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 § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wada et al. (US20190051445A1).
Regarding Claims 1, 4, 6-9 and 13, Wada teaches a method of making a magnetic body comprising:
Producing a molded body [0006] comprising magnetic metal partied at a filling factor of 87% or higher [0074];
The plurality of magnetic particles comprising soft magnetic particles of Fe-Si-Cr-B-C alloy [0075] (Boron is considered an element “A” as it is more apt to oxidation than Fe) ; (where Si reads on element “B” as required by claims 4 and 6); where Cr is considered to read on element “C” and forming FeCr2O4 upon oxidation as required by claims 7-9 and 13.
Heating the molded body (thermally treating) to form an insulating oxide film on a surface of the magnetic metal particles [0056];
Since the particles undergo thermal treating to form an insulating oxide film from the constituents of the magnetic particles including Fe and element A, diffusion of Fe into the insulating film would be expected to decrease the Fe content in the particles from the heating step.
Regarding Claims 2, 5 and 10-12, since the amount of Fe lost to diffusion in forming an insulating film is considered small or minimal, further since the film is formed by an identical heating method, the claimed range of Fe after heating is expected to be present under the expectation that identical products made by identical methods have the same properties (See MPEP 2112.01(I)) Similarly, the oxide limitations of claims 5 and 10-12 would also be expected to be present.
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) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wada et al. (US20190051445A1) in view of Kudo (US20170148554A1).
Regarding Claim 3, Wada teaches Cr is present in the Fe composition but is silent regarding Al or Ti. However, Kudo teaches a soft magnetic powder (abstract and [0141]) with an insulating film of the formula FeCuSIBMM’X, where Al may be present for the purpose of enhancing the magnetic properties of the soft magnetic powder and enhance corrosion resistance [0048] or where Ti may be added for the purpose of improving crystallinity of the magnet [0044-0055], therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to add Al or Ti to the composition of Wada for the purpose of improving magnetic or crystalline properties of the soft magnet.
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/Examiner, Art Unit 1738