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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claim(s) 1-11, drawn to a preparation method for an inductive component in the reply filed on March 11, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 12 and 14 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on March 11, 2026.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 9 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, please replace “and placing into a mold cavity” with “and placing the magnetic central core and the coil into a mold cavity” in order to specify what claim 1 claims placing into the mold cavity.
In claim 9, please replace “Mpa.s” with “MPa.s”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 5-11 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 5 recites “preferably, a gradation ratio of the first magnetic alloy powder and the second magnetic alloy powder is 2:8-8:2” on the third to fourth lines of claim 5. Introducing a limitation with the word “preferably” raises uncertainty as to whether the feature introduced by “preferably” is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim 5 recites “preferably, the binder comprises an epoxy adhesive” on the fifth line of claim 5. Introducing a limitation with the word “preferably” raises uncertainty as to whether the feature introduced by “preferably” is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim 5 recites “preferably, a total mass of the first magnetic alloy powder and the second magnetic alloy powder and a mass of the binder have a ratio of 100:1-3.5” on the sixth to seventh lines of claim 5. Introducing a limitation with the word “preferably” raises uncertainty as to whether the feature introduced by “preferably” is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim 6 recites “preferably, a pressure of the pressing is 3-10 T/cm2” on the third line of claim 6. Introducing a limitation with the word “preferably” raises uncertainty as to whether the feature introduced by “preferably” is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim 6 recites “preferably, a temperature of the pressing is 20-200°C” on the fourth line of claim 6. Introducing a limitation with the word “preferably” raises uncertainty as to whether the feature introduced by “preferably” is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim 6 recites “preferably, a time of the pressing is 1-180 s” on the fifth line of claim 6. Introducing a limitation with the word “preferably” raises uncertainty as to whether the feature introduced by “preferably” is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim 7 recites “preferably, a heating method of…” starting on the third line of claim 7. Introducing a limitation with the word “preferably” raises uncertainty as to whether the feature introduced by “preferably” is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim 7 recites “preferably, a temperature after the one-step heating is 90-110°C” on the sixth line of claim 7. Introducing a limitation with the word “preferably” raises uncertainty as to whether the feature introduced by “preferably” is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim 7 recites “preferably, an insulation time after the one-step heating is 20-40 min” on the seventh line of claim 7. Introducing a limitation with the word “preferably” raises uncertainty as to whether the feature introduced by “preferably” is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim 7 recites “preferably, a temperature after the two-step heating is 120-150°C” on the eighth line of claim 7. Introducing a limitation with the word “preferably” raises uncertainty as to whether the feature introduced by “preferably” is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim 7 recites “preferably, an insulation time after the two-step heating is 20-40 min” on the ninth line of claim 7. Introducing a limitation with the word “preferably” raises uncertainty as to whether the feature introduced by “preferably” is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim 7 recites “preferably, a temperature after the three-step heating is 180-200°C” on the tenth line of claim 7. Introducing a limitation with the word “preferably” raises uncertainty as to whether the feature introduced by “preferably” is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim 7 recites “preferably, an insulation time after the three-step heating is 50-70 min” on the eleventh line of claim 7. Introducing a limitation with the word “preferably” raises uncertainty as to whether the feature introduced by “preferably” is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim 7 recites “preferably, a temperature after the four-step heating is 350-380°C” on the twelfth line of claim 7. Introducing a limitation with the word “preferably” raises uncertainty as to whether the feature introduced by “preferably” is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim 7 recites “preferably, an insulation time after the four-step heating is 100-140 min” on the thirteenth line of claim 7. Introducing a limitation with the word “preferably” raises uncertainty as to whether the feature introduced by “preferably” is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim 7 recites “preferably, a shape of the magnetic central core comprises a circular shape, an elliptical shape, a square shape, a conical shape, an I-shape, or a T-shape” on the fourteenth to fifteenth lines of claim 7. Introducing a limitation with the word “preferably” raises uncertainty as to whether the feature introduced by “preferably” is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim 7 recites “preferably, a fitting gap of 0.02-0.06 mm is reserved for the magnetic central core” on the sixteenth line of claim 7. Introducing a limitation with the word “preferably” raises uncertainty as to whether the feature introduced by “preferably” is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim 8 recites “preferably, the conductive material comprises copper” on the fourth line of claim 8. Introducing a limitation