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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-7 remain for examination, wherein claim 1 is an independent claim.
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 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.
Claims 1-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kato et al (US-PG-pub 2020/0243238 A1, listed in IDS filed on 7/18/2024, corresponding US 11545286 B2, thereafter PG’238) in view of Watanabe (US-PG-pub 2022/0262552 A1, thereafter PG’552).
Regarding claims 1-7, PG’238 teaches a Fe based alloy powder for soft magnetic application (Abstract, examples, claims, and par.[0045] of PG’238), more specifically, a magnetic core (for example, a dust core, a metal composite core, or the like) in inductors (par.0075] and par.[0161]-[0163] of PG’238), which reads on the soft magnetic powder (claims 1-4); powder magnetic core (cl.5); magnetic element (cl.6); and electronic device (cl.7). The comparison between the claimed alloy composition ranges in claims 1-4 and those disclosed by the #B in table 1 of PG’238 is listed in the following table. All of the essential alloy composition ranges disclosed by the #B in table 1 of PG’238 are within the claimed alloy composition ranges. PG’238 indicates adjusting B in range of 7.0-12.0 (par.[0123] of PG’238) and adjusting Fe in range of 70-79.9 (par.[0135]-[0136] of PG’238), which overlap the claimed B and Fe ranges as claimed in the instant claim 1 and creates a prima facie case of obviousness. MPEP 2144 05 I. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to optimize amount of B and Fe since PG’238 teaches the same Fe based alloy powder for soft magnetic application as claimed throughout whole disclosing range. PG’238 indicates that the “crystalline Fe-based alloy powder” means a Fe-based alloy powder including both a crystal phase and an amorphous phase. Herein, the concept of the “crystal phase” also encompasses the above nanocrystal grains having an average grain size of 30 nm or less. (par.[0042] of PG’238), which reads on the Fe based crystalline phase and Fe based amorphous phase as claimed in the instant claims. PG’238 specify applying optical emission spectrometry (OES) (par.[0243] of PG’238) and XRD (par.[0063]-[0064] of PG’238) to analysis crystalline structure in the alloy and crystal phase in the particle is 30 vol% or more. (par.[0069] of PG’238). However PG’238 does not specify applying energy dispersive X-ray (EDX) for analyzing the elements in the alloy phase as claimed in the instant claims. However, applying EDX for elemental analysis of the soft magnetic powder is well-known technique as demonstrated by PG’552. PG’552 teaches a soft magnetic powder including particles with amorphous and crystalline phase (Abstract, examples, par.[0073]-[0074] of PG’552), and PG’552 teaches soft alloy composition ranges (Abstract, examples, and claims of PG’552) overlap all of the major essential alloy composition ranges. MPEP 2144 05 I. PG’552 specify applying EDX for the elemental analysis (par.[0078], [0081], and [0090] of PG’552). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to apply the well-known technique, that is elemental analysis with EDX, as demonstrated by PG’552 for the alloy of PG’238 since both PG’552 and PG’238 teach the same Fe based alloy powder for soft magnetic application as claimed throughout whole disclosing range. And PG’552 indicates that the surface of the particle can be specified from a surface analysis image obtained through an analysis for a cross section of the particle by energy dispersive X-ray spectroscopy (EDX) using a scanning transmission electron microscope (STEM) (par.[0090] of PG’552).
Element
From instant Claim 1 (at%)
From Example #B in table 1 of PG’238 (at %)
within range
(at %)
Cu
0.3-2.0
1.0
1.0
Nb
2.0-4.0
2.5
2.5
Si
About 7.98- about 20.2 (calculated from the composition formula)
13.5
13.5
B
About 0.71- about 7.41
(calculated from the composition formula)
7.6
Adjusting in range:
7.0-12.0 (par.[0123])
--
Overlapping
7.0-7.41
Cr
About 0.01-about 1.68
(calculated from the composition formula)
1.0
1.0
Fe
75.5-79.5
74.7
Adjusting in range:
70-79.9 (par.[0135]-[0136])
--
Overlapping
75.5-79.5
Formulas (1)-(2)
By OES and EDX
OES and XRD
EDX (PG’552)
From instant Claim 4
O
15000 ppm or less
Not intended including
0-trace amount
From claims 2-3
Formulas (3)-(7)
By EDX
EDX (PG’552)
Still regarding the formula (1)-(3) (cl.1), formula (3)-(4) (cl.2), and formula (5)-(7) (cl.3), PG’238 in view of PG’552 teaches the similar Fe based alloy powder with same amorphous and crystalline structure for the same soft magnetic application analyzed by the same OES and EDX methods. The claimed formular would be highly expected for the alloy of PG’238 in view of PG’552. MPEP 2112 01 and 2145 II.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JIE YANG whose telephone number is (571)270-1884. The examiner can normally be reached on IFP.
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, Jonathan J Johnson can be reached on 571-272-1177. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JIE YANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1734
Prosecution Insights