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
This Office Action is in response to the Amendments and Arguments filed 11 November 2025. As directed by applicant, claims 1-10 and 12 are amended and claim 11 is cancelled. No new claims are added. This is a Non- Final Office Action.
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 1-10 and 12 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.
Claim 1 recites “the amorphous alloy ribbon” in line 3, when it is first introduced. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of examination, this is understood as –an amorphous alloy ribbon--.
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) 1-10, 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20140312009 A1 to Okabe et al. (“Okabe”) in view of US 20150000862 A1 to Ohta et al. (“Ohta”) and US 2018/0127851 A1 to Reed, JR. et al. (“Reed”).
Regarding claim 1, Okabe discloses a method of producing a processed amorphous alloy ribbon comprising:
forming laser irradiation marks on radiating a laser to steel sheet S corresponding to the claimed amorphous alloy ribbon the amorphous alloy ribbon travels or is travelling (Okabe, Fig. 1 and para 36 and 48-49), and
controlling a travelling speed of S1 of the amorphous alloy ribbon (Okabe, v1) (m/s) and scanning speed of S2 of the laser (Okabe, v2) (Okabe, ¶¶ 39, 43, 52, 73, S2 is 10m/s, ),
wherein the laser irradiation marks are linear marks (e.g., “linear irradiation marks”) formed in a width direction of the amorphous alloy ribbon, and the linear marks are formed in a longitudinal direction of the amorphous alloy ribbon with an interval left (Okabe, Fig. 1 and ¶¶ 36 and 48-49).
However, Okabe does not disclose wherein that the traveling speed S1 is 1 meter/second (m/sec) or more and 30 m/sec or less and S2/S1 is 3.0 or more nor that the workpieces is an amorphous alloy ribbon. However, Ohta, in his laser modification method teaches “an amorphous alloy ribbon” before producing a processed alloy ribbon (with crystalline structure). Okabe does organize the crystalline structure of metal (Abstract, “traversing a feed path of a grain-oriented electrical steel sheet having subjected to final annealing so as to irradiate a surface of the steel sheet being passed through with the high-energy beam to thereby perform magnetic domain refinement”), thus it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Okabe with the teachings of Ohta, to have an amorphous alloy ribbon be used as the workpieces, in order to them create processed ribbon into a more useful form for transformers and the like.
However, while Okabe in view of Ohta teach all the limitations above, it still does not teach so that the traveling speed S1 is 1 meter/second (m/sec) or more and 30 m/sec or less and that S2/S1 is 3.0 or more. However, in Okabe ¶73, one of the places it discussed the travelling speed and the scanning speed, the scanning speed S2 is 10 m/s, and S1 seems to be “the sheet passing speed v.sub.1 was either accelerated or decelerated to an arbitrary rate in a range of 5 m/minute to 15 m/minute”. Now this range, even at the fastest speed, is only .25 m/s, slower than that required by the claim. However, Okabe calls this “an arbitrary rate in a range of etc.”. If this is indeed an arbitrary rate, such a rate may be increased accordingly, according to the needs and efficiencies of the desired outcome. Even only a slight increase in V1 would but this rate at 1 m/s and having the scanning rate of 10m/s would already but V2/V1 at more than 3, which is also required by the claim. Furthermore, such a speed, for instance, faster than .25 m/s even at 1 m/s and above to move amorphous alloy ribbon to be processed is known in the art, such as in Reed (¶0126, “ The running speed of the alloy ribbon … more preferably from 0.5 m/s to 5.0 m/s). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Okabe in view of Ohta with the teachings of Reed, given the teachings of Okabe already teach that the speed is “arbitrary” but is picked to perform its function, to have the travelling speed of the ribbon match the limitations of the claim, and these are ordinary speeds well-known in the art to perform the functions effectively to move the amorphous material and create processed material in an efficient and expected manner, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art and discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art.
Regarding claim 2, Okabe in view of Ohta teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as above, and further teaches a method of producing a processed amorphous alloy ribbon, comprising controlling an angle difference between a scanning direction of the laser and a direction orthogonal to a traveling direction of the amorphous alloy ribbon to be 30 degrees or less (Okabe, Fig. 1-5 and para 36-39, 48-52 and 73-83).