with the word “preferably” raises uncertainty as to whether the feature introduced by “preferably” is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim 8 recites “preferably, the coil comprises any one or a combination of at least two of a circular wire, a flat wire, or a square corner wire” on the fifth to sixth lines of claim 8. Introducing a limitation with the word “preferably” raises uncertainty as to whether the feature introduced by “preferably” is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim 9 recites “preferably, the third magnetic alloy powder comprises an amorphous alloy powder and/or a nanocrystalline powder” on the fourth to fifth lines of claim 9. Introducing a limitation with the word “preferably” raises uncertainty as to whether the feature introduced by “preferably” is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim 9 recites “preferably, a median particle size D50 of the third magnetic alloy powder is 20-55 μm” on the sixth line of claim 9. Introducing a limitation with the word “preferably” raises uncertainty as to whether the feature introduced by “preferably” is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim 9 recites “preferably, the fourth magnetic alloy powder comprises any one or a combination of at least two of an iron-nickel powder, an iron-silicon-aluminum powder, or an iron-silicon-chromium powder” on the seventh to eighth lines of claim 9. Introducing a limitation with the word “preferably” raises uncertainty as to whether the feature introduced by “preferably” is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim 9 recites “preferably, a median particle size D50 of the fourth magnetic alloy powder is 0.3-0.8 μm” on the ninth line of claim 9. Introducing a limitation with the word “preferably” raises uncertainty as to whether the feature introduced by “preferably” is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim 9 recites “preferably, a gradation ratio of the third magnetic alloy powder and the fourth magnetic alloy powder is 2:8-8:2” on the tenth to eleventh lines of claim 9. Introducing a limitation with the word “preferably” raises uncertainty as to whether the feature introduced by “preferably” is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim 9 recites “preferably, the organic solvent comprises alcohol and/or toluene” on the twelfth line of claim 9. Introducing a limitation with the word “preferably” raises uncertainty as to whether the feature introduced by “preferably” is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim 9 recites “preferably, a viscosity of the cladding powder slurry is 500-2000 Mpa.s” on the thirteenth line of claim 9. Introducing a limitation with the word “preferably” raises uncertainty as to whether the feature introduced by “preferably” is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim 9 recites “preferably, an injection pressure per unit area of the injecting the cladding powder slurry is less than or equal to 0.5 T/cm2” on the fourteenth to fifteenth lines of claim 9. Introducing a limitation with the word “preferably” raises uncertainty as to whether the feature introduced by “preferably” is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim 10 recites “preferably, a temperature after the one-step heating is 90-110°C” on the fourth line of claim 10. Introducing a limitation with the word “preferably” raises uncertainty as to whether the feature introduced by “preferably” is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim 10 recites “preferably, an insulation time after the one-step heating is 20-40 min” on the fifth line of claim 10. Introducing a limitation with the word “preferably” raises uncertainty as to whether the feature introduced by “preferably” is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim 10 recites “preferably, a temperature after the two-step heating is 120-150°C” on the sixth line of claim 10. Introducing a limitation with the word “preferably” raises uncertainty as to whether the feature introduced by “preferably” is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim 10 recites “preferably, an insulation time after the two-step heating is 20-40 min” on the seventh line of claim 10. Introducing a limitation with the word “preferably” raises uncertainty as to whether the feature introduced by “preferably” is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim 10 recites “preferably, a temperature after the three-step heating is 180-200°C” on the eighth line of claim 10. Introducing a limitation with the word “preferably” raises uncertainty as to whether the feature introduced by “preferably” is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim 10 recites “preferably, an insulation time after the three-step heating is 150-200 min” on the ninth line of claim 10. Introducing a limitation with the word “preferably” raises uncertainty as to whether the feature introduced by “preferably” is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim 11 recites “preferably, a material of the electroplating comprises any one or a combination of at least two of copper, nickel, or tin” on the fifth to sixth lines of claim 11. Introducing a limitation with the word “preferably” raises uncertainty as to whether the feature introduced by “preferably” is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
In the event that the above listing overlooks a claim limitation introduced by the word “preferably”, applicant should understand that any claim limitation introduced by “preferably” raises uncertainty as to whether or not the terms that follow “preferably” limit the claim. If such recitations are required limitations, they should not be introduced with “preferably”, and if they are not required, then it is unclear why the claims recite these limitations.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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, 8-9, and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Men (CN112397295A). References to Men are directed to the examiner supplied English language translation.
