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
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. JP2022-012682 and PCT/JP2023/000906, filed on January 31, 2022 and January 16, 2023, respectively.
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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).
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 11 and 12 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 11 recites a limitation whereby the electronic component is “used as an inductor”. The claim is indefinite as it is unclear as to whether it is directed to a process as the claim does not set forth any steps involved in the process. Mention of the electronic component “used as an inductor” merely recites a use without any active, positive steps delimiting how this application/use is actually practiced.
Claim 12 recites a limitation whereby the electronic component is “used as an antenna”. The claim is indefinite as it is unclear as to whether it is directed to a process as the claim does not set forth any steps involved in the process. Mention of the electronic component “used as an antenna” merely recites a use without any active, positive steps delimiting how this application/use is actually practiced.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujita et al (US PGPub 20220392676) in view of Oura et al (US PGPub 20210225569), Matsutomi et al (US PGPub 20170110231), Weiss et al (US Pat No 5645752A), and Yabe et al (US Pat No 5487840A).
Regarding claim 1, Fujita teaches preparation of a magnetic core by supplying a soft magnetic powder and organic solvent as a slurry to a high-pressure homogenizer or a high-speed stirring mixer, thus a mixing device (see abstract, Fig. 1, paragraphs [0008-9, 0018, 0023]). In paragraph [0068], Fujita teaches that a peripheral speed of the stirring blade should not exceed 30 m/s due to “idle rotation” which cannot give the stirring energy to the treated liquid, thus causing the dispersion to aggregate. Additionally, with high speeds, the particles can be compromised. A “peripheral speed” can be thought of similarly to a “circumferential speed” as circumference is a circular periphery. Fujita’s embodiment teaches a way to provide speeds higher than 30 m/s (through summation of peripheral speed of the blade and inner wall speed, paragraph [0070]) but is not limited to such an implementation. Thus, the peripheral speed or stirring circumferential speed represents a result-effective variable (MPEP2144.05IIb). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to modify the stirring speed of Fujita to have a sufficient speed under 30 m/s, as such a value represents an optimization of a result-effective variable (i.e. dispersibility) for use in preparing magnetic-powder slurries/compositions and arrive at the limitation as claimed. In an analogous preparation method, Oura teaches stirring for preparing a magnetic paste (magnetic powder and organic solvent mixture, paragraph [0115]) with a stirrer such as a three-roll mill, a rotary mixer, or a high-speed rotary mixer. In the examples, Oura does not disclose the specific mixing speed but uses a blade rotation speed of 1850 rpm to separate/collect powders (paragraph [0140]) and a centrifugal speed of 2000 rpm for degassing (paragraph [0145]). Thus, such a speed could be applied to the stirring/mixing step as a known reference value provided that is below the 30m/s informed by Fujita. Fujita teaches in their mixing device that an rpm of 21,000 corresponds to a peripheral speed of 38.5 m/s (paragraph [0119]). Therefore, rpms of 1850 and 2000 applied to the device of Fujita correspond to speeds of 3.39 m/s and 3.67 m/s, respectively, which are within the claimed stirring and mixing range of 2.0 to 5.0 m/sec. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to modify the stirring speed of Fujtia to be below 30m/s, such as the speeds provided in the preparation of Oura and in the mixing device of Oura as a known alternative device capable of producing magnetic compositions, as a known alternative stirring speed capable of providing magnetic-based compositions from magnetic particles/powders and an organic solvent to arrive at the limitation as claimed. In another analogous embodiment, Matsutomi teaches similar preparation of a soft magnetic material from starting materials of a soft magnetic particle, organic solvent, and subsequently adds a rheology control agent (paragraphs [0061, 0083, and 0017-22]). Matsutomi provides the soft magnetic particles in a mass percentage based on solid content of 85%-98% (preferably 88-95%, paragraph [0022], thus overlapping with claimed range 80-95% by mass) as an amount of such soft magnetic particle content allows for a soft magnetic composite with “excellent magnetic characteristics” and “excellent film-forming characteristics”. Matsutomi includes a rheology control agent for more homogeneous dispersion of the soft magnetic particles in the soft magnetic resin composition (paragraph [0060]) and for imparting thixotropic properties (paragraph [0061]). