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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted between 29 April 2024 and 30 April 2026 were considered by the examiner. The submissions are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97.
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 4-12 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.
Claims 4-12 all refer to “any one of claims 1”. It is unclear how the phrase “any one of” modifies “claims 1”. It is unclear if the claims 4-12 are referring only to claim 1 or if they refer to other claims. Examiner recommends changing the phrase “any one of claims 1” to “claim 1” if this accurately corresponds to applicant’s claimed subject matter.
Claims 5-10 recite the phrase “preferably” while referring to limitations. It is unclear if these limitations are required to satisfy the claim. The specification does not provide clarity and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be apprised of the scope of the claim.
Claims 6-8 and 11 all refer to a mass percentage of either the passivating agent, as in claim 6, the silane coupling agent, as in claim 7, the release agent, as in claim 8, or all three of the passivating agent, silane coupling agent and release agent, as in claim 11, relative to the iron-silicon alloy magnetic powder. It is unclear if the claimed mass percentages are relative to the iron-silicon alloy magnetic powder from step 1 of the claimed method, or if they are relative to the mass of the modified iron-silicon magnetic powder from each respective step. For example, it is unclear if the mass percentage claimed in claim 6 is relative to the mass of the iron-silicon alloy magnetic powder from step 1 or if it is relative to the mass of the iron-silicon alloy magnetic powder after it has been mixed with passivating agent. it is unclear if the mass percentage claimed in claim 7 is relative to the mass of the iron-silicon alloy magnetic powder from step 1 or if it is relative to the mass of the iron-silicon alloy magnetic powder after it has been mixed with passivating agent and the silane coupling agent. it is unclear if the mass percentage claimed in claims 8 is relative to the mass of the iron-silicon alloy magnetic powder from step 1 or if it is relative to the mass of the iron-silicon alloy magnetic powder after it has been mixed with passivating agent, silane coupling agent, and the binder. Claim 11 contains all the clarity issues of claims 6, 7, and 8 as it claims the same mass percentages relative to the iron-silicon alloy magnetic powder.
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.
Claims 1-4, 8, 9, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN112530656 (machine translation) of Jiang in view of KR20110014571 (machine translation) of Meyer.
Claim 1 claims a preparation method for an iron-silicon magnetic powder core, comprising the following steps: (1) mixing iron-silicon alloy magnetic powder and a surface-treating agent to obtain surface- treated magnetic powder; (2) mixing a passivating agent, a solvent, and the surface-treated magnetic powder in step (1) to obtain passivated magnetic powder; (3) subjecting the passivated magnetic powder in step (2) to organic insulation bonding to obtain bonded magnetic powder; (4) mixing a release agent and the bonded magnetic powder in step (3) to obtain a mixed magnetic powder material; and (5) subjecting the mixed magnetic powder material in step (4) to compression molding and an annealing treatment to obtain the iron-silicon magnetic powder core.
Jiang discloses a preparation method of low-loss iron-silicon magnetic powder core in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Jiang discloses surface treating an iron-silicon powder with a surface passivation treatment (equivalent to steps 1 and 2 of the claimed invention), insulation coating of the powder (equivalent to step 3 of the claimed invention), adding a lubricant (equivalent to step 4 of the claimed invention), and press molding/heat treatment (equivalent to step 5 of the claimed invention), Para[0011].
Meyer discloses surface modified superparamagnetic oxide particles in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Meyer teaches that the surface modification of the oxide particles can be carried out by treating the oxide particles with a surface modifier in the vapor form, Para[0012]. Meyer also teaches that the particles usable according to the invention may also be partially or fully coated with further metal oxides, and that Examples of such organometallic compounds are silicon alkoxide (Si (OR) 4), aluminum alkoxide (Al (OR) 3) or titanium alkoxide (Ti (OR) 4), Para[0034]. Meyer discloses that the surface modified super-magnetic particles of the present invention exhibit good incorporation into the alcohol, which extends the range of use in adhesives, Para[0044]. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to surface treat the iron-silicon alloy magnetic powder taught by Jiang before performing the passivation step, as disclosed by Meyer, in order to produce a powder which incorporates better into alcohol so it can be used in adhesives. Thus, Jiang in view of Meyer covers all limitations of claim 1.