Regarding claim 1, Men discloses a preparation method for an inductive component (method for manufacturing an inductor, abstract, claim 1, [0002]). Men discloses mixing and granulating (mixing and obtaining premade powder) a first magnetic alloy powder (either main soft magnetic alloy powder or auxiliary soft magnetic alloy powder), a second magnetic alloy powder (either main soft magnetic alloy powder or auxiliary soft magnetic alloy powder), and a binder (claim 1, [0011], [0045-46]). Men discloses then performing pressing, and baking to obtain a magnetic central core (T-shaped blank [0012], [0042], [0047-48]). Men discloses that pressing to shape the granulated powder results in some degree of curing [0042]; therefore, the pressing and baking disclosed by Men [0012], [0047-48] manipulates some degree of curing. Men discloses combining the magnetic central core with a coil and placing the core and coil into a mold cavity [0013-14], [0049], [0051]. Men discloses introducing a fluidized material under pressure on the outside of the coil in the mold the material fluidized from a mixture comprising magnetic powder material and binder [0011], [0042]. As a fluidized material comprising powder introduced to the outside is a cladding powder slurry, and introducing a fluidized material under pressure into a mold injects the material, Men discloses injecting a cladding powder slurry [0042]. Men discloses then baking to obtain a semi-finished component (baked inductor blank) [0014], [0051]. Men discloses coating an insulation layer on the surface of the semi-finished component [0015] [0053]. Men discloses performing paint stripping, and then performing electroplating to form an electrode layer to obtain the inductive component [0016], [0026], [0054].
Regarding claim 2, Men discloses that the first magnetic alloy powder in the mixing and granulating step comprises an amorphous alloy powder and/or a nanocrystalline powder when the main soft magnetic alloy powder disclosed by Men is the first magnetic alloy powder (claim 3, [0019]).
Regarding claim 4, Men discloses that the second magnetic alloy powder may comprise an iron-nickel powder, an iron-silicon-aluminum powder, or an iron-silicon-chromium powder, when the main soft magnetic alloy powder disclosed by Men is the second alloy powder ([0019], claim 3).
Regarding claim 8, Men discloses that a material of the coil comprises enameled copper and epoxy layer on the coil itself [0013-14], [0026], [0054]. Enameled copper wire with an epoxy layer is a conductive material (copper) and an insulation layer (enamel) and a self-adhesive layer (epoxy) arranged on the surface of the conductive material. Claim 8 appears to suggest that all other claim elements are preferable embodiments and not necessarily claim limitations.
Regarding claim 9, Men discloses that the material relied upon above formed into the central core is the material of the powder slurry cladding [0011-13], [0042], [0043-46]. Men discloses that the material relied upon above to form the powder cladding slurry comprises a main soft magnetic alloy powder, auxiliary soft magnetic alloy powder, binder, curing agent, and acetone [0011-12], [0011], [0045-46]; therefore, Men discloses that the material relied upon above to meet the cladding powder slurry comprises a third magnetic alloy powder (either main or auxiliary soft magnetic alloy powder), a fourth magnetic alloy powder (either main or auxiliary soft magnetic alloy powder), a dispersant (binder which functions to disperse particles in acetone), a consumable and accelerator agent (a curing agent which reacts upon curing) and an organic solvent (acetone). Note the present specification does not disclose specific dispersants, consumables, or accelerators, and Men’s disclosure of forming separate constituents as a central core and a preform fluidly injected on the sides of the coil [0011-12], [0042], [0043-46], is sufficient to meet third and fourth magnetic alloy powders to some extent distinct from first and second magnetic alloy powders by virtue of molding in separate stages. Claim 9 appears to suggest that all other claim elements are preferable embodiments and not necessarily claim limitations.
