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 1-7 were rejected in the Office Acton mailed 7/2/2026.
Applicants filed a response and amended claim 1 on 7/23/2026.
Claims 1-7 are pending.
Response to Arguments
In response to amendments, applicant’s arguments, see pg. 4 § “Rejection under 35 USC §112”, filed 7/23/2026, with respect to the rejection of claim 1 under 35 USC §112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection under 35 USC §112(b) has been withdrawn.
In response to amendments, applicant's arguments, see pg. 4-5 § “Rejection under 35 USC §103”, filed 7/23/2026, with respect to the rejection of claim 1 under 35 USC §103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant primarily argues:
“...amended claim 1 now recites that the soft magnetic powder contains sulfur...”
“...Sanchez-Poncela appears to be completely silent regarding a magnetic powder that contains sulfur. Since the combined prior art fails to teach or suggest all the elements of the claim, the combination of prior art cannot render claim 1 unpatentable.”
However, it is noted that Sanchez-Poncela does teach a magnetic powder containing sulfur (Col. 8 Ln. 10-26).
Additionally, in response to the applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, upon updating the searches, the examiner found a new reference, namely Urata (US 10847291 B2), that teaches a motivation to incorporate sulfur into the invention of Sanchez-Poncela (US 12624432). In light of the amendments to claim 1, a new rejection is presented below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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. 103 as being unpatentable over Sanchez-Poncela (US 12624432 B2, claiming foreign priority date of Dec. 19 2019) in view of Urata (US 10847291 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Sanchez-Poncela teaches a metallic powder for use in magnetic applications, comprising (Abstract, Clm. 1):
6.5-10 wt% Si
Less than 7 wt% Cr
Less than 2 wt% C
Overall, Sanchez-Poncela’s powder composition reads on the claimed composition. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05(1).
Sanchez-Poncela teaches that 80% of the particles that comprise the metallic powder have a size of 15-170 µm (Col. 5 Ln. 66-67). Additionally, they teach the following particle size distribution ranges (Col. 6 Ln. 1-8):
5 µm ≤ D10 ≤ 30 µm
15 µm ≤ D50 ≤ 65 µm
80 µm ≤ D90 ≤ 200 µm; more preferably 80 µm ≤ D90 ≤ 160 µm; even more preferably 100 µm ≤ D90 ≤ 160 µm
Using the most preferable ranges, the taught powder would have an average particle size of 40-85 µm. Sanchez-Poncela also teaches that at most 95% of the particle microstructure is crystalline and comprises ferric phases with a grain size less than 20 µm, preferably less than 10 µm (Col. 5 Ln. 1-6, 37-38; Clm. 2). Using the calculated average particle size (A) values and the maximum preferred grain size (B) value (i.e 10 µm), the A/B value for the taught powders would be between 4 and 8.5, which reads on the claimed A/B range of 2.0-8.0. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05(1).
Sanchez-Poncela is silent on the Vickers hardness values of their taught powder particles. However, it is noted that powder production method taught by Sanchez-Poncela has significant overlap with the applicant’s disclosed powder production method. To elaborate, Sanchez-Poncela utilizes either gas or water atomization to produce their powders, which is shared with the applicant (Col. 6 Ln. 61-64). During Sanchez-Poncela’s atomization process, a metal with the composition as discussed above is heated to a temperature of at 300O C above its liquidus temperature to promote the formation of highly spherical particles (Col. 6 Ln. 39-56). More preferably, the composition is heated at a temperature of 300-400OC above its liquidus temperature (Col. 6 Ln. 39-56). These temperature ranges overlap with the applicant’s casting temperature range of 250-300OC above the melting temperature of the metal comprising the claimed metal powder, as per the specification. Additionally, the nozzle diameter used during Sanchez-Poncela’s process is preferably set between 2 and 3 mm to accurately control the particle size distribution and promote the formation of a specific microstructure (col. 7 Ln. 31-38). This nozzle diameter reads on the applicant’s most preferred streamlet diameter range of 0.3-2.0 mm, as per the specification.
In all, Sanchez-Poncela’s powder compositions, atomization production method, melting temperatures, and nozzle diameters have significant overlap with the applicant’s powder compositions, atomization production method, casting temperatures, and streamlet diameters, respectively. The overlap in production parameters is significant enough that a powder produced using Sanchez-Poncela’s taught method will inherently have the same Vickers hardness range as claimed in claim 1. This is further reinforced by the fact that Sanchez-Poncela’s method ultimately produces a powder that reads on the previously discussed limitations regarding the A/B ratio. 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 (See MPEP 2112.01).
However, while Sanchez-Poncela teaches a metal powder composition comprising S (Col. 8 Ln. 10-26), they fail to exemplify a soft magnetic powder composition comprising Fe, Si, Cr, and S.
Urata teaches a soft magnetic powder comprising Fe, Si, Cr, and S (Clms. 1 and 7). Additionally, Urata teaches that S is added because it promotes the spheroidization of the soft magnetic powder. The S content is kept below 0.5 wt% and preferably less than 0.05wt% to prevent deterioration of soft magnetic properties (Col. 7, Ln. 6-18).
Therefore, it would be obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to incorporate sulfur (as taught by Urata) into the soft magnetic powder of Sanchez-Poncela because it enables the advantageous result of improved spheroidization of the resultant magnetic powder.
Regarding claim 2, as discussed above, Sanchez-Poncela teaches that their powder can comprise 0-2 wt% C, which reads on the claimed C composition range of 0.0050-0.0200 wt%. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05(1).
Regarding claim 3, Sanchez-Poncela teaches that oxygen may be included as an impurity in the powder composition, and that the total impurity content should be limited to 0.03 wt% (Col. 4 Ln. 48-57). Assuming oxygen comprises virtually all of the included impurities, and using the above calculated average particle size values, the α*ß value of Sanchez-Poncela’s powder is calculated to have a maximum value of 1.2-2.6, which reads on the claimed α*ß range of 0.6-1.8. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05(1).
Regarding claim 4, Sanchez-Poncela teaches that their metal powder has a mean sphericity of at least 0.80, which reads on the claimed particle circularity range of 0.60 or more (Abstract, Clm. 1).
Regarding claim 5, Urata teaches a dust core made by a soft magnetic powder (Clm. 18).
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sanchez-Poncela (US 12624432 B2) in view of Urata (US 10847291 B2) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hattori (US 20090220372 A1).
Regarding claims 6-7, Sanchez-Poncela and Urata are silent on a magnetic element comprising a dust core and an electronic device comprising a magnetic element.
Hattori teaches a dust core obtained by pressing powders composed of a soft magnetic material (Abstract). The taught dust core is used in various applications such a motor, a transformer, an actuator, etc. [0002].
Overall, Hattori teaches that the use of a soft magnetic powder to produce a dust core is well-known in the art, and these dust cores are typically used to make a magnetic element. Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to utilize a metallic powder as taught by Sanchez-Poncela and Urata to produce a dust core and then a magnetic element with said dust core (as taught by Hattori) because the use of soft magnetic powders to make these products are well-known in the art. In the same vein, it would be obvious to incorporate the produced magnetic element into an electron device, given the ubiquity of magnetic elements in electronic devices. Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results and using known techniques to improve similar devices in the same way are considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art (KSR, MPEP 2141 (III)
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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAVIER FLORES whose telephone number is 571-272-9130. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30AM-5:00PM.
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, 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.
/J.F./Examiner, Art Unit 1735
/KEITH WALKER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1735
Prosecution Insights