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 2-4 are canceled. Claims 1 and 5-20 are pending where claim 1 has been amended. Claims 9-20 are withdrawn from consideration and claims 1 and 5-8 remain for examination on the merits.
Status of Previous Rejections
The previous 35 USC 103 rejections of the claims have been withdrawn in view of amendments to the claims.
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 and 5-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “Magnetic properties and hyperfine interactions of amorphous Fe-Hf alloys” by Liou et al in view of CN 101195874 to Gong et al (an English language machine translation 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, Liou discloses examples of metallic glasses with compositions of Fe50Hf50 and Fe60Hf40 (Liou, abstract, page 3536 “II. Experiment,” Figures 1 and 3), lying within the instantly claimed range of 15≤x≤66.6 where TM is Hf and E is Fe.
Regarding the limitations “0< n ≤ 15… NP is at least one species of element selected from the element group consisting of B, V, Mn, Ga, In, Sn, Pb and Bi…” and “0<z≤5… A is at least one element group selected from the group consisting of P and N… wherein the P is at least one species of element selected from the element group consisting of Mo, Ta and W, and, wherein the N is at least one species of element selected from the element group consisting of C, N, Si, P, Ge, Pd, Pt, and Au,” the instantly claimed lower limits of >0 allow for as little as one atom of any of B, V, Mn, Ga, In, Sn, Pb and Bi and as little as one atom of Mo, Ta, W, C, N, Si, P, Ge, Pd, Pt, and Au. 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 discloses that trace amounts of V, Mn, Mo, P, N, Mo, C, N, Si and P exist as inevitable impurities in Fe (Murray, page 1096, Table 2), i.e. these elements cannot practically be fully removed from a source material of Fe. As Fe is present in the alloy of Liou, trace non-zero amounts of V, Mn, Mo, P, N, Mo, C, N, Si and P would be expected to be present in the alloy of Liou and as such the impurities present would constitute z and n values slightly greater than zero, lying within the instantly claimed ranges. Alternatively, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to not fully remove to the last atom all impurities of V, Mn, Mo, P, N, Mo, C, N, Si and P from the alloy of Liou. The motivation for doing so would be to avoid the extreme costs and processing conditions necessary to fully remove all impurities V, Mn, Mo, P, N, Mo, C, N, Si and P from the alloy of Liou, if such a task is even realistically possible.
Liou does not explicitly disclose the limitation “0 < p ≤ 2… wherein the PN is at least one species of element selected from the element group consisting of Sc, La, Pr, Sm, Dy, Ho and Er.
Gong discloses that 0.1 mol% to 10 mol% of La, Sc, Sm, Ho and/or Er (overlapping the instantly claimed range of 0 < p ≤ 2 may be added to an Fe-based amorphous alloy in order to increase the amorphous forming ability of the alloy, thereby improving the bending strength and hardness of the alloy which reduces production costs and enables mass-production (Gong, para [0007-0008, 0011]).
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 add 0.1 mol% to 10 mol% of La, Sc, Sm, Ho and/or Er to the Fe-based amorphous alloy of Liou as suggested by Gong. The motivation for doing so would be to increase the amorphous forming ability of the alloy, thereby improving the bending strength and hardness of the alloy which reduces production costs and enables mass-production (Gong, para [0007-0008, 0011]).
Regarding the limitation “resettable,” 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 Liou in view of Gong would be expected to have the same or similar properties as the instantly claimed alloy because the alloy of Liou in view of Gong has the same or substantially the same composition and amorphous structure.
Regarding claims 5-8, 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 Liou in view of Gong would be expected to have the same or similar properties as the instantly claimed alloy because the alloy of Liou in view of Gong has the same or substantially the same composition and amorphous structure.
Claim(s) 1 and 5-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “TDPAC study of mechanically alloyed amorphous and intermetallic Fe-Hf alloys” by Iwashita et al in view of CN 101195874 to Gong et al (an English language machine translation 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, Iwashita discloses examples of an amorphous alloy (i.e. metallic glass) with a composition of Fe57Hf43 (Iwashita, abstract, page 527 “2. Experimental”), lying within the instantly claimed range of 15≤x≤66.6 where TM is Hf and E is Fe.
Regarding the limitations “0< n ≤ 15… NP is at least one species of element selected from the element group consisting of B, V, Mn, Ga, In, Sn, Pb and Bi…” and “0<z≤5… A is at least one element group selected from the group consisting of P and N… wherein the P is at least one species of element selected from the element group consisting of Mo, Ta and W, and, wherein the N is at least one species of element selected from the element group consisting of C, N, Si, P, Ge, Pd, Pt, and Au,” the instantly claimed lower limits of >0 allow for as little as one atom of any of B, V, Mn, Ga, In, Sn, Pb and Bi and as little as one atom of Mo, Ta, W, C, N, Si, P, Ge, Pd, Pt, and Au. 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 discloses that trace amounts of V, Mn, Mo, P, N, Mo, C, N, Si and P exist as inevitable impurities in Fe (Murray, page 1096, Table 2), i.e. these elements cannot practically be fully removed from a source material of Fe. As Fe is present in the alloy of Iwashita, trace non-zero amounts of V, Mn, Mo, P, N, Mo, C, N, Si and P would be expected to be present in the alloy of Iwashita and as such the impurities present would constitute z and n values slightly greater than zero, lying within the instantly claimed ranges. Alternatively, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to not fully remove to the last atom all impurities of V, Mn, Mo, P, N, Mo, C, N, Si and P from the alloy of Iwashita. The motivation for doing so would be to avoid the extreme costs and processing conditions necessary to fully remove all impurities V, Mn, Mo, P, N, Mo, C, N, Si and P from the alloy of Iwashita, if such a task is even realistically possible.
Iwashita does not explicitly disclose the limitation “0 < p ≤ 2… wherein the PN is at least one species of element selected from the element group consisting of Sc, La, Pr, Sm, Dy, Ho and Er.
Gong discloses that 0.1 mol% to 10 mol% of La, Sc, Sm, Ho and/or Er (overlapping the instantly claimed range of 0 < p ≤ 2 may be added to an Fe-based amorphous alloy in order to increase the amorphous forming ability of the alloy, thereby improving the bending strength and hardness of the alloy which reduces production costs and enables mass-production (Gong, para [0007-0008, 0011]).
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 add 0.1 mol% to 10 mol% of La, Sc, Sm, Ho and/or Er to the Fe-based amorphous alloy of Iwashita as suggested by Gong. The motivation for doing so would be to increase the amorphous forming ability of the alloy, thereby improving the bending strength and hardness of the alloy which reduces production costs and enables mass-production (Gong, para [0007-0008, 0011]).
Regarding the limitation “resettable,” 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 Iwashita in view of Gong would be expected to have the same or similar properties as the instantly claimed alloy because the alloy of Iwashita in view of Gong has the same or substantially the same composition and amorphous structure.
Regarding claims 5-8, 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 Iwashita in view of Gong would be expected to have the same or similar properties as the instantly claimed alloy because the alloy of Iwashita in view of Gong has the same or substantially the same composition and amorphous structure.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 5-8 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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