Regarding claim 11, Men discloses that a material of the insulation layer in step in the insulation coating step comprises an epoxy resin [0053]. Claim 11 appears to suggest that all other claim elements are preferable embodiments and not necessarily claim limitations.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Men (CN112397295A), as applied to claim 1, above.
Regarding claim 5, Men discloses that a median particle size D50 of the second magnetic alloy powder is less than 10 μm, and exemplifies a median particle size D50 less than 5 µm, when the auxiliary magnetic alloy powder disclosed by Men is considered the second magnetic alloy powder [0020], [0046]. Ranges of less than 10 μm, and less than 5 µm encompass a range of 1-5 μm. When claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05(I). Claim 5 appears to suggest that all other claim elements are preferable embodiments and not necessarily claim limitations.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Men (CN112397295A), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Takahashi (US20180108465).
Regarding claim 3, Men exemplifies a median particle size D50 for the larger of the first and second magnetic alloy powders is 10 µm [0046], but Men does not disclose a size range or a size as preferred for the larger magnetic alloy powder particles, and Men does not disclose a median powder particle size in a range of 20-40 µm.
Takahashi teaches a preparation method for an inductive component (coil component) (abstract, [0007], [0032-34]). Takahashi mixing a first magnetic alloy powder, a second magnetic alloy powder, and a binder, pressing the mixture to form a core and winding a coil around the core [0012-13], [0026-27], [0033-34]. Takahashi teaches that the first alloy powder includes at least any one of an amorphous phase and that a ratio of the average particle diameter of the first alloy powder to the average particle diameter of the second alloy powder is 4 to 20 [0014]. Takahashi equates average particle size to median D50 particle size [0015]. Takahashi teaches that of the D50 of the first alloy powder is preferably 20 to 55 μm, and the median diameter D50 of the second alloy powder is preferably 1.5 to 5.5 μm [0073]. Takahashi teaches that the first alloy powder having the large median diameter D50 contributes to improvement of magnetic characteristics such as improvement in saturation magnetic flux density and reduction in magnetic loss, and that when the second alloy powder having the median diameter D50 smaller than the median diameter D50 of the first alloy powder is mixed with the first alloy powder, voids formed between the first alloy powders are filled with the second alloy powder, so that the filling property can be improved, and magnetic coupling among the particles can be facilitated to further improve magnetic characteristics [0048].
Both Men and Takahashi teach methods for making teach preparation methods for an induction component from first and second magnetic powders and a binder. Men teaches that the main magnetic alloy powder may comprise an amorphous structure and an iron-silicon-chromium alloy [0019]. Men teaches that the auxiliary magnetic alloy powder has a median particle size D50 of 10 µm or less and exemplifies 5 µm or less [0020], [0046].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to provide first powder particles with a median particle size of 20 to 55 µm and 4 to 20 times the size of the second powder particles in the process disclosed by Men, applied above because Takahashi teaches that such proportions of first median powder particle sizes relative to smaller powder particle sizes result in favorable magnetic and density properties [0014], [0048], [0073] for induction components [0007], [0026-27], [0033-34]. Considering the ranges of the smaller powder particles disclosed by Men [0020], [0045] are commensurate with the smaller powder particle sizes taught by Takahashi [0073], application of the particle size proportions taught by Takahashi to the process disclosed by Men would predictably yield the favorably property improvements taught by Takahashi [0048].
Claim(s) 6 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Men (CN112397295A), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ningbo Hui (CN114141523A). Ningbo Hui is cited in the IDS filed August 17, 2023. References to Ningbo Hui are directed to the examiner-supplied English language translation which accompanied the office action mailed January 13, 2026.
Regarding claim 6, the pre-made powder granules disclosed by Men [0011] must necessarily have some aggregate size, but Men is silent on the size of the granulated powder mixture.
