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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 3/19/2026 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: in the formula for degree of crystallization, “100” should be “100%”. Appropriate correction is required.
Response to Arguments
The 35 U.S.C. 112 rejections are maintained over Applicant’s amendments. The amendments fail to address the reason for the 112 rejections. According to plain and ordinary meaning of “average”, an average circularity would be represented by the formula:
E
a
v
g
=
∑
i
n
4
π
S
i
L
i
2
1
n
and the average aspect ratio would be represented by the formula
A
R
a
v
g
=
∑
i
n
m
a
j
o
r
a
x
i
s
i
m
i
n
o
r
a
x
i
s
i
1
n
for each ith particle of n particles. However, according to the claim, the average circularity appears to be calculated by the formula:
E
a
v
g
=
4
π
(
S
1
+
S
2
+
S
3
…
S
n
)
(
L
1
+
L
2
+
L
3
…
L
n
)
2
, and the average aspect ratio is calculated by the formula:
A
R
a
v
g
=
(
m
a
j
o
r
a
x
i
s
)
m
a
x
(
m
i
n
o
r
a
x
i
s
)
m
a
x
. While Applicant is entitled to be its own lexicographer, the departure from the plain and ordinary meaning of “average” is not clearly set out in the specification or the claims. In fact, the specification does not appear to define “average circularity” as the claim does (see Spec., ¶¶ 53-57), nor does it appear to define “average aspect ratio” as the claim does (see Spec., ¶¶ 58-62). Thus, the indefiniteness rejections stand.
Applicant’s arguments filed 11/26/2025 with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections over Enomoto et al. (US 2022/0230789) in view of Hosono et al. (US 2024/0071663) and Enomoto in view of Hosono and Jian et al. (US 2023/0025020) have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Enomoto does not teach the claimed magnetic permeability because Enomoto discloses a process of making magnetic powder which is not the same as the process for making the claimed powder with respect to casting temperature. This argument is not persuasive. Applicant’s specification states that the magnetic permeability (and rate of decrease in magnetic permeability) depend on the following factors: (A) silicon content (see Spec., ¶¶ 36-37), (B) average circularity (see Spec., ¶¶ 53-54), (C) average aspect ratio (see Spec., ¶ 58), (D) average particle size (see Spec., ¶ 63), and (E) crystallinity (see Spec., ¶ 72). Further, casting temperature only affects magnetic permeability in so much as it affects crystallization, average circularity, and average aspect ratio of the resulting magnetic powder (see Spec., ¶¶ 120-121).
Enomoto teaches the same silicon content and particle size as the claimed magnetic powder (¶¶ 6-9&56). Hosono is relied upon to teach the claimed average circularity (¶ 54), average aspect ratio (¶ 54), and crystallinity (¶ 65). Whether or not the prior art combination also discloses the casting temperature in the process of making the claimed invention is not dispositive since all factors which affect magnetic permeability are present in the prior art combination. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have no reason to believe that the magnetic powder of the prior art combination would have magnetic permeability properties different from the claimed invention. The rejections are therefore maintained.
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.
Claims 1 and 4-8 are 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.
Claim 1 recites: “an average circularity of 0.85 or more as expressed by the equation E = 4πS/L2 where E is the circularity of the particles, S is an area of the particles, and L is the peripheral length of the particles, an average aspect ratio of 1.20 or less as expressed by (major axis)/(minor axis) where the major axis is a maximum length of the particles and the minor axis is a maximum length of the particles in a direction orthogonal to the direction of the major axis”. This limitation is indefinite. Claim 1 recites an average circularity. However, the claimed manner of calculating this value appears to be represented by the formula:
E
a
v
g
=
4
π
(
S
1
+
S
2
+
S
3
…
S
n
)
(
L
1
+
L
2
+
L
3
…
L
n
)
2
, which is inconsistent with the plain and ordinary meaning of “average”. While Applicant is entitled to be its own lexicographer, the departure from the plain and ordinary meaning of “average” is not clearly set out in the specification or the claims. In fact, the specification does not appear to define “average circularity” as the claim does (see Spec., ¶¶ 53-57). Accordingly, the claim is indefinite because it is unclear whether the “average circularity” is obtained by determining the circularity for each particle using the recited formula and calculating an average, or by using the method recited in the claim. For purposes of examination, the former is presumed.