Claim 2 further limits claim 1 by claiming that the iron-silicon alloy magnetic powder in step (1) has a particle size range of 15-150 µm.
Jiang discloses a particle size distribution ranging from -325 mesh to -120 mesh, Para[0026], corresponding to a particle size range of 44 µm to 125 µm. This overlaps with the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists, see MPEP 2144.05. Therefore, Jiang teaches the additional limitation of claim 2. Thus, Jiang in view of Meyer covers all limitations of claim 2.
Claim 3 further limits claim 1 by claiming that a mass of iron-silicon alloy magnetic powder having a particle size range of 75-150 µm accounts for more than or equal to 40wt% of the total mass.
Jiang discloses a particle size distribution of the ferrosilicon magnetic powder core of: -325 mesh: -250 mesh: -120 mesh = 2:3:1 mass ratio, Para[0011]. Using the corresponding sizes of the openings between the wires of the respective mesh screens, Jiang particle size distribution would show a mass ratio of 2 for powders smaller than 44 µm (-325 mesh), a mass ratio of 3 for powders between 44 µm (325 mesh) and 125 µm (120 mesh) and a mass ratio of 1 for powders larger than 125 µm (120 mesh). One possible particle distribution satisfying Jiang’s mass ratio would be 15% of the particles greater than 125 µm, 45% of the particles being between 44 µm and 125 µm, and 30% of the particles less than 44 µm. This particle distribution would overlap with the range of claim 3 of 40 wt% of the particles between 75 µm and 100 µm. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists, see MPEP 2144.05. Therefore, Jiang covers the additional limitation of claim 3. Thus, Jiang in view of Meyer covers all limitations of claim 3.
Claim 4 further limits claim 1 by claiming that a mass of iron-silicon alloy magnetic powder having a particle size range of 15-35 µm accounts for more than or equal to 30% of the total mass.
Jiang discloses a particle size distribution of the ferrosilicon magnetic powder core of: -325 mesh: -250 mesh: -120 mesh = 2:3:1 mass ratio, Para[0011]. Using the corresponding sizes of the openings between the wires of the respective mesh screens, Jiang particle size distribution would show a mass ratio of 2 for powders smaller than 44 µm (-325 mesh), a mass ratio of 3 for powders between 44 µm (325 mesh) and 125 µm (120 mesh) and a mass ratio of 1 for powders larger than 125 µm (120 mesh). One possible particle distribution satisfying Jiang’s mass ratio would be 15% of the particles greater than 125 µm, 45% of the particles being between 44 µm and 125 µm, and 30% of the particles less than 44 µm. This particle distribution would overlap with the range of claim 4 of 30 wt% of the particles less than 44 µm. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists, see MPEP 2144.05. Therefore, Jiang covers the additional limitation of claim 4. Thus, Jiang in view of Meyer covers all limitations of claim 4.
Claim 8 further limits claim 1 by claiming that the release agent in step (4) comprises zinc stearate; preferably, a mass of the release agent in step (4) is 0.3-0.5wt% of the iron-silicon alloy magnetic powder.
Jiang teaches that the adding amount of zinc stearate is 0.4-0.6% of the weight of the iron-silicon powder, Para[0011]. This range overlaps with the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists, see MPEP 2144.05. Thus, Jiang in view of Meyer covers all limitations of claim 8.
Claim 9 further limits claim 1 by claiming that the compression molding in step (5) is performed at a pressure of 1500-1800 MPa; preferably, a maximum temperature of the annealing treatment in step (5) is 680-730 °C; preferably, the annealing treatment in step (5) is performed with a temperature-holding period of 25-35 min.
