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
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.
Claim(s) 1-8, 12-17 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2016/0002471 A1 to Peng et al in view of US 2018/0122541 A1 to Chou et al.
Regarding claim 1, Peng discloses a method for manufacturing, comprising: melting a raw material powder, comprising a material which may be soft magnetic metal powder and an agglomeration inhibitor, using laser irradiation or electron beam sweeping, to create a melt; and then solidifying the melt to form a three-dimensional composite (Peng, abstract, para [0002, 0022, 0024]).
Peng does not explicitly disclose that the three-dimensional composite is a magnetic core.
Chou discloses that the formation of a magnetic core is a known application of 3D manufacturing soft magnetic powder via laser irradiation that results in increased magnetic flux and resistance of the magnetic core while reducing the Hc and eddy current loss of the magnetic core (Chou, abstract, para [0003-0008, 0022-0023]).
Regarding claim 1, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the method of Peng to create a magnetic core as suggested by Chou. The motivation for doing so is that the formation of a magnetic core is a known application of 3D manufacturing soft magnetic powder via laser irradiation that results in increased magnetic flux and resistance of the magnetic core while reducing the Hc and eddy current loss of the magnetic core (Chou, abstract, para [0003-0008, 0022-0023]).
Regarding claims 2-4 and 14, Peng discloses that the agglomeration inhibitor is silica particles having an average particle size of 1-100 nm (overlapping the instantly claimed range of from 5 nm to 40 nm and smaller than that of the soft magnetic metal powder) (Peng, para [0026-0032]). 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 [R-5]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to select any portion of the disclosed ranges of Peng including the instantly claimed because a prima facie case of obviousness exists in the case of overlapping ranges.
Regarding claims 5 and 15, Peng discloses that an amount of the agglomeration inhibitor is 3700 ppm based on the total weight of the treating additive and the powder (Peng, para [0031], Table 1) which appears to be within the instantly claimed range of from 0.1 vol. % to 1.0 vol. % based on a total amount of the soft magnetic metal powder and the agglomeration inhibitor.
Regarding claims 6 and 16, Peng discloses that in the raw material powder, at least part of surfaces of the soft magnetic metal powder are covered with the agglomeration inhibitor (Peng, abstract, para [0024]).
Regarding claims 7 and 17, Peng discloses that the powder may be selected from any combination of iron, silicon, nickel, cobalt, chromium, aluminum and boron (Peng, para [0022]) and the powder would necessarily have to be either amorphous or crystalline.
Regarding claims 12 and 20, Chou discloses that the magnetic core may be formed as a ring-shaped magnetic composite (Chou, para [0028], Figure 4).
Regarding claim 13, Chou discloses passing external current from an external wire through the stator iron core to form an electromagnet (Chou, para [0028]). One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that this would conventionally entail winding a coil conductor around a peripheral surface of the magnetic core.
Claim(s) 9-11, 18 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2016/0002471 A1 to Peng et al in view of US 2018/0122541 A1 to Chou et al as applied to claims 1-8, 12-17 and 20 above and further in view of JP-2009188270-A to Hayashi et al.
Peng in view of Chou discloses a method as set forth above. Peng discloses the presence of silica insulating material as an agglomeration inhibitor as part of the raw material powder but does not disclose the presence of a further insulating material.
Hayashi discloses that an insulating layer of silicon dioxide may be provided on the surface of a soft magnetic material in order to reduce a decrease in resistivity when fired at high temperatures (Hayashi, para [0022, 0033-0035]).
Regarding claims 9, 10 and 18, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide an insulating layer of silicon dioxide on the surface of the soft magnetic powder of Peng in view of Chou as suggested by Hayashi. The motivation for doing so would be to reduce a decrease in resistivity when fired at high temperatures (Hayashi, para [0022, 0033-0035]).
Regarding claims 11 and 19, generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See MPEP 2144.05 [R-5]. In the instant case, it would require little more than routine experimentation by one of ordinary skill in the art to determine the optimal or workable ranges of silicon dioxide concentration in order to obtain an effective insulating coating layer for the soft magnetic powder of Peng in view of Chou and Hayashi.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN D WALCK whose telephone number is (571)270-5905. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10 AM - 6:30 PM.
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, Sally Merkling can be reached at 571-272-6297. 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.
/BRIAN D WALCK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1738
