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 with traverse of claims 1-12 in the reply filed on August 6, 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that it is not burdensome to examine both groups together. This is not found persuasive because of the different search required and there exist several preparation methods of providing a magnetic material that are outside the claimed limitations. For instance, magnetic materials can be prepared by .
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL. Thus, claims 13-19 are considered withdrawn.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the abstract contains over 150 words. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: in paragraph [0043] the subscript for Tmelt should be fixed. In paragraph [0046], there is a miscellaneous "?" that should be removed.
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 3-6 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.
The terms “high saturation magnetic polarization" and "high electrical resistivity” in claim 3 are relative terms which renders the claim indefinite. The terms “high saturation magnetic polarization" and "high electrical resistivity” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The adjective "high" for both properties is unclear as to what delineates such a characteristic to satisfy the invention as claimed. In light of the specification, a magnetic polarization of 1.88T (paragraph [0017]) and an electrical resistivity (135 . Claim 4 is rejected as being dependent on, and failing to cure the deficiencies of, rejected dependent claim 3.
Regarding claim 3, the soft magnetic composite is claimed to be “configured” to achieve claimed properties. It is unclear if the preparation of the soft magnetic composite inherently “configures” it to have such properties or if there are additional parameters that must be “configured” to achieve the claimed properties. Thus claim 3 is indefinite. For the purposes of examination, the soft magnetic composite will be interpreted to inherently possess such properties as a result of its preparation (“configuration”). Claim 4 is rejected as being dependent on, and failing to cure the deficiencies of, rejected dependent claim 3.
The term “unique properties” in claim 4 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “unique properties” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. No parameter for defining "unique properties" is provided in the instant application. Thus, it is unclear what properties are considered to be unique, whether the composite exhibits a property that no other composite exhibits or if the composite exhibits a property or properties that fall outside standard values of other composites of similar composition. For the purposes of examination, the "unique properties" will be interpreted as inherently being provided in the soft magnetic composite as a result of the "relatively thick" aluminum oxide coating on CoFe powders. The interpretation of "relatively thick" is provided in the subsequent 112(b) rejection of claim 4. Thus, claim 4 is indefinite.
The term “relatively thick” in claim 4 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “relatively thick” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. A definition for the term "relatively thick" is not provided. Thus, it is unclear what satisfies the claimed limitation in light of the instant application. For the purposes of examination, the thickness range.
Regarding claim 4, the soft magnetic composite is claimed to be “further configured” to achieve claimed properties. It is unclear if the preparation of the soft magnetic composite inherently “configures” it to have such properties or if there are additional parameters that must be “further configured” to achieve the claimed properties. Thus claim 4 is indefinite. For the purposes of examination, the soft magnetic composite will be interpreted to inherently possess such unique properties as a result of its preparation (“further configuration”).
Regarding claim 5, the coated powders are claimed to be consolidated using “a specific sintering process”. It is unclear what dictates or defines “a specific sintering process” as sintering processes are widely utilized and implemented in the art and thus could be any sintering process applicable to coated powders. Therefore, claim 5 is indefinite. In light of the specification, spark plasma sintering is referenced as a sintering process used. Thus, for the purposes of examination, a “specific sintering process” is considered as spark plasma sintering.
Regarding claim 6, the coated powders are claimed to be consolidated using “standard powder consolidation processes”. It is unclear what dictates or defines “standard powder consolidation processes” as powder consolidation processes are widely utilized and implemented in the art and thus could be any sintering process applicable to coated powders. Therefore, claim 6 is indefinite. In light of the specification, spark plasma sintering is referenced as a consolidation process used. Thus, for the purposes of examination, a “specific sintering process” is considered as spark plasma sintering.
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.
Claims 1 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)(a)(2) as being anticipated by Herbert et al (US PGPub 20210142933).
Herbert teaches preparation of a magnetic material which is a soft magnetic composite. The soft magnetic composite (example 4) is a Fe-35Co particulate which is coated with aluminum oxide (Al2O3). Herbert teaches that the composite is a powder which comprises particulates (paragraphs [0124-125]), thus the individual CoFe are powders. Thus, Herbert teaches the claimed “A magnetic material comprising: a soft magnetic composite comprised of coated powders, the coated powders including:CoFe powders, andA12O3 coating on the CoFe powders”.