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to include soft magnetic particles within the overlapping portion of weight percentages provided to form a composition with excellent magnetic and film-forming characteristics and additionally include a rheology control agent for imparting thixotropic properties and enabling a more homogeneous dispersion of magnetic particles in the composition to arrive at the limitations as claimed. Fujita does not disclose desired viscosity parameters for the magnetic composition. However, viscosity is an inherent property. While the reference does not disclose the claimed properties, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the exemplified magnetorheological fluids to inherently have the claimed properties absent any showing to the contrary since they fall within the claimed composition and are produced by the claimed process. See MPEP2112.01II.Regardless, both Weiss and Yabe teach relevant viscosity benchmarks, parameters, and testing considerations for magnetic compositions (magnetorheological fluids which are analogous to the disclosures of Fujita, Matsutomi, and Oura). Weiss teaches an analogous embodiment of a magnetorheological material (thixotropic/rheological additive, solvent, and magnetic particle/powder). Weiss teaches the solvent as a carrier fluid (includes organics, Col 11 lines 34-54) whereby the carrier fluid ideally has a viscosity at 25°C of 2-1000 centipoise (0.002 – 1 Pa*s, Col 12 lines 21-28), thus overlapping with both ranges as claimed regardless of shear rate. Weiss is silent on shear rates. However, with such a broad teaching and no suggestion of teaching away from the range, it would be obvious to ensure a consistent viscosity within such a disclosed range regardless of shear rate. Further, Yabe also teaches an analogous magnetic fluid composition (magnetorheological fluid) comprising an organic solvent, thixotropy-imparting agent, and magnetic fine particles (abstract). Yabe teaches that the thixotropic agent decreases viscosity of the composition under stress (increasing shear rate) and increases viscosity upon removal of stress (Col 2, lines 53-61). In Table 1, Yabe discloses viscosities at 25°C for preferred compositions under shear rates of 2, 10, and 40 s-1 whereby the viscosities at a shear rate of 10 s-1 are 1.1, 1.2, and 1.1 Pa*s which are within the range as claimed and nearby the upper range of the viscosity taught by Weiss. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to ensure a viscosity of the composition at 25°C within the disclosed Pa*s values as taught by Weiss and Yabe as a known desired viscosity value for magnetorheological-based compositions and arrive at the invention as claimed. Thus, Fujita, Oura, Matsutomi, Weiss, and Yabe teach the claimed “A method for producing a composition, comprising: a step of obtaining a composition by supplying, to a mixing device, magnetic particles, an organic solvent, and a rheology control agent to be stirred and mixed, wherein a content of the magnetic particles is 80% to 95% by mass with respect to a total mass of components supplied to the mixing device, a stirring circumferential speed during the stirring and mixing is 2.0 to 5.0 m/sec, a viscosity of the composition, which is measured under a condition of a temperature of 25°C and a shear rate of 0.1 sec-1, is 0.5 to 500 Pa*s, and a viscosity of the composition, which is measured under a condition of a temperature of 25°C and a shear rate of 10 sec-1, is 0.01 to 100 Pa*s”.
Regarding claim 2, Fujita, Oura, Matsutomi, Weiss, and Yabe teach the method of claim 1. As described in the rejection of claim 1, Fujita teaches a mixing speed that should not exceed 30m/s for general stirring devices. In an analogous preparation method, Oura teaches stirring for preparing a magnetic paste (magnetic powder and organic solvent mixture, paragraph [0115]) with a stirrer such as a three-roll mill, a rotary mixer, or a high-speed rotary mixer. In the examples, Oura does not disclose the specific mixing speed btu uses a blade rotation speed of 1850 rpm to separate/collect powders (paragraph [0140]) and a centrifugal speed of 2000 rpm for degassing (paragraph [0145]). Thus, such a speed could be applied to the stirring/mixing step as a known reference value provided that is below the 30m/s informed by Fujita. Fujita teaches in their mixing device that an rpm of 21,000 corresponds to a peripheral speed of 38.5 m/s (paragraph [0119]). Therefore, rpms of 1850 and 2000 applied to the device of Fujita correspond to speeds of 3.39 m/s and 3.67 m/s, respectively, which are within the claimed stirring and mixing range of 2.0 to 5.0 m/sec. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to modify the stirring speed of Fujtia to be below 30m/s, such as the speeds provided in the preparation of Oura and in the mixing device of Oura as a known alternative device capable of producing magnetic compositions, as a known alternative stirring speed capable of providing magnetic-based compositions from magnetic particles/powders and an organic solvent to arrive at the limitation as claimed. Thus, Fujita, Oura, Matsutomi, Weiss, and Yabe teach the claimed “The method for producing a composition according to claim 1, wherein the stirring circumferential speed is 2.5 m/sec or more and less than 4.0 m/sec.”