Regarding claim 3, Okabe in view of Ohta and Reed teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as above, and further teaches a method of producing a processed amorphous alloy ribbon comprising controlling a distance from a lens through which the laser is output to a surface of the amorphous alloy ribbon to be 200 millimeters (mm) to 1200 mm (Okabe, Fig. 3-4 and para 71-76);
Regarding claim 4, Okabe in view of Ohta and Reed teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as above, and further teaches a method of producing a processed amorphous alloy ribbon wherein the laser uses a CW (continuous wave) oscillation method (Okabe, ¶¶ 47-49).
Regarding claim 5, Okabe in view of Ohta and Reed teaches all the limitations of claim 4, as above, and further teaches a method of producing a processed amorphous alloy ribbon wherein the laser using a CW (continuous wave) oscillation method has a laser output energy density of 5 Joules/meter (J/m) or more and 35 J/m or less (Okabe, para 47-49, wherein Official notice is taken that a laser output energy density of 5 J/m or more and 35 J/m or less was well known in the art and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a laser output energy density of 5 J/m or more and 35 J/m or less in order to use a laser output that was known and predictable);
Regarding claim 6, Okabe in view of Ohta and Reed teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as above, and further teaches a method of producing a processed amorphous alloy ribbon wherein the laser is a pulse laser (Okabe, ¶¶ 41, 47);
Regarding claim 7, Okabe in view of Ohta and Reed teaches all the limitations of claim 6, as above, and further teaches a method of producing a processed amorphous alloy ribbon wherein the pulse laser has a laser pulse output energy of 0.4 millijoules (mJ) to 2.5 mJ (Okabe, ¶¶ 41, 47, wherein Official notice is taken that a laser pulse output energy of 0.4 mJ to 2.5 mJ was well known in the art and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a laser pulse output energy of 0.4 mJ to 2.5 mJ in order to use a laser output that was known and predictable);
Regarding claim 8, Okabe in view of Ohta and Reed teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as above, and further teaches a method of producing a processed amorphous alloy ribbon comprising wherein the amorphous alloy ribbon has a width of 30 millimeters (mm) to 300 mm (Okabe., para 69, 74, 79); (Ohta, ¶ 101, 211-213 and Table 12, thickness of 20 µm- 35 µm).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date (post AIA ) to modify Okabe in view of Ohta and Reed as suggested and taught further by Ohta in order to provide an amorphous alloy ribbon which suppresses the waviness of the ribbon, but is still strong enough with good magnetic properties (Ohta, ¶¶211-212).
Regarding claim 9, Okabe in view of Ohta and Reed teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as above, and further teaches a method of producing a processed amorphous alloy ribbon comprising the interval between the linear marks in the longitudinal direction of the amorphous alloy ribbon to be 2 millimeters (mm) to 200 mm (Okabe, para 48-49);
Regarding claim 10, Okabe in view of Ohta and Reed teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as above, and further teaches a method of producing a processed amorphous alloy ribbon comprising:
providing a suppressing mechanism for suppressing oscillation (Okabe, reels 1 and 6, rolls 2 and 3) of the amorphous alloy ribbon in front and rear of a portion of the amorphous alloy ribbon to be irradiated with the laser (Okabe, Figs. 1-5 and ¶¶ 36-39, 48-52 and 73-83);
wherein the suppressing mechanism includes a plurality of rolls (Okabe, Fig. 1-5 and para 36-39, 48-52 and 73-83); and adjusting a traveling position of the amorphous alloy ribbon with the plurality of rolls (Okabe, Fig. 1-5 and para 36-39, 48-52 and 73-83).
Regarding claim 12, Okabe in view of Ohta and Reed teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as above, and further teaches a method of producing a processed amorphous alloy ribbon wherein the laser is radiated to the amorphous alloy ribbon while the amorphous alloy ribbon unwound from an amorphous alloy ribbon holding spool travels or is travelling (Okabe, Fig. 1-5 and para 36-39, 48-52 and 73-83).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see attached and previously filed PTO- 892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAWRENCE SAMUELS 0whose telephone number is (571)272-2683. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday regular business hours.
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, Ibrahime Abraham can be reached at (571) 270-5569. 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.
/LAWRENCE H SAMUELS/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/BRIAN W JENNISON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights