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 § 103
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakai et al. (U.S. App. Pub. No. 2018/0233268) in view of Moorhead et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 5,935,722) and Witz et al. (Phase Evolution of Yttria-Stabilized Zirconia Thermal Barrier Coatings Studied by Rietveld Refinement of X-Ray Powder Diffraction Patterns, J. Am. Ceram. Soc., 1-6, 2007)
Regarding claim 1, Sakai et al. discloses a magnetic core component and chip inductor (Abstract) containing a magnetic body comprising soft magnetic powder particles which are coated with an insulating coating on the particle surface which may include Al2O3, Y2O3, MgO, ZrO2, glass and mixtures thereof. (par. [0033]-[0035]). Sakai et al. therefore discloses a magnetic metal powder coated with an insulation layer including an oxide including Zr. The magnetic powders have diameters in the range of 1-150 micrometers, preferably 5-100 micrometers, overlapping with the presently claimed range. As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Sakai et al. does not disclose that the oxide measured at 25oC by XRD has a strongest peak of a cubic or tetragonal peak and the monoclinic peak is not greater than one-tenth the intensity of the strongest peak. However, Sakai et al. suggests mixing ZrO2 with other oxide materials including yttria which would form a ceramic material having a monoclinic and cubic phases.
Moorhead et al. teaches a laminated composite of alternating magnetic alloy layers with ceramic powder layers. (Abstract, Fig. 1). Moorhead et al. teaches that the ceramic powder layers are selected due to their electrical insulating properties which generate low eddy current loss (col. 6, lines 36-47), which are the same desired properties for the coated magnetic powders in Sakai et al., and that in particular yttria stabilized zirconia is known to have good flowability to achieve contact with the magnetic particle and good coefficient of thermal expansion. (col. 5, lines 31-54).
It would therefore have obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use yttria stabilized zirconia as the insulating material of the insulation layer in Sakai et al. in view of the teachings of Moorhead et al.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use yttria stabilized zirconia in view of the teachings in Moorhead et al. of the advantageous properties of the glass-ceramic material for insulation, flowability and control of coefficient of thermal expansion for coating the surface of the magnetic particles in Sakai et al.
Witz et al. teaches that yttria stabilized zirconia (YSZ) includes 3 general phases of monoclinic, tetragonal and cubic depending on the temperature of formation and the content of yttria (Fig. 1 phase diagram, page 1, left column). Witz et al. teaches that the monoclinic form of YSZ is only stable at low temperatures and is generally considered undesirable. (page 1, left column).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to control the crystalline polymorph of the YSZ insulating coating formed by the combination of Sakai in view of Moorhead et al., as discussed above, to be primarily tetragonal or cubic with as little monoclinic as possible, thereby resulting in a strongest peak corresponding to tetragonal or cubic phases with as low intensity for a monoclinic peak when analyzing by XRD.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to minimize the monoclinic phase in favor of tetragonal or cubic phases in view of the teachings in Witz et al. that the monoclinic phase is generally undesirable due to its lower temperature stability. One of ordinary skill in the art would therefore have found it obvious to optimize the content of each respective phase by adjusting the mole ratio of yttria and temperature selection during formation of the YSC insulation layer.
Regarding claim 2, as discussed above Moorhead et al. teaches that yttria stabilized zirconia is a known electrical insulation layer for preventing eddy current loss (col. 5, lines 31-54) which may be used with magnetic powders and it would therefore have been obvious to use as the insulating layer material in Sakai et al.
Regarding claims 3-8, the magnetic powder composition of Sakai et al. is used in magnetic core composition (Abstract, par. [0009], [0024]) which is used in a chip inductor including a coil (winding wire, element 4, Fig. 1(b), par. [0025]). Sakai et al. therefore discloses an electric motor and generator using the core presently claimed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/30/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Witz et al. does not teach the limitation “an intensity of a monoclinic peak is not greater than one-tenth of an intensity of the strongest peak” but merely teaches “monoclinic phase in coatings should be avoided”. (Applicant’s arguments filed 01/30/2026, pages 5-6).
The disclosure in Witz et al. regarding avoiding a monoclinic phase due to its low stability would lead one of ordinary skill in the art to produce YSZ having little to now monoclinic phase relative to the cubic or tetragonal phases. Since the intensity of a peak measured by X-ray diffraction relative to the other peaks is representative of the relative amount of the crystal phase, a YSZ material having little to no monoclinic phase would have a very low intensity for a monoclinic peak. Although Witz et al. does not specifically measure the intensity of the peak of the monoclinic, cubic or tetragonal phase, the disclosure therein that monoclinic phases are essentially undesirable would have led one of ordinary skill in the art to ensure that as little monoclinic phase is present as possible. Therefore, the disclosure in Witz et al. would have led one of ordinary skill in the art to form a composite having a monoclinic peak intensity that is as low as possible due to the art recognized low stability of the monoclinic phase, including lower than one-tenth of the intensity relative to the other, more stable, phases. Based on the teachings of the prior art as a whole, the limitation is therefore prima facie obvious.
Applicant further argues the rejection set forth in the previous office action fails to set forth an appropriate reason for combining the teachings of Moorhead with Sakai et al. (Applicant’s arguments page 7).
The prior art teaches that yttria stabilized zirconia is a known insulating material used magnetic materials which has the benefit of preventing eddy current loss and has good flowability properties for improved contact with magnetic powders. (see Moorhead et al. at col. 5, lines 31-54 and col. 6, lines 36-47). These properties would be of interest to the disclosure of Sakai et al. which teaches an insulating oxide layer on the surface of magnetic powders (par. [0033]-[0035]) with the added benefit of reducing eddy current loss and improved contact with the magnetic powders. Eddy current loss is a well-known issue in magnetic powders which are subjected to magnetic fields due to contact between the magnetic powders and improved contact with magnetic powders would result in benefits to the insulated coated magnetic powders. Based on the explicit teaching of at least one benefit resulting from the use of yttria stabilized zirconia as the insulating material in Sakai et al., it would have been obvious to use the material as taught in Moorhead et al. with a reasonable expectation of success in achieving the improved properties due to the modification.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ALEXANDRE F FERRE whose telephone number is (571)270-5763. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8 am to 4 pm ET.
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, Alicia Chevalier can be reached at 5712721490. 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.
/ALEXANDRE F FERRE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1788 03/18/2026