Regarding claim 7, Herbert teaches the magnetic material of claim 1. In example 4, Herbert prepares Fe-Co alloy with particle size distribution of 0-45µm. Thus, Herbert teaches the claimed “The magnetic material of claim 1, wherein the CoFe powders comprise CoFe particles with a particle size below 150 µm”.
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.
Claims 2-6 and 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Herbert et al (US PGPub 20210142933).
Regarding claim 2, Herbert teaches the magnetic material of claim 1. In paragraphs [0037-0041], Herbert teaches providing the powder may include forming the metallic core by at least one of gas atomization, water atomization, plasma atomization, etc. which include powder metallurgical processes. Herbert teaches the coating can be formed by forming a native oxide by surface oxidation, atomic layer deposition, molecular layer deposition, etc. which include powder metallurgical processes. Additionally, Herbert teaches that the magnetic composite component may be densified by high temperature sintering, hot isostatic pressing, hot isostatic pressing by crucible compaction process, pressing & sintering, compaction, spark plasma sintering, etc. which all include powder metallurgical processing. Herbert teaches that their embodiment of a soft magnetic composite comprising a CoFe powder coated with an oxide layer such as Al2O3 enables improved saturation magnetic properties, high electrical resistivity, high mechanical strength, and high corrosion resistance. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to select from any one or combination of listed processing and preparation methods disclosed by Herbert that include powder metallurgical processes as known suitable processing and preparation methods of powders and coatings to obtain magnetic materials with improved saturation magnetic properties and high electrical resistivity and arrive at the invention as claimed. Thus, Herbert teaches the claimed “The magnetic material of claim 1, wherein the CoFe powders and A12O3 coating are obtained through powder metallurgical processing”.
Regarding claim 3, Herbert teaches the magnetic material of claim 1. Herbert teaches in paragraphs [0012-17] that embodiments of their invention include soft magnetic composites having high electrical resistivity and high saturation magnetic inductions. Although Herbert does not state a saturation magnetic polarization, the saturation magnetic induction is a closely related property. Herbert teaches a saturation magnetic induction in a range of 0.5T to 2.4T, thus the saturation magnetic polarization, as an inherent property of the composite, would also be in a similar range. Similarly, in the table provided on pg 11, Herbert teaches that the electrical resistivity ranges from 0.6-10,000 µΩ*m (µOhm*m). The oval in Fig. 1 encompasses saturation induction values with electrical resistivities that the disclosed embodiment provides which simultaneously satisfy the “high” characteristics as claimed. Herbert teaches in paragraph [0013] that such magnetic composites with high saturation induction and high electrical resistivity are desired properties to reduce wasteful electrical eddy currents which lead to an improvement in magnetic performance. Further, this reduction in eddy current results in reduced core loss and higher energy efficiency. Overlapping ranges have been held to present a prima facie case of obviousness over the prior art. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to select from the overlapping portion of the range as known values of saturation magnetic induction (and by proxy polarization) and electrical resistivity sufficient for providing in soft magnetic composites that reduce eddy current loss and have an improvement in magnetic performance to arrive at the invention as claimed. Thus, Herbert teaches the claimed “The magnetic material of claim 1, soft magnetic composite is configured to achieve both high saturation magnetic polarization and high electrical resistivity”.
Regarding claim 4, Herbert teaches the magnetic material of claim 3. Herbert teaches that the provided aluminum oxide layer serves as an electrically insulating layer or barrier between powders which imparts useful properties by reducing eddy currents (paragraphs [0013-17]). In paragraph [0071], Herbert teaches a thickness of the continuous dielectric coating (aluminum oxide coating) may be less than 50µm, less than 1µm, or less than 200nm. Thus, the provided thickness overlaps with the range that qualifies as “relatively thick” (2-5µm). Overlapping ranges have been held to present a prima facie case of obviousness over the prior art. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to select from the overlapping portion of the range of a provided insulating thickness layer for coating CoFe powders as a known thickness layer suitable for electrically insulating the powders to reduce eddy currents and improve magnetic performance to arrive at the invention as claimed. Thus, Herbert teaches the claimed “The magnetic material of claim 3, wherein the soft magnetic composite is further configured to exhibit unique properties due to the relatively thick Al2O3 coating on CoFe powders which acts as an electrically insulative barrier between powder particles”.