Jiang teaches compression molding at 1650 MPa, Para[0022], and at 1500 MPa, Para[0026]. Jiang also teaches heat treatment at 600-700℃ for 30-45 minutes, Para[0011]. These values overlap with the claimed ranges. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists, see MPEP 2144.05. Thus, Jiang in view of Meyer covers all limitations of claim 9.
Claim 12 claims an iron-silicon magnetic powder core, which is obtained by the preparation method according to any one of claims 1.
Jiang discloses an iron-silicon magnetic powder core, Para[0001]. Thus, Jiang in view of Meyer covers all limitations of claim 12.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN112530656 (machine translation) of Jiang in view of KR20110014571 (machine translation) of Meyer, as cited above, further in view of KR20210108325 (machine translation) of Oura and CN113948264 (machine translation) of Zhang.
Claim 5 further limits claim 1 by claiming that the surface-treating agent in step (1) comprises an organic aluminum aerosol; preferably, a mass of the surface-treating agent in step (1) is 0.5-1.5wt% of the iron-silicon alloy magnetic powder; preferably, the preparation method further comprises drying after the mixing in step (1); preferably, the drying is performed at a temperature of 75-85 °C.
Jiang does not teach an organic aluminum aerosol, a mass of the surface treating agent, or the specific temperature range for drying.
Meyer teaches that the surface modification of the oxide particles can be carried out by treating the oxide particles with a surface modifier in the vapor form, Para[0012]. Meyer also teaches that the particles usable according to the invention may also be partially or fully coated with further metal oxides, and that Examples of such organometallic compounds are silicon alkoxide (Si (OR) 4), aluminum alkoxide (Al (OR) 3) or titanium alkoxide (Ti (OR) 4), Para[0034]. Meyer discloses that the surface modified super-magnetic particles of the present invention exhibit good incorporation into the alcohol, which extends the range of use in adhesives, Para[0044]. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to surface treat the iron-silicon alloy magnetic powder taught by Jiang with the organic aluminum aerosol taught by Meyer in order to produce a powder which incorporates better into alcohol so it can be used in adhesives.
Oura teaches a magnetic sheet in a similar field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Oura discloses that the degree of surface treatment by the surface treatment agent is preferably within a predetermined range from the viewpoint of improving the dispersibility of the magnetic powder. Specifically, 100 parts by mass of the magnetic powder is preferably surface-treated with 0.01 parts by mass to 5 parts by mass of a surface treatment agent, preferably at 0.05 parts by mass to 3 parts by mass, and 0.1 parts by mass to 2 parts by mass, Para[0055]. This overlaps with the claimed range for the mass of the surface treating agent. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists, see MPEP 2144.05. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the mass of the surface treating agent as taught by Oura in the iron silicon magnetic core taught by Jiang in order to improve the dispersibility of the magnetic powder.
Zhang discloses an iron-nickel magnetic powder core and preparation method thereof in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Zhang discloses that the metal soft magnetic powder core of the invention has low loss, and Zhang teaches heating at 60-150℃ during drying, Para[0009]. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists, see MPEP 2144.05. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art perform the drying as taught by Zhang to the iron-silicon powder taught by Jiang in order to produce a core with low loss.
Thus, Jiang in view of Meyer, Oura, and Zhang covers all limitations of claim 5.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN112530656 (machine translation) of Jiang in view of KR20110014571 (machine translation) of Meyer, as cited above, further in view of CN114724834 (machine translation) of Tu
Claim 6 further limits claim 1 by claiming that the passivating agent in step (2) comprises a water-soluble inorganic material, preferably phosphoric acid and/or aluminum dihydrogen phosphate; preferably, a mass of the passivating agent in step (2) is 0.15-2.5wt% of the iron-silicon alloy magnetic powder; preferably, the solvent in step (2) comprises deionized water; preferably, a mass of the solvent in step (2) is 1.5-3 times the mass of the passivating agent; preferably, the preparation method further comprises drying after the mixing in step (2).
Jiang teaches 0.2% phosphoric acid, Para[0026]. This overlaps with the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists, see MPEP 2144.05. Jiang also teaches drying, Para[0026]. Jiang does not teach deionized water or a mass of the solvent.
