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 Amendment
Amendments to the claims, filed on 12/11/25, have been entered in the above-identified application.
Any rejections made in the previous action, and not repeated below, are hereby withdrawn.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aga et al (US 2018/0179082 A1) in view of Ooyama et al (US 2020/0413542 A1).
Regarding claim 1, 7, and 8, Aga teaches a composition including magnetic particles X (e.g., spherical ferrite powder) ; wherein the particles have shape in which a shape factor SF-1 (i.e., sphericity) is 100 to 120, preferably 100 to 110; and, the volume average particle diameter of the spherical ferrite powder according to the present invention is 10 to 50 μm. These ranges lie within the ranges of the instant claim.
Aga further suggests the composition may comprise a binder resin such as an epoxy (para 36, 57). Aga fails to suggests the composition includes an organic solvent; and a content of magnetic particles that are included in the magnetic particles X and have an equivalent circle diameter of less than 11 µm is 40% to 70% by mass with respect to a total mass of the magnetic particles X.
However, Aja suggests the composition may be used as a sealing material in circuits (i.e., electronic application) (para 2, 58, 93). Aja further teaches the volume average particle diameter of the spherical ferrite powder affects the viscosity of the resin to which it is added; and the volume average particle diameter and the content of the ferrite particles having a particle diameter of less than 11 μm may be determined depending on the type of the resin (including an additive) to which the ferrite powder is added (para 31-33).
Ooyama teaches through hole filling pastes (i.e., sealants) comprising magnetic powder, epoxy resin, curing agents, and other additives such as organic solvents (para 13-17, 114).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to combine the through hole filling pastes of Ooyama with the sealants of Aga, since it is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose (MPEP § 2144.06 I).
With regard to the limitation “a content of magnetic particles that are included in the magnetic particles X and have an equivalent circle diameter of less than 11 µm is 40% to 70% by mass with respect to a total mass of the magnetic particles X;” it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to adjust the content of the ferrite particles having a particle diameter of less than 11 μm in the sealant of Aga as modified by Ooyama to optimize its viscosity. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (MPEP § 2144.05 II A).
Regarding claims 2 and 4, Ooyama teaches the magnetic particles X include alloy particles (para 62), as does Aga (para 39-44); and Aga gives specific species wherein a content of Fe atoms is 50% by mass or more with respect to a content of metal atoms in the alloy particles (table 4).
Regarding claim 3, Aga teaches ferrite magnetic particles having an equivalent circle diameter of less than 11 μm, ferrite particles magnetic particles having an equivalent circle diameter of 11 μm or more (para 20-22). Ooyama teaches alloy particles are technically equivalent to ferrite particles in magnetic powders (para 62); so it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to substitute allow particles for the ferrite particles having an equivalent circle diameter of less than 11 μm; since substituting known equivalents for the same purpose as recognized in prior art is prima facie obvious (MPEP § 2144.06 II).since it is prima facie obvious to select a known material based on its suitability for its intended use (MPEP § 2144.07).
Regarding claim 5, Ooyama teaches the ferrite particles contain Ni atoms (para 62).
Regarding claim 6, Aga teaches larger-diameter ferrite particles according to the present invention before resin coating having a particle diameter of 11 μm or more is preferable to have the BET specific surface area of 0.1 to 2 m2/g. This range substantially overlap that of the instant claims. It has been held that overlapping ranges are sufficient to establish prima facie obviousness. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have selected from the overlapping portion of the range taught by Aga, because overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness (MPEP § 2144.05).
Regarding claim 9 and 10, Aga teaches the ferrite powder is coated with a resin, e.g., a thermosetting resin (i.e., wherein at least some of the magnetic particles X have a surface layer on a surface of the magnetic particles X and wherein the surface layer is an organic layer) (para 35-36).
Regarding claim 11, Ooyama teaches the content of the organic solvent in the through hole filling paste is preferably less than 1.0% by mass (para 114) which would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention possible compositions comprising more than 1.0% by mass organic solvent. This range substantially overlap that of the instant claims. It has been held that overlapping ranges are sufficient to establish prima facie obviousness. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have selected from the overlapping portion of the range taught by Ooyama, because overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness (MPEP § 2144.05).
Furthermore, "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (MPEP § 2144.05 II A).
Regarding claims 12-14, Ooyama teaches the use of the compositions as a through hole filling paste and cured product in hole of circuit boards which would have suggested or otherwise rendered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention a magnetic particle-containing cured substance formed of the composition according to claim 1; a magnetic particle-introduced substrate comprising a substrate in which hole portions are formed; and the magnetic particle-containing cured substance according to claim 12 that is disposed in the hole portions; and an electronic material comprising the magnetic particle-introduced substrate according to claim 13.
Regarding claim 15, Ooyama teaches the magnetic particles X include alloy particles (para 62), as does Aga (para 39-44); and Aga gives specific species wherein a content of Fe atoms is 50% by mass or more with respect to a content of metal atoms in the alloy particles across various diameters (table 4).
Regarding claim 16, Ooyama teaches the ferrite particles contain Ni atoms (para 62).
Regarding claim 17, Aga teaches larger-diameter ferrite particles according to the present invention before resin coating having a particle diameter of 11 μm or more is preferable to have the BET specific surface area of 0.1 to 2 m2/g. This range substantially overlap that of the instant claims. It has been held that overlapping ranges are sufficient to establish prima facie obviousness. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have selected from the overlapping portion of the range taught by Aga, because overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness (MPEP § 2144.05).
Regarding claims 18 and 19, Aga further suggests the composition may comprise a binder resin such as an epoxy (para 36, 57); as does Ooyama (para 13-17).
Regarding claim 20, Aga teaches the ferrite powder is coated with a resin, e.g., a thermosetting resin (i.e., wherein at least some of the magnetic particles X have a surface layer on a surface of the magnetic particles X) (para 35-36).
Response to Arguments
Applicant contends that Aga would not have suggested a content of magnetic particles that are included in the magnetic particles X and have an equivalent circle diameter of less than 11 µm is 40% to 70% by mass with respect to a total mass of the magnetic particles X; since Aga teaches "if the content of the ferrite particles having the particle diameter of less than 11 µm is more than 30 wt %, the resin compound prepared by adding the ferrite powder as a filler to a resin may tends to be high in viscosity and molding may be difficult." While the Examiner agrees with this teaching, it states nothing about the content of the ferrite particles having the particle diameter of less than 11 µm in a sealant. It is just an example for one type of resin, e.g., that of a moldable resin.
Aja suggests the composition may be used as a sealing material in circuits (i.e., electronic application) (para 2, 58, 93). Aja further teaches the volume average particle diameter of the spherical ferrite powder affects the viscosity of the resin to which it is added; and the volume average particle diameter and the content of the ferrite particles having a particle diameter of less than 11 μm may be determined depending on the type of the resin (including an additive) to which the ferrite powder is added (para 31-33). "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (MPEP § 2144.05 II A).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to adjust the content of the ferrite particles having a particle diameter of less than 11 μm in the sealant of Aga as modified by Ooyama to optimize its viscosity.
With regard to the organic solvent, it is noted that Ooyama teaches through hole filling pastes (i.e., sealants) comprising magnetic powder, epoxy resin, curing agents, and other additives such as organic solvents (para 13-17, 114). Ooyama is relied upon for the use of an organic solvent.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHAN L VAN SELL whose telephone number is (571)270-5152. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thur, Generally 7am-6pm.
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, M. Veronica Ewald can be reached at 571-272-8519. 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.
NATHAN VAN SELL
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1783
/NATHAN L VAN SELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1783