Regarding claim 5, Herbert teaches the magnetic material of claim 1. In paragraphs [0044] and [0179], Herbert teaches densification or preparation (consolidation) of the magnetic composite component by spark plasma sintering as an example of a suitable preparation process. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to choose spark plasma sintering as a known sintering process capable of consolidating (densifying) such coated powders to prepare a magnetic composite with reduced eddy current loss and improved magnetic performance and arrive at the invention as claimed. Thus, Herbert teaches the claimed “The magnetic material of claim 1, wherein the coated powders are consolidated using a specific sintering process”.
Regarding claim 6, Herbert teaches the magnetic material of claim 1. In paragraphs [0044] and [0179], Herbert teaches densification or preparation (consolidation) of the magnetic composite component by spark plasma sintering as an example of a suitable preparation process (see also rejection of claim 2 for other consolidation processes disclosed by Herbert). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to choose spark plasma sintering as a known sintering process capable of consolidating (densifying) such coated powders to prepare a magnetic composite with reduced eddy current loss and improved magnetic performance and arrive at the invention as claimed. Thus, Herbert teaches the claimed “The magnetic material of claim 1, wherein the coated powders are consolidated using standard powder consolidation processes”.
Regarding claim 8, Herbert teaches the magnetic material of claim 1. In the provided example, Herbert uses particles with a size range of 0-45µm which overlaps with the claimed range of 20-150µm. Furthermore, in paragraph [0158], Herbert teaches that the CoFe powders may also have a mean size ranging from 100nm-250 µm, 0.05 µm-250 µm, 5 µm-200 µm, or 10-100 µm which all overlap with the range as claimed. In paragraph [0159], Herbert teaches that “Such particles are suitable for additive manufacturing because, e.g., their sphericity and uniformity allow them to be spread in additive manufacturing powder bed fusion techniques. Moreover, their lack of internal porosity allows high-density components to be fabricated.” Overlapping ranges have been held to present a prima facie case of obviousness over the prior art. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to select from the overlapping portion of the range as a known powder size suitable for preparing a magnetic composite by enabling manufacturing powder bed fusion techniques and a composite with high-density components to arrive at the invention as claimed. Thus, Herbert teaches the claimed “The magnetic material of claim 1, wherein the CoFe powders comprise CoFe particles with a particle size in a range of about 20 to 150 µm”.
Regarding claim 9, Herbert teaches the magnetic material of claim 1. Herbert teaches that the provided aluminum oxide layer serves as an electrically insulating layer or barrier between powders which imparts useful properties by reducing eddy currents (paragraphs [0013-17]). In paragraph [0071], Herbert teaches a thickness of the continuous dielectric coating (aluminum oxide coating) may be less than 50µm, less than 1µm, or less than 200nm. Thus, the provided thickness overlaps with the range that qualifies as “relatively thick” (2-5µm). Overlapping ranges have been held to present a prima facie case of obviousness over the prior art. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to select from the overlapping portion of the range of a provided insulating thickness layer for coating CoFe powders as a known thickness layer suitable for electrically insulating the powders to reduce eddy currents and improve magnetic performance to arrive at the invention as claimed. Thus, Herbert teaches the claimed “The magnetic material of claim 1, wherein the Al2O3 coating is about 2 to 5 µm thick”.