Claim 1 also recites an average aspect ratio. However, the claimed manner of calculating this value finds the ratio of the maximum length of all the particles as a major axis and a maximum length in an orthogonal direction of all the particles as a minor axis. The resulting aspect ratio is inconsistent with the plain and ordinary meaning of “average”. While Applicant is entitled to be its own lexicographer, the departure from the plain and ordinary meaning of “average” is not clearly set out in the specification or the claims. In fact, the specification does not appear to define “average aspect ratio” as the claim does (see Spec., ¶¶ 58-62). Accordingly, the claim is indefinite because it is unclear whether the “average aspect ratio” is obtained by determining the aspect ratio for each particle using the recited formula and calculating an average, or by using the method recited in the claim. For purposes of examination, the former is presumed.
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 and 4-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Enomoto et al. (US 2022/0230789) in view of Hosono et al. (US 2024/0071663).
Regarding claims 1 and 4, Enomoto discloses an amorphous alloy soft magnetic powder having the following composition formula: (FexCo1-x)100-(a+b) (SiyB1-y)a Mb (¶ 6). M is selected from the group consisting of C, S, P, Sn, Mo, Cu, and Nb (¶ 7), and 0.73≤x≤0.85 (¶ 8), 0.02≤y≤0.10 (¶ 9), 13.0≤a≤19.0 (¶ 10), and 0≤b≤2.0 (¶ 11). The powder has an average particle diameter D50 of 5-60 μm, preferably 20-40 μm (¶ 56). The prior art ranges are the same as or lie within the claimed ranges. Enomoto teaches the powder is spherical (¶ 96) but does not expressly teach the claimed average circularity or average aspect ratio.
Hosono teaches an amorphous soft magnetic alloy powder (¶ 63) for dust cores (¶ 119). The alloy powder has an amorphous ratio of at least 85% (¶ 65). The powder has a circularity of 0.90 or more, preferably 0.95 or more (¶ 54). This circularity is given by 2×(πS)1/2/L (¶ 48), which is the square root of the claimed circularity (the claimed circularity limit of 0.85 is equivalent to a circularity of 0.92 in the prior art). It would have been obvious at the effective time of filing for the claimed invention for one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the teachings of Hosono to the spherical powder of Enomoto with respect to maintaining the circularity of the powder because a powder having the circularity of Hosono results in a core with improved DC superimposition characteristics (¶ 4). Since Enomoto in view of Hosono suggests an alloy powder with high circularity, it approximates a circle, and the aspect ratio of major axis to minor axis is expected to be approximately 1, absent objective evidence to the contrary. See MPEP 2112.
Enomoto teaches mixing the amorphous soft magnetic powder with 2 parts of a resin to 100 parts of powder (i.e., 2 mass%) (¶ 139), drying the powder at 50°C for 1 hour (¶ 140), molding the powder at a pressure of 3 t/cm2 (¶¶ 141-145), and heating at 150°C for 0.5 hr to cure (¶ 146). With the exception of heating time, this is identical to the recited process steps. However, there is no evidence that a heating time of 3 hr compared to 0.5 hr would affect relative density. Instead, the prior art recognizes particle size distribution as impacting the compacted density of the powder (see Enomoto, ¶ 56). The particle size in Enomoto is substantially similar to the claimed particle size. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect a compact made from the prior art powder to have the recited relative density, absent objective evidence to the contrary. See MPEP 2112.
With respect to the claimed rate of decrease in magnetic permeability, the instant specification states that the magnetic permeability (and rate of decrease in magnetic permeability) depend on the following: (A) silicon content (see Spec., ¶¶ 36-37), (B) average circularity (see Spec., ¶¶ 53-54), (C) average aspect ratio (see Spec., ¶ 58), (D) average particle size (see Spec., ¶ 63), and (E) crystallinity (see Spec., ¶ 72). Since the prior art combination meets all of these factors, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the claimed magnetic permeability properties to be present in the prior art combination, absent objective evidence to the contrary. See MPEP 2112.
Regarding claim 5, Enomoto teaches the amorphous alloy soft magnetic powder has a saturation magnetic flux density of 1.6-2.2 T (¶ 25), and is obtained by 4π/10000 × ρ × Mm, where Mm is a maximum magnetization of the powder measured using a vibration sample magnetometer (¶ 157).
Regarding claims 6-8, Enomoto teaches a dust core comprising the amorphous alloy soft magnetic powder (¶ 14), a magnetic element including the dust core (¶ 15), and an electronic device including the magnetic element (¶ 16).