Tu discloses an insulation coating process for 5G high-frequency superfine alloy powder in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Tu teaches that the mixed passivation solution comprises 1%-5% phosphoric acid, 0.5%-2.0% chromic acid and 3%-10% deionized water, Para[0028]. This overlaps with the claimed mass of the passivating agent of 0.15-2.5 wt%, and the claimed mass of the solvent being 1-3 times the claimed mass of the passivation agent. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists, see MPEP 2144.05. Tu teaches that the purpose of the present invention is to propose an insulating coating process of ultrafine alloy powder for 5G high frequency in order to solve the shortcomings existing in the prior art. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use deionized water as taught by Tu in the method disclosed by Jiang in order to more efficiently coat the particle with insulation. Thus, Jiang in view of Meyer and Tu covers all limitations of claim 6.
Claims 7 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN112530656 (machine translation) of Jiang in view of KR20110014571 (machine translation) of Meyer, as cited above, further in view of CN113948264 (machine translation) of Zhang.
Claim 7 further limits claim 1 by claiming that the preparation method further comprises mixing a silane coupling agent and the passivated magnetic powder in step (2) before the organic insulation bonding in step (3); preferably, a mass of the silane coupling agent is 0.15-0.5wt% of the iron-silicon alloy magnetic powder; preferably, the organic insulation bonding in step (3) is: mixing a binder solution and the passivated magnetic powder in step (2), drying, and sieving; preferably, a binder in the binder solution comprises an organosilicon resin; preferably, a solvent in the binder solution comprises acetone; preferably, a mass of the binder in the binder solution is 0.3-1.5wt% of the iron-silicon alloy magnetic powder; preferably, in the binder solution, a mass of the solvent is 1-5 times the mass of the binder; preferably, the sieving is performed at a size of 80-200 mesh.
Jiang discloses a silicon resin binder, Para[0022] equivalent to the organosilicon resin. Jiang does not teach a mass for a silane coupling agent, acetone, a mass of the binder, mass of the solvent, or 80-200 mesh sieving.
Zhang teaches that the mass of the coupling agent in step (1) is 0.5-5wt% of the mass of the iron-nickel magnetic powder. This overlaps with the claimed range of 0.15-0.5wt%. Zhang also discloses that the mass of the binder is 0.1-2wt% of the mass of the magnetic core powder, Para[0068]. This overlaps with the claimed range of 0.3-1.5wt%. Zhang also discloses that the mass of the acetone is 7.5wt% of the mass of the iron-nickel magnetic powder, Para[0079]. The ranges for the mass of the binder and the mass of the acetone would result in a mass of the solvent that ranges from 3.75 to 75 times the mass of the binder. This overlaps with the claimed range of 1-5 times. Zhang also teaches that the particle size of the iron-nickel magnetic powder in step (1) is less than or equal to 200 mesh, Para[0025]. This overlaps with the claimed range of 80-200 mesh. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists, see MPEP 2144.05. Zhang teaches that the purpose of the present invention is to provide an iron-nickel magnetic powder core and a preparation method thereof, wherein the iron-nickel magnetic powder core has higher magnetic permeability, lower loss and better DC superposition performance, Para[0014]. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the mass of the coupling agent, acetone, the mass of the binder, and the mass of the solvent as taught by Zhang for the silicon resin binder taught by Jiang in order to produce a magnetic core with lower loss. Thus, Jiang in view of Meyer and Zhang covers all limitations of claim 7.
Claim 13 further limits claim 12 by claiming an inductor, which contains the iron-silicon magnetic powder core according to claim 12.
Jiang does not specifically teach an inductor.
Zhang teaches that soft magnetic alloy inductors are suitable for the development requirements of miniaturization of electronic products, and can be used in a wide range of electronic components, Para[0005]. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the magnetic powder core of Jiang in an inductor as taught by Zhang because they are suitable for the development of electronic products. Thus, Jiang in view of Meyer and Zhang covers all limitations of claim 13.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN112530656 (machine translation) of Jiang in view of KR20110014571 (machine translation) of Meyer, as cited above, further in view of KR20210108325 (machine translation) of Oura.