Regarding claim 10, Herbert teaches the magnetic material of claim 7. Herbert teaches that the provided aluminum oxide layer serves as an electrically insulating layer or barrier between powders which imparts useful properties by reducing eddy currents (paragraphs [0013-17]). In paragraph [0071], Herbert teaches a thickness of the continuous dielectric coating (aluminum oxide coating) may be less than 50µm, less than 1µm, or less than 200nm. Thus, the provided thickness overlaps with the range that qualifies as “relatively thick” (2-5µm). Overlapping ranges have been held to present a prima facie case of obviousness over the prior art. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to select from the overlapping portion of the range of a provided insulating thickness layer for coating CoFe powders as a known thickness layer suitable for electrically insulating the powders to reduce eddy currents and improve magnetic performance to arrive at the invention as claimed. Thus, Herbert teaches the claimed “The magnetic material of claim 7, wherein the Al2O3 coating is about 2 to 5 µm thick”.
Regarding claim 11, Herbert teaches the magnetic material of claim 8. Herbert teaches that the provided aluminum oxide layer serves as an electrically insulating layer or barrier between powders which imparts useful properties by reducing eddy currents (paragraphs [0013-17]). In paragraph [0071], Herbert teaches a thickness of the continuous dielectric coating (aluminum oxide coating) may be less than 50µm, less than 1µm, or less than 200nm. Thus, the provided thickness overlaps with the range that qualifies as “relatively thick” (2-5µm). Overlapping ranges have been held to present a prima facie case of obviousness over the prior art. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to select from the overlapping portion of the range of a provided insulating thickness layer for coating CoFe powders as a known thickness layer suitable for electrically insulating the powders to reduce eddy currents and improve magnetic performance to arrive at the invention as claimed. Thus, Herbert teaches the claimed “The magnetic material of claim 8, wherein the Al2O3 coating is about 2 to 5 µm thick”.
Claims 4 and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Herbert et al (US PGPub 20210142933) as applied to claims 3, 1, 7, and 8, respectively, above, and further in view of Yang (WO2023006124A1).
Regarding claim 4, Herbert teaches the magnetic material of claim 3. Herbert teaches that the provided aluminum oxide layer serves as an electrically insulating layer or barrier between powders which imparts useful properties by reducing eddy currents (paragraphs [0013-17]). In paragraph [0071], Herbert teaches a thickness of the continuous dielectric coating (aluminum oxide coating) may be less than 50µm, less than 1µm, or less than 200nm. In an analogous embodiment, Yang teaches coating of powders (which can be CoFe) with an oxide insulator layer (which can be aluminum oxide) such that the insulating layer also suppresses eddy currents and thus improves high-frequency magnetic permeability. The magnetic composite of Yang imparts similar saturation magnetic induction values as Herbert. Yang teaches a narrower thickness range than Herbert which is 0-20µm, not including 0 but is still well within the range of Herbert and thus relevant in restricting a thickness of Herbert. Overlapping ranges have been held to present a prima facie case of obviousness over the prior art. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to select from the overlapping portion of the range of a provided insulating thickness layer for coating CoFe powders as a known thickness layer suitable for electrically insulating the powders to reduce eddy currents and improve magnetic performance to arrive at the invention as claimed. Thus, Herbert and Yang teach the claimed “The magnetic material of claim 3, wherein the soft magnetic composite is further configured to exhibit unique properties due to the relatively thick Al2O3 coating on CoFe powders which acts as an electrically insulative barrier between powder particles”.
Regarding claim 9, Herbert teaches the magnetic material of claim 1. Herbert teaches that the provided aluminum oxide layer serves as an electrically insulating layer or barrier between powders which imparts useful properties by reducing eddy currents (paragraphs [0013-17]). In paragraph [0071], Herbert teaches a thickness of the continuous dielectric coating (aluminum oxide coating) may be less than 50µm, less than 1µm, or less than 200nm. In an analogous embodiment, Yang teaches coating of powders (which can be CoFe) with an oxide insulator layer (which can be aluminum oxide) such that the insulating layer also suppresses eddy currents and thus improves high-frequency magnetic permeability. The magnetic composite of Yang imparts similar saturation magnetic induction values as Herbert. Yang teaches a narrower thickness range than Herbert which is 0-20µm, not including 0 but is still well within the range of Herbert and thus relevant in restricting a thickness of Herbert. Overlapping ranges have been held to present a prima facie case of obviousness over the prior art. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to select from the overlapping portion of the range of a provided insulating thickness layer for coating CoFe powders as a known thickness layer suitable for electrically insulating the powders to reduce eddy currents and improve magnetic performance to arrive at the invention as claimed. Thus, Herbert and Yang teach the claimed “The magnetic material of claim 1, wherein the Al2O3 coating is about 2 to 5 µm thick”.