Regarding claim 3, Fujita, Oura, Matsutomi, Weiss, and Yabe teach the method of claim 1. As described in the rejection of claim 1, Matsutomi teaches similar preparation of a soft magnetic material from starting materials of a soft magnetic particle, organic solvent, and subsequently adds a rheology control agent (paragraphs [0061, 0083, and 0017-22]). Matsutomi provides the soft magnetic particles in a mass percentage based on solid content of 85%-98% (preferably 88-95%, paragraph [0022], thus overlapping with claimed range 82-90% by mass) as an amount of such soft magnetic particle content allows for a soft magnetic composite with “excellent magnetic characteristics” and “excellent film-forming characteristics”. 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 amount of soft magnetic particles to include such that the magnetic composite has excellent magnetic characteristics and film-forming characteristics to arrive at the invention as claimed. Thus, Fujita, Oura, Matsutomi, Weiss, and Yabe teach the claimed “The method for producing a composition according to claim 1, wherein the content of the magnetic particles is 82% to 90% by mass with respect to the total mass of the components supplied to the mixing device.”.
Regarding claim 4, Fujita, Oura, Matsutomi, Weiss, and Yabe teach the method of claim 1. Fujita teaches that the soft magnetic powder is an iron alloy (20% mass or more iron, paragraph [0012]) whereby the volume-based cumulative 50% particle diameter is between 0.1 – 10.0 µm. Additionally, in paragraph [0036], Fujita further clarifies that the average particle diameter of the soft magnetic powder particles is between 0.1 – 10.0 µm. In paragraph [0050], Fujita provides rationale for the diameter range as particles below 0.1 µm decreases compressibility and strengthens aggregation forces. Particles too large cause an increase in the eddy current and the magnetic permeability at high frequency decreases. Although Fujita does not specify a “volume-average particle diameter” a volume-based cumulative 50% and average particle diameter are within the range as claimed for a “volume-average particle diameter”. 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 desired particle size to provide in order to avoid strong aggregation and increased eddy currents to arrive at the invention as claimed. Thus, Fujita, Oura, Matsutomi, Weiss, and Yabe teach the claimed “The method for producing a composition according to claim 1, wherein the magnetic particles include alloy particles having a volume-average particle diameter of 1 to 30 µm.”.
Regarding claim 5, Fujita, Oura, Matsutomi, Weiss, and Yabe teach the method of claim 1. Fujita teaches that the soft magnetic powder is an iron alloy (20% mass or more iron, paragraph [0012]) whereby the volume-based cumulative 50% particle diameter is between 0.1 – 10.0 µm. Additionally, in paragraph [0036], Fujita further clarifies that the average particle diameter of the soft magnetic powder particles is between 0.1 – 10.0 µm. In paragraph [0050], Fujita provides rationale for the diameter range as particles below 0.1 µm decreases compressibility and strengthens aggregation forces. Particles too large cause an increase in the eddy current and the magnetic permeability at high frequency decreases. In paragraph [0033], Fujita teaches the soft magnetic powder can be an Fe—Ni alloy, thus ferrite particles containing Ni. Although Fujita does not specify a “volume-average particle diameter” a volume-based cumulative 50% and average particle diameter are within the range as claimed for a “volume-average particle diameter”. 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 desired particle size to provide in order to avoid strong aggregation and increased eddy currents and to select for a Ni containing ferrite as a known suitable soft magnetic powder for preparing a magnetic composition to arrive at the invention as claimed. Thus, Fujita, Oura, Matsutomi, Weiss, and Yabe teach the claimed “The method for producing a composition according to claim 1, wherein the magnetic particles include ferrite particles containing Ni and having a volume-average particle diameter of 5 to 55 µm”.