Claim 10 further limits claim 1 by claiming that the preparation method further comprises cooling and applying a coating layer after the annealing treatment in step (5); preferably, a coating material of the coating layer comprises an epoxy resin.
Jiang does not specifically teach an epoxy resin.
Oura teaches a magnetic sheet in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Oura discloses that a thermosetting resin is preferable. As such a thermosetting resin, an epoxy resin is preferable, Para[0058]. Oura also teaches that the magnetic powder may be treated with a surface treatment agent from the viewpoint of adjusting the viscosity of the resin composition and improving moisture resistance and dispersibility. As the surface treatment agent, for example, a vinylsilane coupling agent, a (meth)acrylic coupling agent, a fluorine-containing silane coupling agent, an aminosilane coupling agent, an epoxysilane coupling agent, a mercaptosilane coupling agent, a silane coupling agent, Para[0054]. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the epoxy resin disclosed by Oura in the magnetic powder of Jiang in order to improve moisture resistance and dispersibility. Thus, Jiang in view of Meyer and Oura covers all limitations of claim 10.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN112530656 (machine translation) of Jiang in view of KR20110014571 (machine translation) of Meyer, as cited above, further in view of CN113948264 (machine translation) of Zhang and CN114724834 (machine translation) of Tu.
Claim 11 claims the preparation method according to any one of claims 1 comprising the following steps: (1) mixing iron-silicon alloy magnetic powder and an organic aluminum aerosol, and drying at 75-85 °C to obtain surface-treated magnetic powder; a mass of the organic aluminum aerosol is 0.5-1.5wt% of the iron-silicon alloy magnetic powder; (2) mixing a passivating agent, deionized water, and the surface-treated magnetic powder in step (1), and drying to obtain passivated magnetic powder; the passivating agent is 0.15-2.5wt% of the iron-silicon alloy magnetic powder, and a mass of the deionized water is 1.5-3 times a mass of the passivating agent; the passivating agent is phosphoric acid and/or aluminum dihydrogen phosphate; (3) mixing a silane coupling agent having a mass being 0.15-0.5wt% of the iron-silicon alloy magnetic powder and the passivated magnetic powder in step (2), then mixing with a solution containing an organosilicon resin and acetone, drying, and sieving with a screen having a size of 80-200 mesh to obtain bonded magnetic powder; a mass of the organosilicon resin is 0.3-1.5wt% of the iron-silicon alloy magnetic powder, and a mass of the acetone is 1-5 times the mass of the organosilicon resin; (4) mixing zinc stearate having a mass being 0.3-O.5wt% of the iron-silicon alloy magnetic powder and the bonded magnetic powder in step (3) to obtain a mixed magnetic powder material; and (5) subjecting the mixed magnetic powder material in step (4) to compression molding at a pressure of 1500-1800 MPa, and then performing an annealing treatment with a maximum temperature of 680-730 °C, and holding the temperature for a period of 25-35 min, cooling and then coating an epoxy resin layer to obtain the iron-silicon magnetic powder core; in the iron-silicon alloy magnetic powder in step (1), a mass of iron-silicon alloy magnetic powder having a particle size range of 75-150 µm accounts for more than or equal to 40wt% of the total mass, a mass of iron-silicon alloy magnetic powder having a particle size range of 15-35 µm accounts for more than or equal to 30% of the total mass, and the remaining has a particle size range of 35-75 µm.
