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 § 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.
Claim 21 is 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 21 recites the limitation "the maximum arrival temperature" in claim 20. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
It is further not clear what “arrival temperature” refers to: is it a targeted temperature where an event occurs? If so, what event? Is it the initial temperature when the iron-powder and aluminum dihydrogen tripolyphosphate is mixed? Clarification is required.
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.
Claims 12-19, 21-24 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takashita et al. (WO 2021/199525) in view of Ueta et al. (U.S. App. Pub. No. 2004/0126609).
Page citations to Takashita et al. (WO 2021/199525) refer to the machine translation document provided with this office action.
Regarding claim 12, Takashita et al. teaches an iron based magnetic powder (Title) having coating layers on the surface of the magnetic powder including aluminum dihydrogen tripolyphosphate dihydrate as a first layer (page 4, 1st full paragraph and Example 1) and a silicone resin layer attached to the aluminum dihydrogen tripolyphosphate dihydrate layer. (page 4, last paragraph – page 5).
Takashita et al. does not disclose the peak intensity of the (112) plane of aluminum dihydrogen tripolyphosphate is 1.5 times higher than the peak intensity of the (102) plane of aluminum orthophosphate. However, Takashita et al. teaches that coating layer is explicitly condensed aluminum phosphate and preferably aluminum dihydrogen tripolyphosphate which achieves improved densities and resistivity. (page 4, 1st full paragraph and page 7, bottom half). Furthermore, Takashita et al. teaches that prior art patent documents disclose the use of diluted aqueous orthophosphoric acid for forming a conversion film on the surface of magnetic powders but that the presence of free orthophosphoric acid results in the iron-based magnetic powder to become hygroscopic. (page 2, first full paragraph).
Ueta et al. further teaches an iron metal powder composition which is coated with an aluminum containing phosphate or phosphoric acid material for improved insulation. (Abstract). The aluminum phosphate material is disclosed to be crosslinked (i.e. a polyphosphate) to remove free phosphoric acid (i.e. orthophosphates) to prevent absorption of moisture. (par. [0104]-[0105]). Free phosphoric acids are taught to be minimized to improve the corrosion resistance. (par. [0080] and [0089]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to minimize or exclude the amount of free aluminum orthophosphate and maximize the content of condensed phosphate in the form of aluminum dihydrogen tripolyphosphate in view of the teachings of Takashita in view of Ueta et al. The resulting composition would therefore have a peak intensity ratio of (112) to (102) planes that would be 1.5 or higher as claimed, which signifies a higher concentration of the aluminum dihydrogen tripolyphosphate to the orthophosphate.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to minimize the content of free orthophosphate based on the teachings of both Takashita et al. and Ueta et al. that the orthophosphate is responsible for increased hygroscopic properties to the iron-based metal powders which reduces the corrosion resistance thereof. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to optimize a high content of aluminum dihydrogen tripolyphosphate in order to improve the densities and resistivity of the iron-based powder material as taught in Takashita et al.
Regarding claims 13-14, the content of aluminum dihydrogen tripolyphosphate is disclosed to be 0.04 to 0.5% mass (Table 1, first column), overlapping with the presently claimed range. 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). Takashita et al. teaches a silicone resin layer attached to the aluminum dihydrogen tripolyphosphate dihydrate layer. (page 4, last paragraph – page 5). The content of the silicone resin is disclosed to be 0.05-0.4% mass (Table 1, second column).
PNG
media_image1.png
560
808
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 15-16, the magnetic powder furth includes a lubricant. (page 7, 3rd full paragraph).
Regarding claim 17, Takashita et al. teaches a method of making the iron based magnetic powder involving mixing the iron powder and the aluminum dihydrogen tripolyphosphate in a first step to obtain a first coated composite powder. (Example 1, page 7, first paragraph). The mixtures are mixed and stirred. (Id.).
The limitations directed to the peak intensities of the (112) to (102) plane is rejected for substantially the same reasons as the rejection of claim 12, above.
Regarding claim 18, the content of aluminum dihydrogen tripolyphosphate is disclosed to be 0.04 to 0.5% mass (Table 1, first column), overlapping with the presently claimed range.
Regarding claim 19, Takashita et al. teaches a second mixing step wherein the aluminum dihydrogen tripolyphosphate coated iron-based powder is mixed in a second step with a silicone resin powder material and stirred to form a silicone resin layer attached to the aluminum dihydrogen tripolyphosphate dihydrate layer. (page 4, last paragraph – page 5, Example 1: page 7, 2nd and 3rd paragraphs). The content of the silicone resin is disclosed to be 0.05-0.4% mass (Table 1, second column).
Regarding claim 21, Takashita et al. teaches a cooling step after formation of aluminum dihydrogen tripolyphosphate layer to 60oC (Example 1, page 7, 1st paragraph) which lies within the range of 80oC or lower. Takashita et al. teaches that the maximum temperature during stirring is 168oC (Id.) which lies within the presently claimed range of “arrival temperature”. The second mixing step is performed as the first composite powder coated with the aluminum dihydrogen tripolyphosphate layer is being cooled from that high temperature. (Id.).
Regarding claims 22-24 and 26, Takashita et al. teaches a third mixing step involving taking the aluminum dihydrogen tripolyphosphate and silicone resin coated iron-based composite particles and mixing them with a lubricant. (page 7, 3rd full paragraph).
Claims 20 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takashita et al. (WO 2021/199525) in view of Ueta et al. (U.S. App. Pub. No. 2004/0126609), further in view of Hwang et al. (U.S. App. Pub. No. 2013/0147081).
Takashita in view of Ueta et al. is relied upon as described in the rejection of claim 19, above.
Takashita in view of Ueta et al. does not disclose stiring and mixing the silicone resin with the aluminum dihydrogen tripolyphosphate coated iron-based powders at a temperature of 80° C or more.
Hwang et al. teaches a method of making a powder magnetic core material, similar to Takashita et al., involving mixing with magnetic powders a thermosetting resin in a hot state to later make a magnetic core. (Abstract). Hwang et al. teaches that the thermosetting powder may include silicone resin materials (par. [0018]-[0019] and [0025]) and that the mixing should be performed at a temperature above the softening temperature of the silicone resin to let it flow onto the surface of the particles. (par. [0013] and [0031]). Suitable temperatures will depend on the type of silicone material but silicone resins typically soften around 70-130oC (par. [0031]) and Hwang et al. performs a mixing step at 130oC. (par. [0083]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to mix the silicone resin powder of Takashita et al. at a temperature in the range of 70-130oC or higher, based on the teachings of Hwang et al., which overlaps with the presently claimed range of 80oC or more.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to perform a stirring a mixing process at a temperature in the range of 70-130oC or higher in order to soften the selected silicone resin material for forming the coating layer of the iron-based powders in a sufficient amount that they can flow onto and around the surface of the iron-based powders. The resulting coating would therefore be expected to be more uniform due to better flowability of the coating resin material.
Regarding claim 25, Takashita et al. teaches a third mixing step involving taking the aluminum dihydrogen tripolyphosphate and silicone resin coated iron-based composite particles and mixing them with a lubricant. (page 7, 3rd full paragraph).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDRE F FERRE whose telephone number is (571)270-5763. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8 am to 4 pm ET.
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, Alicia Chevalier can be reached at 5712721490. 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.
/ALEXANDRE F FERRE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1788 07/24/2026
Prosecution Insights