Regarding claim 10, Herbert teaches the magnetic material of claim 7. Herbert teaches that the provided aluminum oxide layer serves as an electrically insulating layer or barrier between powders which imparts useful properties by reducing eddy currents (paragraphs [0013-17]). In paragraph [0071], Herbert teaches a thickness of the continuous dielectric coating (aluminum oxide coating) may be less than 50µm, less than 1µm, or less than 200nm. In an analogous embodiment, Yang teaches coating of powders (which can be CoFe) with an oxide insulator layer (which can be aluminum oxide) such that the insulating layer also suppresses eddy currents and thus improves high-frequency magnetic permeability. The magnetic composite of Yang imparts similar saturation magnetic induction values as Herbert. Yang teaches a narrower thickness range than Herbert which is 0-20µm, not including 0 but is still well within the range of Herbert and thus relevant in restricting a thickness of Herbert. Overlapping ranges have been held to present a prima facie case of obviousness over the prior art. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to select from the overlapping portion of the range of a provided insulating thickness layer for coating CoFe powders as a known thickness layer suitable for electrically insulating the powders to reduce eddy currents and improve magnetic performance to arrive at the invention as claimed. Thus, Herbert and Yang teach the claimed “The magnetic material of claim 7, wherein the Al2O3 coating is about 2 to 5 µm thick”
Regarding claim 11, Herbert teaches the magnetic material of claim 8. Herbert teaches that the provided aluminum oxide layer serves as an electrically insulating layer or barrier between powders which imparts useful properties by reducing eddy currents (paragraphs [0013-17]). In paragraph [0071], Herbert teaches a thickness of the continuous dielectric coating (aluminum oxide coating) may be less than 50µm, less than 1µm, or less than 200nm. In an analogous embodiment, Yang teaches coating of powders (which can be CoFe) with an oxide insulator layer (which can be aluminum oxide) such that the insulating layer also suppresses eddy currents and thus improves high-frequency magnetic permeability. The magnetic composite of Yang imparts similar saturation magnetic induction values as Herbert. Yang teaches a narrower thickness range than Herbert which is 0-20µm, not including 0 but is still well within the range of Herbert and thus relevant in restricting a thickness of Herbert. Overlapping ranges have been held to present a prima facie case of obviousness over the prior art. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to select from the overlapping portion of the range of a provided insulating thickness layer for coating CoFe powders as a known thickness layer suitable for electrically insulating the powders to reduce eddy currents and improve magnetic performance to arrive at the invention as claimed. Thus, Herbert and Yang teach the claimed “The magnetic material of claim 8, wherein the Al2O3 coating is about 2 to 5 µm thick”.
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Herbert et al (US PGPub 20210142933) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Mani et al (NPL: "Mechanical and magnetic characterisation of SiC whisker reinforced Fe-Co alloy composites").
Regarding claim 5, Herbert teaches the magnetic material of claim 1. In paragraphs [0044] and [0179], Herbert teaches densification or preparation (consolidation) of the magnetic composite component by spark plasma sintering as an example of a suitable preparation process. Mani similarly teaches preparation of Fe-Co alloys that are coated with an insulating layer to improve magnetic performance. Although the insulating layer of Mani is not an oxide as in Herbert’s embodiment, the principles of applying such a layer are shared in protecting the magnetic alloy and prepared composite for use in magnetic devices. Mani specifically provides the Fe-Co alloys with a rapid fabrication process, spark plasma sintering. Mani also teaches that composites prepared with spark plasma sintering that exhibit higher flexural strength is a result of retaining fine grain morphology from the spark plasma sintering. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to choose spark plasma sintering as a known method of preparing Fe-Co magnetic composites and powders with retained fine grain morphology to have higher flexural strength and as a known method of preparing coated Fe-Co powders with reduced eddy currents, provided by the coating, and improved magnetic performance and arrive at the invention as claimed. Thus, Herbert and Mani teach the claimed “The magnetic material of claim 1, wherein the coated powders are consolidated using a specific sintering process”.
