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
Applicant’s amendment has been entered. Claims 1-12 and 14 are pending of which claims 12 and 14 are withdrawn from consideration. Amendment has overcome the claim objections for minor informalities. Claim 13 is cancelled. Deleting instances of the word “preferably” in claims 5-11 has overcome rejections under 35 USC112(b) as to whether or not claims were limited by the terms following “preferably”.
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 1-11 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 claims “a heating method for the baking is stepped heating” in lines 10-11. Claim 1 claims “performing pressing, and baking and curing” in line 3, and claim 1 claims “then baking to obtain” in lines 8-9. It is not clear from claim 1 as worded which “baking” step is “the baking” to which the limitation in claim 1 lines 10-11 refers. This limitation may be more clearly set forth by further distinguishing the “baking” as worded in lines 10-11.
Claim 1 claims “the stepped heating comprises one-step heating, two-step heating, three-step heating, and four-step heating” in lines 4-5. Claim 1 claims “the stepped heating comprises one-step heating, two-step heating, and three-step heating” in lines 11-12. Claim 1 claims “a heating method for the baking is stepped heating” in lines 10-11 and “a heating method of the baking and curing is stepped heating” in line 4. It is not clear from claim 1 as worded to which “stepped heating” each instance of “the stepped heating” refers. Please more specifically identify each stepped heating to distinguish the stepped heatings from one another.
Claim 2-11 are rejected under 35 USC 112(b) because they depend on claim 1.
Claim 7 recites “the one-step heating” (twice), “the two-step heating” (twice) and “the three-step heating” (twice). Claim 1 introduces two different one-step heatings, two different two-step heatings, and two different three-step heatings, and it cannot be determined from claim 7, as amended, to which heating “the one-step heating”, “the two-step heating”, and “the three step heating” refer. Claim 7’s invocation of step (1), as worded only appears to apply to the first recited additional limitation of claim 7.
Claim 10 recites “the one-step heating” (twice), “the two-step heating” (twice) and “the three-step heating” (twice). Claim 1 introduces two different one-step heatings, two different two-step heatings, and two different three-step heatings, and it cannot be determined from claim 7, as amended, to which heating “the one-step heating”, “the two-step heating”, and “the three step heating” refer. Note that amendment deleted references to step (2) within claim 10.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that claims have been amended to overcome the previously set forth rejections under 35 USC 112(b); however, amendment has also introduced new grounds of uncertainty, particularly with regards to the same or very similar phrasing applied to refer to different steps.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-11 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Independent claim 1 claims a preparation method for an inductive component. Claim 1 claims the method comprises mixing and granulating a first magnetic alloy powder, a second magnetic alloy powder, and a binder. Claim 1 claims then performing pressing, and baking and curing the pressed blank to obtain a magnetic central core. Claim 1 claims a heating method of the baking and curing [claims consistently identify “baking and curing” as the heating of step (1)] is stepped heating. Claim 1 appears intended to claim that the stepped heating of the baking and curing comprises one-step heating, two-step heating, three-step heating, and four-step heating. Claim 1 claims a temperature after the four-step heating is 350-380°C. In step (2), claim 1 claims combining the magnetic central core obtained in step (1) with a coil and placing the magnetic central core and the coil into a mold cavity. Claim 1 claims injecting a cladding powder slurry, and then baking to obtain a semi-finished component. Claim 1 claims an injection pressure per unit area of the injecting the cladding powder slurry is less than or equal to 0.5 T/cm2. Claim 1 claims a heating method for the baking [which appears intended to refer to the baking of step (2)] is stepped heating. Claim 1 appears intended to claim that the stepped heating of step (2) comprises one-step heating, two-step heating, and three-step heating. Claim 1 claims coating an insulation layer on a surface of the semi-finished component obtained in step (2). Claim 1 claims performing paint stripping, and then performing electroplating to form an electrode layer to obtain the inductive component.
Prior office action(s) relied on Men (CN112397295A) to anticipate claim 1 as originally presented. Men is the individual prior art reference closest to claim 1. Men teaches that a heating in the baking to obtain the semi-finished component (baked inductor blank) is according to a step curve [0052], thereby disclosing that heating is to some extent stepped heating, but Men does not teach that the heating comprises one-step heating, two-step heating, and three-step heating. Claim 1 defines over Men alone at least in claiming two stepped heating steps comprising at least one-step heating, two-step heating, and three-step heating.
Prior office action(s) relied on Men in view of Lyu (CN114664556A) to render obvious claim 10 as originally presented. While Lyu teaches that a heating comprises at least one-step heating, two-step heating, and three-step heating, Lyu only teaches one such heating step. Lyu does not suggest a stepped baking and curing step in addition to a separate baking step. Claim 1, as the claim appears intended, would define over Men in view of Lyu at least in claiming two separate stepped heatings comprising at least one-step heating, two-step heating, and three-step heating.
Claims 2-11 depend on claim 1. Dependent claims define over the prior art at least for the reasons given above with respect to claim 1.
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 SEAN P O'KEEFE whose telephone number is (571)272-7647. The examiner can normally be reached MR 8:00-6:30.
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 (571) 272-6297. 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.
/SEAN P. O'KEEFE/ Examiner, Art Unit 1738
/SALLY A MERKLING/ SPE, Art Unit 1738
Prosecution Insights