Claims 1 and 4-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Enomoto et al. (US 2022/0230789) in view of Hosono et al. (US 2024/0071663) and Jian et al. (US 2023/0025020).
Regarding claims 1 and 4, Enomoto discloses an amorphous alloy soft magnetic powder having the following composition formula: (FexCo1-x)100-(a+b) (SiyB1-y)a Mb (¶ 6). M is selected from the group consisting of C, S, P, Sn, Mo, Cu, and Nb (¶ 7), and 0.73≤x≤0.85 (¶ 8), 0.02≤y≤0.10 (¶ 9), 13.0≤a≤19.0 (¶ 10), and 0≤b≤2.0 (¶ 11). The powder has an average particle diameter D50 of 5-60 μm, preferably 20-40 μm (¶ 56). The prior art ranges are the same as or lie within the claimed ranges. Enomoto teaches the powder is spherical (¶ 96) but does not expressly teach the claimed average circularity or average aspect ratio.
Hosono teaches an amorphous soft magnetic alloy powder (¶ 63) for dust cores (¶ 119). The alloy powder has an amorphous ratio of at least 85% (¶ 65). The powder has a circularity of 0.90 or more, preferably 0.95 or more (¶ 54). This circularity is given by 2×(πS)1/2/L (¶ 48), which is the square root of the claimed circularity (the claimed circularity limit of 0.85 is equivalent to a circularity of 0.92 in the prior art). It would have been obvious at the effective time of filing for the claimed invention for one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the teachings of Hosono to the spherical powder of Enomoto with respect to maintaining the circularity of the powder because a powder having the circularity of Hosono results in a core with improved DC superimposition characteristics (¶ 4).
Enomoto in view of Hosono does not expressly teach the claimed aspect ratio. Jian teaches for a soft magnetic alloy powder, the minor axis to major axis aspect ratio is preferably 0.69 to 1 (¶ 20), which is equivalent to 1.45 to 1 as claimed. It would have been obvious at the effective time of filing for the claimed invention for one of ordinary skill in the art to achieve an aspect ratio in the prior art combination within the claimed range because the alloy powder of Enomoto is spherical, Hosono teaches an alloy powder of high circularity, and Jian teaches powder which approximates a spherical shape and hence has an aspect ratio close to 1 achieves better magnetic saturation and better coercive force (¶ 21).
With respect to the claimed rate of decrease in magnetic permeability, the instant specification states that the magnetic permeability (and rate of decrease in magnetic permeability) depend on the following: (A) silicon content (see Spec., ¶¶ 36-37), (B) average circularity (see Spec., ¶¶ 53-54), (C) average aspect ratio (see Spec., ¶ 58), (D) average particle size (see Spec., ¶ 63), and (E) crystallinity (see Spec., ¶ 72). Since the prior art combination meets all of these factors, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the claimed magnetic permeability properties to be present in the prior art combination, absent objective evidence to the contrary. See MPEP 2112.
Enomoto teaches mixing the amorphous soft magnetic powder with 2 parts of a resin to 100 parts of powder (i.e., 2 mass%) (¶ 139), drying the powder at 50°C for 1 hour (¶ 140), molding the powder at a pressure of 3 t/cm2 (¶¶ 141-145), and heating at 150°C for 0.5 hr to cure (¶ 146). With the exception of heating time, this is identical to the recited process steps. However, there is no evidence that a heating time of 3 hr compared to 0.5 hr would affect relative density. Instead, the prior art recognizes particle size distribution as impacting the compacted density of the powder (see Enomoto, ¶ 56). The particle size in Enomoto is substantially similar to the claimed particle size. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect a compact made from the prior art powder to have the recited relative density, absent objective evidence to the contrary. See MPEP 2112.
Regarding claim 5, Enomoto teaches the amorphous alloy soft magnetic powder has a saturation magnetic flux density of 1.6-2.2 T (¶ 25), and is obtained by 4π/10000 × ρ × Mm, where Mm is a maximum magnetization of the powder measured using a vibration sample magnetometer (¶ 157).
Regarding claims 6-8, Enomoto teaches a dust core comprising the amorphous alloy soft magnetic powder (¶ 14), a magnetic element including the dust core (¶ 15), and an electronic device including the magnetic element (¶ 16).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to XIAOBEI WANG whose telephone number is (571)270-5705. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8AM-5PM EST.
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, Humera Sheikh can be reached on 571-272-0604. 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.
/XIAOBEI WANG/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1784