Regarding claim 6, Herbert teaches the magnetic material of claim 1. In paragraphs [0044] and [0179], Herbert teaches densification or preparation (consolidation) of the magnetic composite component by spark plasma sintering as an example of a suitable preparation process (see also rejection of claim 2 for other consolidation processes disclosed by Herbert). Mani similarly teaches preparation of Fe-Co alloys that are coated with an insulating layer to improve magnetic performance. Although the insulating layer of Mani is not an oxide as in Herbert’s embodiment, the principles of applying such a layer are shared in protecting the magnetic alloy and prepared composite for use in magnetic devices. Mani specifically provides the Fe-Co alloys with a rapid fabrication process, spark plasma sintering. Mani also teaches that composites prepared with spark plasma sintering that exhibit higher flexural strength is a result of retaining fine grain morphology from the spark plasma sintering. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to choose spark plasma sintering as a known method of preparing Fe-Co magnetic composites and powders with retained fine grain morphology to have higher flexural strength and as a known method of preparing coated Fe-Co powders with reduced eddy currents, provided by the coating, and improved magnetic performance and arrive at the invention as claimed. Thus, Herbert and Mani teach the claimed “The magnetic material of claim 1, wherein the coated powders are consolidated using standard powder consolidation processes”.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Herbert et al (US PGPub 20210142933) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Li et al (NPL: "3D printing of ductile equiatomic Fe-Co alloy for soft magnetic applications").
Regarding claim 12, Herbert teaches the magnetic material of claim 1. In paragraph [0037], Herbert teaches that the powders may be provided by at least one of gas atomization, among other powder preparation processes. In paragraph [0159], Herbert specifically teaches that gas atomization manufacturing enables more pure powders, leading to clean particle surfaces, devoid of oxides or contaminating particles or layers, enabling such powders to be coated consistently with dielectric material using a range of chemical and physical deposition methods. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to prepare the CoFe powders using gas atomization to improve purity of the prepared powders such that a more consistent coating can be applied and arrive at the limitation as claimed. Herbert does not specifically use equiatomic (CoFe 50/50 proportion) CoFe powders but also does not limit their embodiment to the provided Fe65-Co35 powders that Herbert uses. Li specifically teaches use of equiatomic Fe-Co alloy for soft magnetic materials due to the combination of “high saturation magnetization, permeability, and low coercivity” (abstract) they provide. Herbert teaches similar maximization of such values prior to their coating process such that those characteristics can be retained as much as possible, thus providing analogous context for modifying the provided CoFe powders of Herbert prior to coating with aluminum oxide. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to provide equiatomic CoFe powders in the embodiment of Herbert, as informed by Li, as equiatomic Fe-Co alloys possess high saturation magnetization and permeability and arrive at the invention as claimed. Thus, Herbert and Li teach the claimed “The magnetic material of claim 1, wherein the CoFe powders comprise gas atomized, pre-alloyed equiatomic CoFe powder particles”.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Fitterling et al (US PGPub 20180112287) teach preparation of equiatomic Fe-Co alloy for soft magnetic composite or magnetic materials. Yamagishi et al (cited NPL) teach that equiatomic CoFe alloys have highest saturation magnetics of all ferromagnetic materials. Maeda et al (US PGPub 20090121175) teach why gas atomization prepared powders are preferred.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Noa W. F. Grooms whose telephone number is (571)272-9981. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-3:30PM EST.
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, Curtis Mayes can be reached at (571) 272-1234. 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.
/NWFG/Examiner, Art Unit 1759
/MELVIN C. MAYES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1759
Prosecution Insights