Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/491,915

SOFT MAGNETIC POWDER, METAL POWDER, DUST CORE, MAGNETIC ELEMENT, AND ELECTRONIC DEVICE

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Oct 23, 2023
Examiner
MORALES, RICARDO D
Art Unit
1738
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Seiko Epson Corporation
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
81%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 9m
To Grant
98%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 81% — above average
81%
Career Allow Rate
350 granted / 431 resolved
+16.2% vs TC avg
Strong +17% interview lift
Without
With
+17.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 9m
Avg Prosecution
32 currently pending
Career history
463
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.6%
-39.4% vs TC avg
§103
56.6%
+16.6% vs TC avg
§102
21.5%
-18.5% vs TC avg
§112
19.2%
-20.8% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 431 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 . 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. Claim(s) 1-2, 4-5, 7-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kato et al. (US20150162118A1). Regarding Claim 1, Kato teaches a soft magnetic material with a composition of the type Fe-Si-B-Cu-Si, a finemet material [0052], with a composition having the following composition: Element Prior art range (at%) Claimed range(at%) Fe 76-84 [0054] 75.5-79.5 Cu 0.1-10 (Table 1) 0.3-2.0 Nb 0.01-5 [0058] 2-4 B 8-18 [0056] 6.5-19.9 Cr 0.01-5 [0052, 0058] 0.12-0.37 Si 0-12 [0055] 1.31-9.99 The crystallite diameter is 100 nm or less, encompassing the claimed range of 6-13 nm [0051] (in the case where a claimed range overlaps or lies inside of a claimed range, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. (See MPEP 2144.05(I)) Regarding Claim 2, the prior art teaches the following limitations: Element Prior art range (at%) Claimed range(at%) Fe 76-84 [0054] 75.5-79.5 Cu 0.1-10 (Table 1) 0.3-2.0 Nb 0.01-5 [0058] 2-4 B 8-18 [0056] 9-13.5 Cr 0.01-5 [0052, 0058] 0.5-2.2 Si 0-12 [0055] 4-8 (in the case where a claimed range overlaps or lies inside of a claimed range, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. (See MPEP 2144.05(I)) Regarding Claim 4, oxygen is considered to be an impurity and in a content of 0.5% atom or lower [0058] overlapping with the claimed range of 1500 ppm or less (in the case where a claimed range overlaps or lies inside of a claimed range, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. (See MPEP 2144.05(I)) Regarding Claim 5, the prior art is silent regarding the maximum magnetization property, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect similar magnetization properties as that claimed under the expectation that similar products have similar properties (See MPEP 2112.01(I)). Regarding Claim 7, the prior art is silent regarding the properties of a DSC curve and temperature difference between peaks as claimed, however one of ordinary skill in the art would expect similar properties as that claimed under the expectation that similar products have similar properties (See MPEP 2112.01(I)). Regarding Claims 8-10, the product is a powder (dust) core (abstract) which serves as a magnetic element in an electronic device [0002] Claim(s) 3 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kato et al. (US20150162118A1) in view of Kudo et al. (US20180090251A1). Regarding Claim 3, Kato is silent regarding the dimensions of ring-shaped molded body, however Kudo teaches a soft magnetic powder of similar composition to that of Kato (abstract) where the powder may be molded into ring shaped molded body having an exemplary outer diameter of 28 mm, inner diameter of 14 mm and a thickness of 5mm [0168] where a coil wire of 0.8 mm diameter is coiled with 7 turns [0190-0193], and a frequency of 100 kHz a magnetic permeability greater than 20.9 is obtained (Tables 3-4); the choke coil molded product of the prior art is larger than the coil of the claimed invention, however one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to form a smaller choke coil than that claimed for the purpose of forming high-density smaller sized electronics and can use smaller wire thickness such as that claimed; with similar dimensions and the composition of Kato, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the prior art product to have similar magnetic permeability (See MPEP 2112.01(I)). Regarding Claim 6, Kudo teaches the molding is done with 2% weight epoxy resin and press molding at 98-981 MPa [0162]; and Kato teaches a density over 5 g/cm3 is formed (Table 4) Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICARDO D MORALES whose telephone number is (571)272-6691. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 9 am- 4 pm. 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, Sally Merkling can be reached at 5712726297. 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. /RICARDO D MORALES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1738
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Oct 23, 2023
Application Filed
Jan 30, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12599970
DEVICE AND METHOD FOR ADDITIVE MANUFACTURING UNDER PROTECTIVE GAS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12599964
BONDING COMPOSITION, CONDUCTOR BONDING STRUCTURE, AND METHOD FOR PRODUCING SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12595537
TIN BLACKPLATE FOR PROCESSING AND METHOD FOR MANUFACTURING SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12595526
HOT-ROLLED STEEL SHEET FOR HYPER TRAIN TUBE, AND MANUFACTURING METHOD FOR SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12595539
QT HEAT TREATED HIGH CARBON HOT ROLLED STEEL SHEET, HIGH CARBON COLD ROLLED STEEL SHEET, QT HEAT TREATED HIGH CARBON COLD ROLLED STEEL SHEET, AND MANUFACTURING METHODS THEREOF
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
81%
Grant Probability
98%
With Interview (+17.0%)
2y 9m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 431 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month