Regarding claim 6, Fujita, Oura, Matsutomi, Weiss, and Yabe teach the method of claim 1. Matsutomi teaches providing a resin composition in the preparation (paragraphs [0017-40]). Matsutomi does not specifically disclose the resin as a binder but the functionality of the resin serves as a binder by forming a cross-linked composition to hold the magnetic particles in place and form a soft magnetic resin composition and form a film. Through the cured resin composition, noise can be suppressed and warping of the film after heating can be suppressed to ensure flatness (paragraph [0014]). To form the resin, Matsutomi provides an epoxy resin as a polyfunctional monomer which is crosslinked closely and cured with phenol resin (thus a resin and resin precursor). By providing a resin and a resin precursor (paragraph [0040], crosslinking can occur more closely and produce a high strength curing resin whereby the soft magnetic resin composition has a low linear expansion coefficient. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to include a resin and resin precursor in the mixing method of Fujita, as informed by Matsutomi, to enable formation of a soft magnetic resin composition with high strength, low linear expansion coefficient, and suppressed warping to arrive at the invention as claimed. Thus, Fujita, Oura, Matsutomi, Weiss, and Yabe teach the claimed “The method for producing a composition according to claim 1, wherein one or more binder components selected from the group consisting of a resin and a resin precursor are further supplied to the mixing device”.
Regarding claim 7, Fujita, Oura, Matsutomi, Weiss, and Yabe teach the method of claim 6. Matsutomi teaches that an epoxy resin is included for the resin composition (paragraphs [0017, 24, 45] and examples), thus the binder component includes an epoxy compound. Fujita, Oura, Matsutomi, Weiss, and Yabe teach the claimed “The method for producing a composition according to claim 6, wherein the binder component includes at least one of an epoxy compound or an oxetane compound”.
Regarding claim 8, Fujita, Oura, Matsutomi, Weiss, and Yabe teach the method of claim 1. As described in the rejection of claim 1, Matsutomi teaches rationale for including a rheology control agent for imparting thixotropic properties to the composition and teaches the rheology control agent can be organic and/or inorganic (preferably organic, paragraph [0062]). Matsutomi does not specifically disclosed a polycarboxylic acid, polycarboxylic acid anhydride, nor an amide wax (all of which are organic compounds). Weiss discloses specific organic oligomers that are useful as thixotropic agents which contain an oligomeric backbone comprised entirely of organic monomer units (Col 6 lines 10-24). The monomer units may be carboxylic acids, thus the corresponding oligomer would be a polycarboxylic acid. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to select polycarboxylic acid from the list of organic oligomeric thixotropic agents of Weiss for use as an organic thixotropic control agent, as informed by Matsutomi, in the composition of Fujita as a known rheological control agent capable of imparting thixotropic properties to the composition and enabling homogenous dispersion to arrive at the invention as claimed. Thus, Fujita, Oura, Matsutomi, Weiss, and Yabe teach the claimed “The method for producing a composition according to claim 1, wherein the rheology control agent includes at least one selected from the group consisting of a polycarboxylic acid, a polycarboxylic acid anhydride, and an amide wax”.
Regarding claim 9, Fujita, Oura, Matsutomi, Weiss, and Yabe teach the method of claim 1. Fujita teaches that the composition is formed as a compact magnetic core (paragraph [0002]), thus a magnetic material. Therefore, Fujita, Oura, Matsutomi, Weiss, and Yabe teach the claimed “A magnetic material formed of a composition which is produced by the method for producing a composition according to claim 1”.
Regarding claim 10, Fujita, Oura, Matsutomi, Weiss, and Yabe teach the magnetic material of claim 9. Fujita teaches that the magnetic core (magnetic material) can be applied to an inductor, a choke coil, a transformer, a reactor, a motor, or the like (paragraph [0002]) which are electronic components. Therefore, Fujita, Oura, Matsutomi, Weiss, and Yabe teach the claimed “An electronic component comprising: the magnetic material according to claim 9”.
Regarding claim 11, Fujita, Oura, Matsutomi, Weiss, and Yabe teach the electronic component of claim 10. Fujita teaches that the magnetic core (magnetic material) can be applied to an inductor. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to apply the magnetic material of Fujita as an inductor as a known application of such magnetic materials in electronic components and arrive at the invention as claimed. Thus, Fujita, Oura, Matsutomi, Weiss, and Yabe teach the claimed “The electronic component according to claim 10, wherein the electronic component is used as an inductor.”