Jiang discloses surface treating an iron-silicon powder with a surface passivation treatment (equivalent to steps 1 and 2 of the claimed invention), insulation coating of the powder (equivalent to step 3 of the claimed invention), adding a lubricant (equivalent to step 4 of the claimed invention), and press molding/heat treatment (equivalent to step 5 of the claimed invention), Para[0011]. Jiang discloses a particle size distribution of the ferrosilicon magnetic powder core of: -325 mesh: -250 mesh: -120 mesh = 2:3:1 mass ratio, Para[0011]. Using the corresponding sizes of the openings between the wires of the respective mesh screens, Jiang particle size distribution would show a mass ratio of 2 for powders smaller than 44 µm (-325 mesh), a mass ratio of 3 for powders between 44 µm (325 mesh) and 125 µm (120 mesh) and a mass ratio of 1 for powders larger than 125 µm (120 mesh). One possible particle distribution satisfying Jiang’s mass ratio would be 15% of the particles greater than 125 µm, 45% of the particles being between 44 µm and 125 µm, and 30% of the particles less than 44 µm. This particle distribution would overlap with the range of claim 3 of 40 wt% of the particles between 75 µm and 100 µm. Jiang teaches that the adding amount of zinc stearate is 0.4-0.6% of the weight of the iron-silicon powder, Para[0011]. This range overlaps with the claimed range. Jiang teaches compression molding at 1650 MPa, Para[0022], and at 1500 MPa, Para[0026]. Jiang also teaches heat treatment at 600-700℃ for 30-45 minutes, Para[0011]. These values overlap with the claimed ranges. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists, see MPEP 2144.05. Jiang discloses a silicon resin binder, Para[0022] equivalent to the organosilicon resin. Jiang does not teach a mass for a silane coupling agent, acetone, a mass of the binder, mass of the solvent, or 80-200 mesh sieving.
Zhang teaches that the mass of the coupling agent in step (1) is 0.5-5wt% of the mass of the iron-nickel magnetic powder. This overlaps with the claimed range of 0.15-0.5wt%. Zhang also discloses that the mass of the binder is 0.1-2wt% of the mass of the magnetic core powder, Para[0068]. This overlaps with the claimed range of 0.3-1.5wt%. Zhang also discloses that the mass of the acetone is 7.5wt% of the mass of the iron-nickel magnetic powder, Para[0079]. The ranges for the mass of the binder and the mass of the acetone would result in a mass of the solvent that is anywhere from 3.75 to 75 times the mass of the binder. This overlaps with the claimed range of 1-5 times. Zhang also teaches that the particle size of the iron-nickel magnetic powder in step (1) is less than or equal to 200 mesh, Para[0025]. This overlaps with the claimed range of 80-200 mesh. Zhang teaches heating at 60-150℃ during drying, Para[0009]. This overlaps with the claimed range of 75-85 °C. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists, see MPEP 2144.05. Zhang teaches that the purpose of the present invention is to provide an iron-nickel magnetic powder core and a preparation method thereof, wherein the iron-nickel magnetic powder core has higher magnetic permeability, lower loss and better DC superposition performance, Para[0014]. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the mass of the coupling agent, acetone, the mass of the binder, the mass of the solvent, and the drying time as taught by Zhang for the silicon resin binder taught by Jiang in order to produce a magnetic core with lower loss.
Tu teaches that the mixed passivation solution comprises 1%-5% phosphoric acid, 0.5%-2.0% chromic acid and 3%-10% deionized water, Para[0028]. This overlaps with the claimed mass of the passivating agent of 0.15-2.5 wt%, and the claimed mass of the solvent being 1-3 times the claimed mass of the passivation agent. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists, see MPEP 2144.05. Tu teaches that the purpose of the present invention is to propose an insulating coating process of ultrafine alloy powder for 5G high frequency in order to solve the shortcomings existing in the prior art. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use deionized water as taught by Tu in the method disclosed by Jiang in order to more efficiently coat the particle with insulation.
Thus, Jiang in view of Meyer, Zhang and Tu covers all limitations of claim 11.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACOB BENJAMIN STILES whose telephone number is (571)272-0598. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30am - 5:00pm.
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, Keith Hendricks can be reached at (571) 272-1401. 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.
/Keith D. Hendricks/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1733
/JACOB BENJAMIN STILES/Examiner, Art Unit 1733
Prosecution Insights