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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Paragraph 0029, “Furthermore, a decrease in magnetic permeability due oxygen mixed can be suppressed”. It appears the word “to” is missing from the sentence. 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, requires the specification to be written in “full, clear, concise, and exact terms.” The specification should be revised carefully in order to comply with 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112.
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 applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 3 is 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.
Specifically, claim 3, “... where α is an average particle diameter and ß is an oxygen content”, renders the claim indefinite. There is no indication of what units the diameters and oxygen contents are within the claim (e.g. mm, µm, nm, etc. for the diameter and wt%, g/L, ppm, etc. for the oxygen content). For the purpose of examination, the particle diameter will be interpreted as being in µm and the oxygen content will be interpreted as being in wt%.
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.
Claims 1-4 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).
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)
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).
Claims 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sanchez-Poncela (US 12624432 B2) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hattori (US 20090220372 A1).
Regarding claims 5-7, Sanchez-Poncela is silent on a dust core comprising their powder, 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 Sanchez-Poncela’s metallic powder 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)
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