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 Objections
Claims 1-20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “the second layer include”. It should be “the second layer includes”.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 5-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maeda et al. (US 2007/0235109).
Regarding claim 1, Maeda discloses soft magnetic metal particle (title, 0014, 0046) comprising a core particle (abstract) and an insulation coating formed on a surface of the core particle (abstract), wherein the insulation coating comprises first coating, i.e. first layer, second coating, i.e. second layer, (0016), and a coating 25, i.e. a third layer (0093), wherein the first layer contacts the surface of the core particle (0016), the second layer contact the first layer and the third layer, (0093) and the first layer includes at least Fe (0015, 0016), the second layer includes at least Ti (0020) and the third layer includes at least Si (0093, 0099).
In light of the overlap between the claimed soft magnetic metal particle and the soft magnetic metal particle disclosed by Maeda, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use soft magnetic metal particle that is both disclosed by Maeda and encompassed within the scope of the present claims, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 2, Maeda discloses the soft magnetic metal particle of claim 1, wherein Maeda does not specifically disclose the second layer thickness. However, Maeda discloses that second layer provides superior high temperature stability (0066), therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use any thickness of the second layer including that presently claimed to obtain superior high temperature stability.
Regarding claim 3, Maeda discloses the soft magnetic metal particle of claim 2, wherein the second layer comprises large quantities of phosphoric acid and titanium, i.e. greater than 50%, (0022). Maeda discloses at least one type of atom selected from Ti, and Si (0022), therefore when large quantities of phosphoric acid and titanium are present, it is clear that Si would be present in smaller quantity, i.e. less than 50%.
As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “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).
Regarding claims 5 and 6, Maeda discloses the soft magnetic metal particle of claim 1, wherein the core particle comprises Fe and Ni (0046).
Regarding claim 7, Maeda discloses the soft magnetic metal particle of claim 1, wherein insulating coating is at least 0.005 microns (5 nm) to 20 microns (0050) and the thickness of the coating 25 is 100 nm (0115) and therefore the total thickness is 105 nm to 20100 nm.
Regarding claim 8, Maeda discloses the soft magnetic metal particle of claim 1, wherein given that the insulating coating has a thickness of 105 to 20100 nm as explained above and the first layer has a thickness of 50 nm (0114), it is clear that the thickness of Maeda overlaps presently claimed thickness.
Regarding claim 9, Maeda discloses the soft magnetic metal particle of claim 1, wherein given that the insulating coating has a thickness of 105 to 20100 nm as explained above and the third layer has a thickness of 100 nm (0115), it is clear that the thickness of Maeda overlaps presently claimed thickness.
Regarding claim 10, Maeda discloses the soft magnetic metal particle of claim 1, wherein t the first layer has a thickness of 50 nm (0114) and the thickness of the third layer is 100 nm (0115). Maeda does not specifically disclose the second layer thickness. However, Maeda discloses that second layer provides superior high temperature stability (0066), therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use any thickness of the second layer including that presently claimed to obtain superior high temperature stability.
Regarding claim 11, Maeda discloses the soft magnetic metal particle of claim 1, wherein the insulation coating coats the entire surface of the core particle (fig. 1).
Regarding claim 12, Maeda discloses the soft magnetic metal particle of claim 1, wherein the insulation coating is directly on the surface of the core particle (0014).
Regarding claim 13, Maeda discloses the soft magnetic metal particle of claim 1, wherein the insulation coating further includes Al (0015).
Regarding claims 14-17, Maeda discloses the soft magnetic metal particle of claim 1, wherein Maeda does not specifically disclose the amount of metal element, Fe, Ti and Si.
Since the instant specification is silent to unexpected results, the specific amounts of each element is not considered to confer patentability to the claims. As superior high temperature stability is a variable that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the amounts of each element, the precise amount would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed amount cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the amounts of each element in Maeda to obtain the desired property (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
Regarding claim 18, Maeda discloses the soft magnetic metal particle of claim 1, wherein insulation coating comprises metal oxide such as oxide of Si (0015, 0105).
Regarding claim 19, Maeda discloses a powder core, i.e. a dust core, comprising the soft magnetic particle of claim 1 (0001).
Regarding claim 20, Maeda discloses a magnetic component comprising the soft magnetic metal particle of claim 1 (0003, 0004).
Claim(s) 1-6, 10-13 and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi et al. (US 2012/0082844).
Regarding claim 1, Takahashi discloses a soft magnetic metal particle (0003) comprising a core particle (0012) and insulating layer formed on a surface of the core particle (0012), wherein the insulating layer comprises two or more inner layers, i.e. first layer, second layer and third layer, (0015, 0050), wherein the first layer contacts the surface of the core particle and the second layer contacts the first and the third layer (0012, 0015, 0050) wherein the layers comprise iron and at least one of Si and Ti (0018, 0042, 0050) which meets the claim limitation of first layer includes at least Fe, the second layer includes at least Ti and the third layer includes at least Si.
In light of the overlap between the claimed soft magnetic metal particle and the soft magnetic metal particle disclosed by Takahashi, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use soft magnetic metal particle that is both disclosed by Takahashi and encompassed within the scope of the present claims, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 2, Takahashi discloses the soft magnetic metal particle of claim 1, wherein each layer has a thickness of 50 nm to 1 microns (0045) and therefore it broadly overlaps the presently claimed values. As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “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).
Regarding claim 3, Takahashi discloses the soft magnetic metal particle of claim 2 wherein the second layer further comprises Si and Ti is present in an amount of 5 to 80 at% (0042, 0043).
Regarding claim 4, Takahashi discloses the soft magnetic metal particle of claim 3 wherein given that the third layer comprises 5 to 80 at.% of Si and rest of the amount is Fe (0041, 0043), it is clear that Fe would be present in an amount of 20 to 95 wt%. Alternatively the outermost layer comprises Fe in an amount of 50 at% or more (0047). As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “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).
Regarding claims 5-6, Takahashi discloses the soft magnetic metal particle of claim 1 wherein the core particle is Fe and Si (0032).
Regarding claim 10, Takahashi discloses the soft magnetic metal particle of claim 1 wherein the thickness of each layer is 0.5 nm to 1 microns (0045).
Regarding claim 11, Takahashi discloses the soft magnetic metal particle of claim 1 wherein the insulating coating coats entire surface of the core particle (fig. 1).
Regarding claim 12, Takahashi discloses the soft magnetic metal particle of claim 1, wherein the insulation coating is directly on the surface of the core particle (fig. 1).
Regarding claim 13, Takahashi discloses the soft magnetic metal particle of claim 1, wherein the insulation coating further includes Al (0042).
Regarding claim 19, Takahashi discloses a powder core, i.e. a dust core, comprising the soft magnetic particle of claim 1 (abstract).
Regarding claim 20, Maeda discloses a magnetic component comprising the soft magnetic metal particle of claim 1 (abstract, 0011).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAMIR SHAH whose telephone number is (571)270-1143. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00am - 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, Callie Shosho can be reached at 571-272-1123. 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.
/SAMIR SHAH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1787
Prosecution Insights