Regarding claim 12, Fujita, Oura, Matsutomi, Weiss, and Yabe teach the electronic component of claim 10. Matsutomi teaches application of the magnetic composition in antennas (paragraph [0112]). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to apply the magnetic material of Fujita as an antenna, as informed by Matsutomi, as a known application of such magnetic materials in electronic components and arrive at the invention as claimed. Thus, Fujita, Oura, Matsutomi, Weiss, and Yabe teach the claimed “The electronic component according to claim 10, wherein the electronic component is used as an antenna”.
Regarding claim 13, Fujita, Oura, Matsutomi, Weiss, and Yabe teach the method of claim 2. Matsutomi teaches similar preparation of a soft magnetic material from starting materials of a soft magnetic particle, organic solvent, and subsequently adds a rheology control agent (paragraphs [0061, 0083, and 0017-22]). Matsutomi provides the soft magnetic particles in a mass percentage based on solid content of 85%-98% (preferably 88-95%, paragraph [0022], thus overlapping with claimed range 82-90% by mass) as an amount of such soft magnetic particle content allows for a soft magnetic composite with “excellent magnetic characteristics” and “excellent film-forming characteristics”. 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 amount of soft magnetic particles to include such that the magnetic composite has excellent magnetic characteristics and film-forming characteristics to arrive at the invention as claimed. Thus, Fujita, Oura, Matsutomi, Weiss, and Yabe teach the claimed “The method for producing a composition according to claim 2, wherein the content of the magnetic particles is 82% to 90% by mass with respect to the total mass of the components supplied to the mixing device.”.
Regarding claim 14, Fujita, Oura, Matsutomi, Weiss, and Yabe teach the method of claim 2. Fujita teaches that the soft magnetic powder is an iron alloy (20% mass or more iron, paragraph [0012]) whereby the volume-based cumulative 50% particle diameter is between 0.1 – 10.0 µm. Additionally, in paragraph [0036], Fujita further clarifies that the average particle diameter of the soft magnetic powder particles is between 0.1 – 10.0 µm. In paragraph [0050], Fujita provides rationale for the diameter range as particles below 0.1 µm decreases compressibility and strengthens aggregation forces. Particles too large cause an increase in the eddy current and the magnetic permeability at high frequency decreases. Although Fujita does not specify a “volume-average particle diameter” a volume-based cumulative 50% and average particle diameter are within the range as claimed for a “volume-average particle diameter”. 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 desired particle size to provide in order to avoid strong aggregation and increased eddy currents to arrive at the invention as claimed. Thus, Fujita, Oura, Matsutomi, Weiss, and Yabe teach the claimed “The method for producing a composition according to claim 2, wherein the magnetic particles include alloy particles having a volume-average particle diameter of 1 to 30 µm.”.
Regarding claim 15, Fujita, Oura, Matsutomi, Weiss, and Yabe teach the method of claim 2. Fujita teaches that the soft magnetic powder is an iron alloy (20% mass or more iron, paragraph [0012]) whereby the volume-based cumulative 50% particle diameter is between 0.1 – 10.0 µm. Additionally, in paragraph [0036], Fujita further clarifies that the average particle diameter of the soft magnetic powder particles is between 0.1 – 10.0 µm. In paragraph [0050], Fujita provides rationale for the diameter range as particles below 0.1 µm decreases compressibility and strengthens aggregation forces. Particles too large cause an increase in the eddy current and the magnetic permeability at high frequency decreases. In paragraph [0033], Fujita teaches the soft magnetic powder can be an Fe—Ni alloy, thus ferrite particles containing Ni. Although Fujita does not specify a “volume-average particle diameter” a volume-based cumulative 50% and average particle diameter are within the range as claimed for a “volume-average particle diameter”. 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 desired particle size to provide in order to avoid strong aggregation and increased eddy currents and to select for a Ni containing ferrite as a known suitable soft magnetic powder for preparing a magnetic composition to arrive at the invention as claimed. Thus, Fujita, Oura, Matsutomi, Weiss, and Yabe teach the claimed “The method for producing a composition according to claim 2, wherein the magnetic particles include ferrite particles containing Ni and having a volume-average particle diameter of 5 to 55 µm”.
