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 .
Response to Election/Restrictions and Status of Claims
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I, drawn to a hybrid soft magnetic mixed powder, in the reply filed on May 26, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 9-16 and 17-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected inventions II and III, drawn to a method of preparing a hybrid soft magnetic mixed powder and drawn to a method of preparing a hybrid soft magnetic material, respectively, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claims 1-20 are pending and Claims 1-8 are currently considered in this office action.
Priority
Applicant’s claim to foreign priority in application no. KR10-2023-0096298, filed July 24, 2023, is acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 and Claim 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Miyamura (US 20150243420 A1). Regarding Claim 1, Miyamura discloses a hybrid soft magnetic mixed powder (Abstract), comprising a mixture 5-60wt% soft magnetic iron-base spherical alloy powder, which reads on the claimed 20-50wt%, and 40-95wt% pure iron powder comprising a complicated (irregular) shape, which reads on the claimed 50-80wt% (Abstract; para. [0062]-[0063]; para. [0065], gas atomized preferable; see Fig. 5, Sendust powder made by gas atomized method; para. [0070]-[0071], complicated shape preferable for mechanical strength, reads on irregularly shaped; see Fig. 5, pure iron powder by water atomize method).
Regarding Claim 8, Miyamura discloses further comprising 0.1-0.6wt%, preferably 0.2wt% or more and 0.39wt% or less, lubricant powder (para. [0020]; para. [0095]; para. [0098]).
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Verma (US 20040086708 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Verma discloses a mixture of high compressibility powders (HCP) and high magnetic permeability powders (HPP), wherein HPPs are alloys, such as Fe-Ni alloys, and spherical in shape, and wherein HCPs include high purity iron and comprise a shape such as flakes and irregularly shaped powder (para. [0010]-[0012]; flake reads on irregular shape; see also para. [0028], water-atomized irregularly shaped pure iron powder and spherical gas-atomized Fe-Ni powder).
Verma discloses wherein the mixture of the HCP and HPP powders include 10-99wt% HCP (pure iron), such as 50-90wt%, which reads on the claimed 50-80wt%, and therefore 10-50wt% HPP (alloy such as Fe-Ni), which reads on the claimed 20-50wt% (para. [0014]; see also table 1 and para. [0030], maximum achieved density with 80wt% pure iron and 20wt% Fe-Ni).
Regarding Claim 2, Verma discloses wherein the HCP (pure iron) powder comprises a size of 10-40um, which reads on the claimed 45um or less, and the HPP (iron alloy) comprises a size of 200-300um, which reads on the claimed 200um or more (para. [0011]).
Regarding Claim 3, Verma discloses wherein the HPP material includes alloys containing combinations of iron and silicon, which reads on the claimed Fe-Si-based alloy (para. [0010], alloys containing iron…silicon…combinations thereof; see Claim 8).
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 3 is alternatively rejected, and Claims 4-7 are rejected, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Verma (US 20040086708 A1), as applied to Claim 2 above, in further view of Mitani (US 20090226751 A1).
Regarding Claim 3, Verma discloses wherein the HPP material includes alloys containing combinations of elements such as iron and silicon, which reads on an alloy based on Fe and Si (para. [0010], alloys containing iron…silicon…combinations thereof; see Claim 8).
Verma does not expressly disclose an example of an ‘Fe-Si’ alloy; however, Verma discloses wherein an HPP material is any which produces a magnetic permeability higher than that of pure iron, and further discloses using Fe-Ni alloy (permalloy).
Mitani teaches the art equivalence of permalloy and an Fe-Si alloy for use as a ferromagnetic (soft magnetic) and iron-based alloy powder (para. [0057]), and one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that Fe-Si alloy produces a higher magnetic permeability than pure iron.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have specifically used a Fe-Si alloy, as taught by Mitani, for the HPP material and invention of Verma, because this alloy is an alloy comprised of Fe and Si and produces a magnetic permeability higher than pure iron, as disclosed by Verma, and because Mitani teaches it is suitable as a soft magnetic material and an art equivalent to that of permalloy (Fe-Ni) (see teachings above).
