches that “the wound or fitted coil and the U-core composition 4 are placed in a hot press mold to obtain the composition” (which reads upon “heating the assembled U-core, the coil, and the T-core at a third predetermined temperature and a third predetermined pressure for a third predetermined time to form a half-finished product”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [n0049]). Zhang teaches that “the pressed semi-finished product 6 is placed in a high-temperature oven for baking at 160°C for 4.5 hours” (which reads upon “baking the half-finished product”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [n0050]). Zhang teaches that “then, an insulating layer with a thickness of 12μm is sprayed onto the surface of the baked inductor, and after the insulating layer is cured, the insulating layer on the surface of the copper wire is removed by laser stripping to expose the conductor” (which reads upon “painting and peeling the baked half-finished product”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [n0050]). Zhang teaches that “then, the inductor is tinned in a tin bath at 245°C, and after the tinning is completed, passivation treatment is performed to obtain the low impedance inductor” (which reads upon “surface treating the peeled half-finished product by coating a composite layer on exposed surfaces of the extensions to obtain an inductor wherein the composite layer includes, from inside to outside, a tin layer”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [n0050]).
Zhang is silent regarding a carbonyl iron powder, adding zinc stearate to the particles to form a third mixture, wherein the composite layer includes, from inside to outside, a copper layer, a nickel layer, and a tin layer.
Su is similarly concerned with inductor structure, and more particular to a method for preparing a metallic magnetic powder core (paragraph [0002]). Su teaches “winding a hollow spiral coil, compression molding, green body chamfering, hot pressing curing, heated billet chamfering, primary nano-insulation coating, primary grinding, electrode nickel plating, electrode copper plating, secondary nano-insulation coating, secondary grinding, electroplating metalized electrode, and testing packaging” (paragraph [0006]). Su teaches that “the compression molding is performed by placing a wire winding jig containing a coil into a mold of a molding machine, and then implanting the coil into the mold at a fixed point, and that the cavity is filled with metal powder for stamping and forming products” (paragraph [0008]). Su teaches that “compression molding: using carbonyl iron powder or alloy materials (iron-silicon, iron-silicon-chromium, iron-nickel, iron-silicon-aluminum and amorphous nano-material systems), the R&D team has gone through many experiments, recorded data, and statistics After analysis, the best carbonyl powder ingredient formula was selected as follows” (paragraph [0037]). Su teaches to “mix the carbonyl iron powder/alloy material: epoxy resin: acetone according to the weight ratio of 100:≤7:≤20, and then keep it at a temperature of ≤80° C. for 1-3 hours” (which reads upon “adding epoxy resin to a solution to form a first mixture, adding carbonyl iron powder and amorphous powder to the first mixture”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0038]). Su teaches that “epoxy resin is used as a binder, and zinc stearate, barium stearate or other mold release lubricants are added after the powder granulation is completed” (which reads upon “adding zinc stearate to the particles to form a third mixture”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0038]). Su teaches that “the copper layer is electroplated by the traditional process, and the thickness of the plating layer is not less than 1.0 µm, which increases the conductivity” (which reads upon “surface treating the peeled half-finished product by coating a composite layer on exposed surfaces of the extensions to obtain an inductor”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0066]). Su teaches that “the polished product is electroplated with a nickel base by a traditional process, and the thickness of the plating layer is not less than 0.3 um to increase the adhesion of the electrode” (paragraph [0065]). Su teaches that “products are electroplated with a tin layer by a traditional process” (paragraph [0067]). Su teaches that “the paste-terminated electroplating type has 4 metal layers in the electrode welding area of the body, which are copper/silver/nickel/tin” (which reads upon “wherein the composite layer includes, from inside to outside, a copper layer, a nickel layer, and a tin layer”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0003]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace the unspecified iron powder of Zhang with carbonyl iron powder, as taught by Su because after many experiments, recorded data, and statistics, carbonyl iron powder was found to be best. It has been held that obviousness exists where the selection of a known material was based on its suitability for its intended use. MPEP § 2144.07. Accordingly, the prior art renders the claim obvious.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the iron powder of Zhang by adding zinc stearate after the powder granulation is completed, as taught by Su to improve mold release. Su teaches that zinc stearate is known to be mold release lubricant. It has been held that obviousness exists where the selection of a known material was based on its suitability for its intended use. MPEP § 2144.07. Accordingly, the prior art renders the claim obvious.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the tinning step of Zhang by adding a copper plating layer and a nickel plating layer, as taught by Su because a copper layer increases the conductivity and a nickel layer increases the adhesion. The Supreme Court decided that a claim can be proved obvious merely by showing that the combination of known elements was obvious to try. In this regard, the Supreme Court explained that, “[w]hen there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill in the art has a good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp.” An obviousness determination is not the result of a rigid formula disassociated from the consideration of the facts of the case. Indeed, the common sense of those skilled in the art demonstrates why some combinations would have been obvious where others would not. Therefore, choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation for success, is likely to be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, E.). Here, there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions as to which order to apply the plating layers. Here, it would have been obvious to use the traditional order given in the background section, copper first, followed by nickel, followed by tin, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Zhang is silent regarding baking the half-finished product at a plurality of baking predetermined temperatures and times.
