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
Claims 15-16 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 08/17/2026. Claims 15-16 are withdrawn. Claims 1-14 are examined herein.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “surface mean diameter” in line 4 and line 6. The meaning of “surface mean diameter” is unclear. Appropriate definition is required.
Claim 1 recites flowability is less than 30s/50g. Without reciting the condition for measuring flowability, the recited limitation is indefinite. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 11 recites a servo press. The scope of servo press is unclear. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 13 recites ASP23, ASP60, SKD11, and DC53. It’s unclear what composition of these materials are. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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.
Claims 1-10 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP’831 (JP3812831B2).
Regarding claims 1 and 7, JP’831 teaches a method for make a magnetic core, comprising: granulating a mixture containing raw material powder, an adhesive and water by spray drying to obtain a first precursor, wherein the raw material powder comprises ceramic material powder, a mean diameter D50 of the raw material powder is within a range from 0.8-1.4 µm, a mass ratio of the raw material powder to the adhesive is within a range from 100:0.4 to 100:1.2, an average particle size of the first precursor is within a range from 40µm to 120µm ([0021] to [0052]), which overlap the recited mean diameter of the raw material powder, the recited amount of adhesive and the recited particle size of the first precursor in claim 1. In the case where the claimed ranges "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). See MPEP 2144.05 I. Thus, the recited size of the raw material powder and the granulated particles and the amount of adhesive
JP’831 discloses performing shaping process on the first precursor to obtain a second precursor having a preset shape; and performing heat treatment on the second precursor to obtain the magnetic core, wherein the thickness of the magnetic core is less than or equal to 1mm ([0044] to [0057]).
JP’831 does not explicitly disclose that the flowability of the first precursor is less than 30s/50g. However, the flowability depends on the shape of the particle and the size of the granulated particles. JP’831 discloses that the shape of the granulated particles is spherical and the average particle size is 40-100 µm ([0016]; [0033]), which meets the recited sphericity in claim 7 and overlap the recited particle size in claim 1.
In view of the fact that JP’831 disclose that the granulated particles have shape and size that meet the recited shape and size in the instant claims, one of the ordinary skill in the art would expect that the granulated particles disclosed by JP’831 to meet the recited flowability in claim 1. “Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established.” In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP 2112.01 I.
Regarding claim 2, since claim 1 recites that the raw material powder may be ceramic, claim 2 is met by JP’831.
Regarding claim 3, JP’831 discloses that the powder comprises ferrite ceramic powder and oxide of Si and oxide of Zr ([0022]), which meets the limitation recited in claim 3.
Regarding claim 4, JP’831 discloses that D10 is 0.4-0.6 µm and D90 is 1.5-3.1 µm (Table 1). Thus, D90/D10 is 2.5 to 7.75, which overlaps the recited D90/D10. In the case where the claimed ranges "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). See MPEP 2144.05 I. Claim 4 is obvious over JP’831.
Regarding claim 5, JP’831 discloses that the binder is PVA ([0035]), which meets the limitation recited in claim 5.
Regarding claim 6, JP’831 discloses that the solvent is water ([0052]), which meets the limitation recited in claim 6.
Regarding claim 8, JP’831 discloses that an inlet air temperature of the spray drying is within a range from 160°C to 230°C, and an outlet air temperature of the spray drying is within a range from 65°C to 125°C ([0016]), which meets the inlet air temperature and overlaps the recited outlet air temperature in claim 8. In the case where the claimed ranges "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). See MPEP 2144.05 I. Claim 8 is obvious over JP’831.
Regarding claim 9, JP’831 discloses that a device for spray drying comprises a spray dryer with two fluid nozzles ([0024] to [0031]), which meets the limitation recited in claim 9.
Regarding claim 10, JP’831 discloses that placing the first precursor in a shaping mold with a preset shape for pressure treatment ([0016]; [0027]; [0034]; [0056]), which meets the limitation recited in claim 10.
Regarding claim13, JP’831 discloses shaping the granulated particles using a mold ([0016]; [0027]; [0034]; [0056]). Using a mold made of tungsten steel to make a molded product is well-known to one of ordinary skill in the arts. Thus, claim 13 is obvious over JP’831.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP’831 (JP3812831B2), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yu (CN107749340).
Regarding claim 12, JP’831 does not teach the recited molding temperature and duration. Yu teaches a method of making a molded product and discloses that the molding pressure is 600-1500 MPa and the molding duration is 0-60 s to make a molded product having high strength ([0009] to [0028]). Thus, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to perform molding at 600-1500 MPa for 0-60 s as taught by Yu in the process of JP’831 in order to make a molded product having high strength as disclosed by Yu. The pressure and duration disclosed by Yu overlap the recited pressure and duration in claim 12. In the case where the claimed ranges "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). See MPEP 2144.05 I. Claim 12 is obvious over JP’831 in view of Yu.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11 and 14 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Xiaowei Su whose telephone number is (571)272-3239. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-5:00.
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 5712721401. 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.
/XIAOWEI SU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1733