Ningbo Hui teaches a preparation method of an inductive component (high-performance power inductor) (abstract, claim 1, [n0001]). Ningbo Hui teaches mixing and granulating a first magnetic alloy powder, a second magnetic alloy powder, and a binder [n0019], [n0047], [n0076]. Ningbo Hui teaches that a mesh number for mixing and granulating is 80-200 [n0047]. Ningbo Hui teaches performing pressing, and baking and curing the pressed blank to obtain a magnetic central core [n0017-18], [n0048]. Ningbo Hui teaches combining the magnetic central core with a coil and placing the core and coil into a mold cavity [n0011-14]. Ningbo Hui teaches injecting a cladding powder into an additional mold (s3 [n0012], [n0051], Figure 5) and then baking (sintering) to obtain a second semi-finished component (cup-shaped sintered blank) ([n0012-13]; see Figure 7 for visual depiction of the added powder portion as a cladding). Ningbo Hui teaches assembling the magnetic core with a coil and the cup-shaped blank (s5) [n0014-15]. Ningbo Hui teaches coating an insulation layer on the surface of the semi-finished component obtained following the assembly [n0015]. Ningbo Hui teaches performing paint stripping ([r]emove the insulating protective material and copper wire enamel [n0016]) and then performing electroplating to form an electrode layer to obtain the inductive component (electroplate the electrode at the enamel-removed area [n0016]).
Both Men and Ningbo Hui teach similar production methods for an induction component.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to classify the mixed and granulated powder disclosed by Men, applied above, to a mesh number range of 80-200 because the granulated powder mixture (pre-formed powder) disclosed by Men must necessarily have some granulated powder size, and Ningbo Hui teaches that a mesh number of 80-200 is effective for granulated powder to shape into a magnetic central core in a manufacturing process for an inductor [n0017-19], [n0047-48]. A mesh number of 80-200 lies entirely within the claimed range of 60-250. Claim 6 appears to suggest that all other claim elements are preferable embodiments and not necessarily claim limitations.
Regarding claim 7, Men is silent on the atmosphere in the step for pressing curing and baking to form the central core, but Ningbo Hui teaches that the heating in the step to form the central core takes place in vacuum [n0048]. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to perform the baking and curing in the process disclosed by Men applied above, in a vacuum atmosphere because Ningbo Hui teaches that a vacuum atmosphere is effective for manufacturing the same type of intermediate inductor component from similar materials [n0047-48]. A vacuum atmosphere is an inert atmosphere. Claim 7 appears to suggest that all other claim elements are preferable embodiments and not necessarily claim limitations.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Men (CN112397295A), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lyu (CN114664556A). References to Lyu are directed to the examiner supplied English language translation.
Regarding claim 10, 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. Men does not teach that the heating comprises one-step heating, two-step heating, and three-step heating.
Lyu teaches a preparation method for an inductive component (abstract, claim 1, [n0001]). Lyu teaches mixing magnetic alloy powder, and a binder [n0042], [n0056]. Lyu combining the mixed material with a coil then pressing, baking, and curing the material and coil to obtain a semi-finished component [n0007-08], [n0035]. Lyu teaches that heating in the baking comprises at least three steps [n0008], [n0035]. Lyu teaches that the stepped heating results in more fully cross-linked and cured material, thereby providing higher strength for the integrally molded inductor and improving its cracking phenomenon which can solve the problem of cracking in integrally molded inductors [n0018-19], [n0036].
Both Men and Lyu teach manufacturing processes for inductor components comprising pressing, baking, and curing a mixture of magnetic alloy powder and binder.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, to heat in the baking step disclosed by Men in a stepped heating which comprises at least three steps because Lyu teaches that a three step heating results in more fully cross-linked and cured material, providing higher strength for the integrally molded inductor and improving its cracking phenomenon which can solve the problem of cracking in integrally molded inductors [n0018-19], [n0036]. A stepped heating comprising at least three steps comprises at least
one-step heating, two-step heating, and three-step heating. Claim 10 appears to suggest that all other claim elements are preferable embodiments and not necessarily claim limitations.
Conclusion
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