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
The amendment filed on 05/05/2026 has been entered. Claim(s) 1, 3-12 is/are pending in the application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 11 recites the broad recitation of 7-12 nm and the claim also recites 8-11 nm which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. Further, the language “preferably” renders the claim indefinite as it is not clear if the limitation is required or not.
Claim(s) 1, 4-5, 7-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kato et al. (US20150162118A1).
Regarding Claims 1 and 11, 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 and (9-13.5)
Cr
0.01-5 [0052, 0058]
0.12-3.7 and (0.5-2.2)
Si
0-12 [0055]
1.31-9.99 and (4-8)
The crystallite diameter is 100 nm or less, encompassing the claimed range of 6-13 nm [0051]; and the claim 11 range of 7-12 nm (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, 6 and 12 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)
Regarding Claim 12, Kato teaches heat treatment may be done in a humid or dry air atmosphere [0072, 0084], but does not teach an inert or reducing atmosphere as claimed, however, Kudo teaches atmosphere for crystallization treatment is preferably in inert gas or reducing pressure atmosphere for the purpose of improving magnetic properties [0143] therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform the crystallization heat treatment in reduced or inert atmosphere for the purpose of improving magnetic properties.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/05/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Kato does not describe the specific combination of SI, B, and Cr content ranges in the connect of the claimed composition and does not describe the narrower ranges recited in claim 1 inlcuding 0.5-2.2% Cr; this is not persuasive, the prior art broadly discloses ranges for each of these elements (See [0055-0058] and Table 1) and a range of Cr which overlaps with the claimed Cr range.
While applicant argues the criticality of the claimed elements for optimized properties, as shown in the table below, there is such significant overlap in the ranges, that any unexpected benefits from the composition would be considered similar in the prior art product.
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 and (9-13.5)
Cr
0.01-5 [0052, 0058]
0.12-3.7 and (0.5-2.2)
Si
0-12 [0055]
1.31-9.99 and (4-8)
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 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
Prosecution Insights