Yu is similarly concerned with an inductor and a preparation method therefor (paragraph [0008]). Yu teaches that the “inductor comprises a T-shaped base” (which reads upon “T-core”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0009]). Yu teaches “(5) curing treatment: subjecting the second combined component obtained in step (4) to curing treatment, demolding and grinding in turn to obtain an inductor body; and (6) post-treatment: subjecting the inductor body obtained in step (5) to cutting, spray coating and plating in turn to obtain the pouring power inductor” (paragraphs [0022]-[0023]). Yu teaches that “the curing in step (5) comprises a first stage curing, a second stage curing and a third stage curing which are performed sequentially” (which reads upon “baking the half-finished product at a plurality of baking predetermined temperatures and times”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0064]; curing reads on baking). Yu teaches that “the curing described in the present application is a grading curing process” (paragraph [0065]). Yu teaches that “the purpose is to ensure that the pouring body is dense in the curing process of epoxy resin and to avoid pore formation” (paragraph [0065]). Yu teaches that “because the curing speed of the thermosetting epoxy resin is accelerated in the high temperature curing and the curing is an exothermic reaction, the curing speed can be promoted in a short time, the “ebullition” phenomenon is likely to occur, and the pores remain in the cured pouring body, decreasing the magnetic permeability and strength of the pouring body” (paragraph [0065]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the process of Zhang to break the final baking into a graded process, as taught by Yu, to avoid pore formation in the epoxy resin and improve magnetic permeability and strength by avoiding ebullition.
Zhang is silent regarding a coupling agent.
Jin is similarly concerned with a soft magnetic powder and a preparation method therefor (paragraph [0001]). Jin teaches that “three magnetic powders with different particle sizes and types treated by surface silane coupling and silicon nitriding are matched and packed, and achieve high packing density and ultra-high insulation resistance effect under conventional pressing pressure” (which reads upon “a coupling agent”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0015]). Jin teaches that “the silane coupling agent-acetone solution is a solution prepared by mixing a silane coupling agent and acetone” (paragraph [0023]). Jin teaches “a carbonyl iron powder” (paragraph [0051]). Jin teaches that “the magnetic powders are subjected to surface silane coupling and silicon nitriding treatment to form a dense compound film having —Si—N— chemical bonds on the surface, which has a good insulating effect and improves the insulation resistance of the soft magnetic powder, and that besides, the soft magnetic powder can achieve high packing density (the corresponding flux density, magnetic permeability, and superposition performance under large current can be increased, and the hysteresis losses decreases) and ultra-high insulation resistance (the corresponding eddy current losses, especially under high frequency, decreases significantly) under conventional pressing pressure” (paragraph [0065]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the iron powder of Zhang to include a coupling agent, such as silane, as taught by Jin to improve the coupling of the powder mixture, thus improving magnetic properties of the inductor. It has been held that obviousness exists where the selection of a known material was based on its suitability for its intended use. MPEP § 2144.07. Accordingly, the prior art renders the claim obvious.
Regarding claim 2, modified Zhang teaches the method of claim 1 as stated above. Zhang teaches that “the product is pressed at a temperature of 175℃ for 80 seconds and a pressure of 6 t/cm<sup>2</sup>” (paragraph [n0047]).
Regarding claim 3, modified Zhang teaches the method of claim 1 as stated above. Zhang teaches that “the pressing pressure in step (1) is 2 to 8 t/cm<sup>2” (paragraph [n0019]). Zhang teaches that “for example: … 4 t/cm<sup>2</sup>” (paragraph [n0019]).
Regarding claim 4, modified Zhang teaches the method of claim 1 as stated above. Su teaches “a copper layer of not less than 1 µm” (paragraph [0047]). Su teaches “a nickel layer not less than 0.3 µm” (paragraph [0046]). Su teaches “electroplated with a tin layer by a traditional process, the thickness of the plating layer is not less than 1.0 µm” (paragraph [0067]). It has been held that obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. 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). Here, the claimed range of 2 µm to 4 µm lies inside the range disclosed by the prior art of not less than 1 µm (copper). The claimed range of 1 µm to 3 µm lies inside the range disclosed by the prior art of not less than 0.3 µm (nickel). The claimed range of 6 µm to 8 µm lies inside the range disclosed by the prior art of not less than 1 µm (tin). Accordingly, the prior art renders the claim obvious. A change in size (dimension) is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device, and the device having the claimed dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device, See MPEP § 2144.04 IV A.
