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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 6, 19 and 20 are canceled. Claims 1-5 and 7-18 are pending where no claims have been amended. Claims 7-17 are withdrawn from consideration and claims 1-5 and 18 remain for examination on the merits.
Status of Previous Rejections
The previous 35 USC § 112 rejections of claims 19 and 20 have been withdrawn in view of the cancellation of instant claims 19 and 20.
The previous 35 USC § 103 rejections of the claims have been maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over “The manifestations of the two-dimensional magnetic correlations in the nanocrystalline ribbons Fe64Co21B15” by Iskhakov et al in view of JP 2018-022797 A to Onodera et al (cited by applicant in IDS, the English language machine translation provided by applicant has been relied upon for examination purposes)
Regarding claim 1, Iskhakov discloses Fe64Co21B15 alloy consisting of the following composition (Iskhakov, abstract, “2. Experiment,” “3. Results and discussion”) which lies within the instantly claimed composition as follows:
Element
Claimed at%
Iskhakov at%
Lies within?
x (Co/(Co+Fe))
0.1-0.4
0.247
Yes
y (B)
10-16
15
Yes
z (Cu)
0-1
0
Yes
a (Nb, Mo, Ta, W, Ni, Sn)
0-8 when M = Mo, Ta, W, Ni, Sn
0-1 when M = Nb
0
Yes
Co + Fe
Balance
Balance
Yes
Wherein the alloy of Iskhakov has nanocrystalline grains with an average size of about 10-20 nm (Iskhakov, abstract, “2. Experiment,” “3. Results and discussion”), lying within the instantly claimed range of 10-30 nm.
Iskhakov does not explicitly discloses wherein the alloy is free of B-based crystalline compounds and is produced utilizing a heating rate of at least 200 °C/s and a total annealing time of less than 80 seconds.
Onodera discloses that a Fe-Co-B nanocrystalline soft material may be annealed at a heating rate of 325 °C/s or more at a temperature equal to or higher than the crystallization start temperature and lower than the FeB compound formation start temperature for 0 to 17 seconds in order to avoid formation of a crystalline B compound and achieve both high saturation magnetization and low coercivity (Onodera, para [0007-0010]).
Regarding claim 1, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to anneal the alloy of Iskhakov at a heating rate of 325 °C/s or more at a temperature equal to or higher than the crystallization start temperature and lower than the FeB compound formation start temperature for 0 to 17 seconds as suggested by Onodera. The motivation for doing so would be to avoid formation of a crystalline B compound and achieve both high saturation magnetization and low coercivity (Onodera, para [0007-0010]).
Regarding claims 2 and 4, Iskhakov lies within the claimed ranges of instant claims 2 and 4.
Regarding claim 5, Iskhakov is silent as to the alloy having a magnetization saturation (Js) of at least 2 T. Regardless, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established (see MPEP 2112.01 [R-3].) In the instant case, the alloy of Iskhakov would be expected to have the same or similar properties as the instantly claimed alloy because the alloy of Iskhakov has the same structure and composition.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over JP 11297521 to Yoshizawa (an English language machine translation has been relied upon for examination purposes) in view of JP 2018-022797 A to Onodera et al (cited by applicant in IDS, the English language machine translation provided by applicant has been relied upon for examination purposes)
Regarding claim 1, Yoshizawa discloses an alloy represented by the general formula: (Fe1-aMa)100-y-zM'yX'z (atomic %), in which M is at least one element selected from the group consisting of Ni and Co, M' is at least one element selected from the group consisting of Ti, Zr, Hf, V, Nb, Ta, Mo and W, and X' is at least one element selected from the group consisting of Si and B, and a, y and z are each expressed by numbers satisfying 0.05≦a≦0.5, 1≦y≦10 and 4≦z≦30, in which crystal grains having an average grain size of 100 nm or less (Yoshizawa, abstract, para [0005]), overlapping the instantly claimed composition as follows:
Element
Claimed at%
Yoshizawa at%
Overlaps?
x (Co/(Co+Fe))
0.1-0.4
0.05-0.5
Yes
y (B)
10-16
4-30
Yes
z (Cu)
0-1
0
Yes
a (Nb, Mo, Ta, W, Ni, Sn)
0-8 when M = Mo, Ta, W, Ni, Sn
0-1 when M = Nb
1-10 of Nb, Mo, Ta, W
Yes
Co + Fe
Balance
Balance
Yes
Wherein the alloy of Yoshizawa has nanocrystalline grains with an average size of less than 100 nm, preferably 30 nm or less (Yoshizawa, abstract, para [0005,0008]) overlapping the instantly claimed range of 10-30 nm.
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 Yoshizawa including the instantly claimed because Yoshizawa discloses the same utility throughout the disclosed ranges.
Yoshizawa does not explicitly discloses wherein the alloy is free of B-based crystalline compounds and is produced utilizing a heating rate of at least 200 °C/s and a total annealing time of less than 80 seconds.
Onodera discloses that a Fe-Co-B nanocrystalline soft material may be annealed at a heating rate of 325 °C/s or more at a temperature equal to or higher than the crystallization start temperature and lower than the FeB compound formation start temperature for 0 to 17 seconds in order to avoid formation of a crystalline B compound and achieve both high saturation magnetization and low coercivity (Onodera, para [0007-0010]).
Regarding claim 1, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to anneal the alloy of Yoshizawa at a heating rate of 325 °C/s or more at a temperature equal to or higher than the crystallization start temperature and lower than the FeB compound formation start temperature for 0 to 17 seconds as suggested by Onodera. The motivation for doing so would be to avoid formation of a crystalline B compound and achieve both high saturation magnetization and low coercivity (Onodera, para [0007-0010]).
Regarding claims 2, Yoshizawa overlaps within the claimed ranges of instant claims 2 and 18.
Regarding claim 3 and 18, Yoshizawa discloses that Cu may be present in an amount up to 3 at% (Yoshizawa, para [0006]), overlapping the instantly claimed range.
Regarding claim 5, Yoshizawa is silent as to the alloy having a magnetization saturation (Js) of at least 2 T. Regardless, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established (see MPEP 2112.01 [R-3].) In the instant case, the alloy of Yoshizawa in view of Onodera would be expected to have the same or similar properties as the instantly claimed alloy because the alloy of Yoshizawa in view of Onodera has the same structure and composition.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/09/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the teachings of Onodera are not applicable to Iskhakov because the alloys have different Co content. This is not found persuasive because the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). In the instant case, the disclosure of Onodera would have motivated one of ordinary skill in the art to anneal the alloy of Iskhakov at a heating rate of 325 °C/s or more at a temperature equal to or higher than the crystallization start temperature and lower than the FeB compound formation start temperature for 0 to 17 seconds, the motivation for doing so being to avoid formation of a crystalline B compound and achieve both high saturation magnetization and low coercivity (Onodera, para [0007-0010]).
Applicant argues that the alloys disclosed in Yoshizawa are thermally stable and as such “The skilled person would appreciate this means that no thermal treatment will be able to easily affect its physical/chemical properties.” This is not found persuasive because this is not what “thermally stable” means. “Thermally stable” does not mean that the alloy can not be heat treated, but rather that the alloy is thermally stable at the intended operating temperatures of the alloy.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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