Regarding claim 16, Fujita, Oura, Matsutomi, Weiss, and Yabe teach the method of claim 2. Matsutomi teaches providing a resin composition in the preparation (paragraphs [0017-40]). Matsutomi does not specifically disclose the resin as a binder but the functionality of the resin serves as a binder by forming a cross-linked composition to hold the magnetic particles in place and form a soft magnetic resin composition and form a film. Through the cured resin composition, noise can be suppressed and warping of the film after heating can be suppressed to ensure flatness (paragraph [0014]). To form the resin, Matsutomi provides an epoxy resin as a polyfunctional monomer which is crosslinked closely and cured with phenol resin (thus a resin and resin precursor). By providing a resin and a resin precursor (paragraph [0040], crosslinking can occur more closely and produce a high strength curing resin whereby the soft magnetic resin composition has a low linear expansion coefficient. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to include a resin and resin precursor in the mixing method of Fujita, as informed by Matsutomi, to enable formation of a soft magnetic resin composition with high strength, low linear expansion coefficient, and suppressed warping to arrive at the invention as claimed. Thus, Fujita, Oura, Matsutomi, Weiss, and Yabe teach the claimed “The method for producing a composition according to claim 2, wherein one or more binder components selected from the group consisting of a resin and a resin precursor are further supplied to the mixing device”.
Regarding claim 17, Fujita, Oura, Matsutomi, Weiss, and Yabe teach the method of claim 16. Matsutomi teaches that an epoxy resin is included for the resin composition (paragraphs [0017, 24, 45] and examples), thus the binder component includes an epoxy compound. Fujita, Oura, Matsutomi, Weiss, and Yabe teach the claimed “The method for producing a composition according to claim 16, wherein the binder component includes at least one of an epoxy compound or an oxetane compound”.
Regarding claim 18, Fujita, Oura, Matsutomi, Weiss, and Yabe teach the method of claim 2. Matsutomi teaches rationale for including a rheology control agent for imparting thixotropic properties to the composition and teaches the rheology control agent can be organic and/or inorganic (preferably organic, paragraph [0062]). Matsutomi does not specifically disclosed a polycarboxylic acid, polycarboxylic acid anhydride, nor an amide wax (all of which are organic compounds). Weiss discloses specific organic oligomers that are useful as thixotropic agents which contain an oligomeric backbone comprised entirely of organic monomer units (Col 6 lines 10-24). The monomer units may be carboxylic acids, thus the corresponding oligomer would be a polycarboxylic acid. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to select polycarboxylic acid from the list of organic oligomeric thixotropic agents of Weiss for use as an organic thixotropic control agent, as informed by Matsutomi, in the composition of Fujita as a known rheological control agent capable of imparting thixotropic properties to the composition and enabling homogenous dispersion to arrive at the invention as claimed. Thus, Fujita, Oura, Matsutomi, Weiss, and Yabe teach the claimed “The method for producing a composition according to claim 2, wherein the rheology control agent includes at least one selected from the group consisting of a polycarboxylic acid, a polycarboxylic acid anhydride, and an amide wax”.
Regarding claim 19, Fujita, Oura, Matsutomi, Weiss, and Yabe teach the method of claim 2. Fujita teaches that the composition is formed as a compact magnetic core (paragraph [0002]), thus a magnetic material. Therefore, Fujita, Oura, Matsutomi, Weiss, and Yabe teach the claimed “A magnetic material formed of a composition which is produced by the method for producing a composition according to claim 2”.
Regarding claim 20, Fujita, Oura, Matsutomi, Weiss, and Yabe teach the magnetic material of claim 19. Fujita teaches that the magnetic core (magnetic material) can be applied to an inductor, a choke coil, a transformer, a reactor, a motor, or the like (paragraph [0002]) which are electronic components. Therefore, Fujita, Oura, Matsutomi, Weiss, and Yabe teach the claimed “An electronic component comprising: the magnetic material according to claim 19”.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Yu-Chou et al (JP2017043749A) teach preparation of a magnetic composition with relevant alloy powders prepared and polymer as binder components.
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