Regarding claim 5, modified Zhang teaches the method of claim 1 as stated above. Yu teaches that “(6) post-treatment: subjecting the inductor body obtained in step (5) to cutting, spray coating and plating in turn to obtain the pouring power inductor” (paragraph [0023]; step (6) post-treatment corresponds to painting and peeling the baked half-finished product; and surface treating the peeled half-finished product by coating a composite layer on exposed surfaces of the extensions to obtain an inductor). Yu teaches that the curing treatment is performed just prior to post-treatment (paragraphs [0022]-[0023]; step (5) curing treatment corresponds to baking the half-finished product). Yu teaches that “the first stage curing is performed at 80-100° C., and for example, it can be 80° C., 84° C., 88° C., 92° C., 96° C. or 100° C.; however, the temperature is not limited to the listed values, and other unlisted values within this value range are also applicable” (paragraph [0066]). Yu teaches that “the first stage curing has a temperature-holding period of 2-4 h, and for example, it can be 2 h, 2.2 h, 2.4 h, 2.6 h, 2.8 h, 3 h, 3.2 h, 3.4 h, 3.6 h, 3.8 h or 4 h; however, the temperature-holding period is not limited to the listed values, and other unlisted values within this value range are also applicable” (paragraph [0067]). Yu teaches that “the second stage curing is performed at 120-140° C., and for example, it can be 120° C., 124° C., 128° C., 132° C., 136° C. or 140° C.; however, the temperature is not limited to the listed values, and other unlisted values within this value range are also applicable” (paragraph [0068]). Yu teaches that “the second stage curing has a temperature-holding period of 0.5-2 h, and for example, it can be 0.5 h, 0.8 h, 1 h, 1.2 h, 1.4 h, 1.6 h, 1.8 h or 2 h; however, the temperature-holding period is not limited to the listed values, and other unlisted values within this value range are also applicable” (paragraph [0069]). Yu teaches that “the third stage curing is performed at 150-200° C., and for example may be 150° C., 155° C., 160° C., 165° C., 170° C., 175° C., 180° C., 185° C., 190° C., 195° C. or 200° C.; however, the temperature is not limited to the listed values, and other unlisted values within this value range are also applicable” (paragraph [0070]). Yu teaches that “the third stage curing has a temperature-holding period of 1-3 h, and for example, it can be 1 h, 1.2 h, 1.4 h, 1.6 h, 1.8 h, 2 h, 2.2 h, 2.4 h, 2.6 h, 2.8 h, or 3 h; however, the temperature-holding period is not limited to the listed values, and other unlisted values within this value range are also applicable” (paragraph [0071]). Yu teaches heating the semi-finished product in multiple stages at varying temperatures and times. Yu teaches three stages rather than the 8 stages of claim 5. Breaking three stages into eight stages is considered duplication of steps and is prima facia obvious. See MPEP 2144. Yu teaches stages ranging in temperature from 80° C to 200° C. Claim 5 recites temperatures ranging from 80 - 160° C ± 5° C. Yu teaches a total elapsed time of 3.5 – 9 hours. Claim 5 recites a total elapsed time of 4.75 hours ± about half an hour. It has been held that obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. 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). Here, the claimed range of 80 – 160 °C lies inside the range disclosed by the prior art of 80° C to 200° C. The claimed range of 4.75 hours ± about half an hour lies inside the range disclosed by the prior art of 3.5 – 9 hours. Accordingly, the prior art renders the claim obvious.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/27/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the base claim is hereby amended to recite the further limitations, in a process of manufacturing an inductor, of "baking the half-finished product at a plurality of baking predetermined temperatures and times (remarks, page 7). Applicant argues that none of the Zhang et al., Su et al., and Jin et al. references, individually or in combination, teach or reasonably suggest these newly recited features of Applicant's claimed invention (remarks, page 8). This is not found convincing because Yu is relied upon to teach these newly recited features.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to REBECCA JANSSEN whose telephone number is (571)272-5434. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Thurs 10-7 and alternating Fri 10-6.
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. The Examiner requests that interviews not be scheduled during the last week of each fiscal quarter or the last half of September, which is the end of the fiscal year. Q3: 6/22-6/26/26; Q4: 9/21-9/30/26.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Keith Hendricks can be reached on (571)272-1401. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/REBECCA JANSSEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1733
Prosecution Insights