Regarding Claim 4, Verma discloses wherein both the HPP and HCP particles may comprise a coating agent, such as a insulating coating to electrically insulate individual particles, the coating including silicone (resin), which reads an organic insulating layer (para. [0015]-[0018]).
However, Verma fails to disclose an inorganic insulating layer formed on the surface of the magnetic core powder, wherein the organic insulating layer of silicone is formed on the surface thereof.
Mitani teaches wherein iron-based soft magnetic particles comprise a multi-layer insulating film, including a first phosphoric acid based film (reads on phosphate film) in order to provide a layer between particles excellent in electrical insulation, thereby reducing eddy current loss, and further a silicone resin film formed on the surface of the phosphoric acid based film in order to enhance the thermal stability of the electrical insulation and to raise the magnetic strength of the powder core (para. [0036]; [0039]-[0040]; [0045]; [0050]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have comprised an inorganic layer comprised of a phosphoric acid based film on the surface of the HCP and HPP particles, and further a silicone resin film formed the surface of the phosphoric acid based film, as taught by Mitani, for the invention disclosed by Verma. One would be motivated to comprise this insulating layer configuration in order electrically insulate individual particles, thereby reducing eddy current loss, and in order to enhance the thermal stability of the electrical insulation and to raise the magnetic strength of the product (see teachings above).
The phosphoric acid-based film and the silicone resin layer on the HPP and HCP particles read on the claimed first and second inorganic insulating layer and the first and second organic insulating layer, respectively.
Regarding Claim 5, Mitani discloses wherein the first and second inorganic insulating layer is formed of a phosphoric acid-based film, which reads on the claimed phosphate film, and wherein the first and second organic insulating layer is formed of a silicone-resin based film (para. [0036]; [0039]-[0040]; [0045]; [0050]).
Regarding Claim 6, Mitani discloses wherein the amount of the inorganic insulating layer (phosphoric acid-based film) is 0.01-0.8wt%, which reads on the claimed 0.05-0.2wt% (para. [0040]). 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.
Regarding Claim 7, Mitani discloses wherein the amount of the inorganic insulating layer (phosphoric acid-based film) is 0.01-0.8wt%, which reads on the claimed 0.1-0.2wt%, and wherein the amount of organic insulating layer (silicone resin) is 0.05-0.3%, which reads on the claimed 0.1-0.2wt% (para. [0040]; para. [0050]). 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Maeda (JP 2005303007 A, English machine translation provided): discloses a powder mixture of iron particles, comprising an average particle diameter of 5-300um, and 0-30% additive particles comprising at least one of Sendust or Permalloy, wherein each of the iron particles and additive particles comprise an insulating coating, such as aluminum phosphate, formed on the surface thereof.
Sato (JP 2007012745 A, English machine translation provided): teaches a powder mixture comprising Fe-based soft magnetic particles comprising a grain size of 50-150um and Fe-based soft magnetic particles comprising a grain size of 250-350um, each with an insulating coating formed thereon (Abstract).
Shimoda (JP 2000114022 A, English machine translation provided): teaches a powder mixture of soft magnetic powder A and soft magnetic powder B, wherein powder A comprises a particle size as high as 5 times that of powder B, and mixed in a ratio of 40-85vol% powder A and 15-60vol% powder B (Abstract).
Dong (CN 107240471 A, English machine translation provided): teaches a powder mixture of 5-95wt% powder A and 5-95wt% powder B, wherein powder A is pure iron powder, and powder B is Fe-based amorphous or nanocrystalline alloy powder, wherein the grain diameter of powder A and powder B is 8-200um (Abstract).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CATHERINE P SMITH whose telephone number is (303)297-4428. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00-4:00 MT.
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 Walker can be reached at (571)-272-3458. 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.
CATHERINE P. SMITH
Patent Examiner
Art Unit 1735
/CATHERINE P SMITH/ Examiner, Art Unit 1735
/KEITH WALKER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1735
Prosecution Insights