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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 6/18/2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 6 and 18-20 are canceled. Claims 21 and 22 are newly added. Claims 1-5, 7-17, 21 and 22 are pending where no claims have been amended. Claims 7-17 are withdrawn from consideration and claims 1-5, 21 and 22 remain for examination on the merits.
Status of Previous Rejections
The previous 35 USC § 103 rejections of claims over JP 11297521 to Yoshizawa in view of JP 2018-022797 A to Onodera et al have been withdrawn in view of amendments to the claims.
The previous 35 USC § 103 rejections of the claims 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 have been maintained.
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.
Claims 1-5, 21 and 22 are 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.
Instant claim 1 recites the limitation “z = 0-1, z is not 0.” This limitation is indefinite because the range “z = 0-1” allows for 0 and is thus contradicted by “z is not 0.” Examiner suggests amending the limitation “z = 0-1, z is not 0” to “z = greater than 0 to 1.”
Instant claims 2-5, 21 and 22 depend on instant claim 1 and are indefinite for at least the same reasons.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 5, 21 and 22 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) and in view of the evidentiary reference “The preparation of High-Purity Iron (99.987%) Employing a Process of Direct Reduction-Melting Separation-Slag Refining” by Li et al.
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
≤impurity
See below
a (Nb, Mo, Ta, W, Ni, Sn)
0-0.9
≤impurity
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.
Regarding the instantly claimed Cu content range of “z = 0-1, z is not 0,” the instantly claimed range appears to allow for as little as one atom of Cu in the instantly claimed alloy. The evidentiary reference Li discloses that Cu is an inevitable impurity in even highly purified iron (Li, page 3, Table 1). As the alloy of Iskhakov is an iron-based alloy, the alloy of Iskhahov would be expected to contain Cu as an inevitable impurity in an amount of at least one atom, lying within the instantly claimed range of “z = 0-1, z is not 0.” Alternatively, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to allow for as little as one atom of Cu to be present as an impurity in the alloy of Iskhakov, the motivation for doing so being to avoid costs associated with eliminating Cu impurity down to the last atom in the alloy of Iskhakov, if such a purification is even practically possible.
Iskhakov does not explicitly disclose 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, 4, 21 and 22, Iskhakov lies within the claimed ranges of instant claims 2, 4, 21 and 22.
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) 1-5, 21 and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over US 5,069,731 to Yoshizawa 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-x-y-z-aCuxSiyBzM'α (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 Nb, W, Ta, Mo, Zr, Hf and Ti, and a, x, y and z are each expressed by numbers satisfying 0≦a≦0.3, 0.1≦x≦3, 0≦y≦17 and 4≦z≦17 and 0.1≦α≦5, (Yoshizawa, abstract, column 3 line 1-column 4 line 51), overlapping the instantly claimed composition as follows:
Element
Claimed at%
Yoshizawa at%
Overlaps?
x (Co/(Co+Fe))
0.1-0.4
0-0.3
Yes
y (B)
10-16
4-17
Yes
z (Cu)
>0-1
0.1-3
Yes
a (Nb, Mo, Ta, W, Ni, Sn)
0-0.9
0.1-5 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 1000 Å, preferably 500 Å or less, more preferably 20-200 Å (Yoshizawa, column 3 lines 1-8), 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 2-4, 21 and 22 Yoshizawa overlaps the instantly claimed ranges of instant claims 2-4, 21 and 22.
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 5/15/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the instant claims are patentable over Iskhakov in view of Onodera because Iskhakov fails to disclose that the Cu content is not 0. This is not found persuasive because regarding the instantly claimed Cu content range of “z = 0-1, z is not 0,” the instantly claimed range appears to allow for as little as one atom of Cu in the instantly claimed alloy. The evidentiary reference Li discloses that Cu is an inevitable impurity in even highly purified iron (Li, page 3, Table 1). As the alloy of Iskhakov is an iron-based alloy, the alloy of Iskhahov would be expected to contain Cu as an inevitable impurity in an amount of at least one atom, lying within the instantly claimed range of “z = 0-1, z is not 0.” Alternatively, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to allow for as little as one atom of Cu to be present as an impurity in the alloy of Iskhakov, the motivation for doing so being to avoid costs associated with eliminating Cu impurity down to the last atom in the alloy of Iskhakov, if such a purification is even practically possible.
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
Prosecution Insights