DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 June 11, 2026 has been entered.
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 .
Priority
The present application, 17/617,173 filed December 17, 2021, is a 371 of PCT/US 2020/036422 filed June 5, 2020, which is a continuation of 16/434,869 filed June 7, 2019, which is a continuation-in-part of PCT/US 2017/065396 filed December 8,2017, which claims priority to provisional 62/497,935 filed December 8, 2016.
Information Disclosure Statement
The February 2, 2022 information disclosure statement (IDS) lists EP 0574513, which was published as WO 92/15998.
Claim Status
This Office Action is in response to Applicant’s Claim Amendments and Remarks filed June 11, 2026.
Claims Filing Date
June 11, 2026
Amended
17, 22, 25-27, 29-35, 38
Cancelled
1-16, 20
Pending
17-19, 21-38
Withdrawn Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following 112(a) rejections are withdrawn due to claim amendment:
Claim 17 lines 10-11 “(FeyNi100-y)x, where x is selected from a range of 75-85”.
Claim 17 line 13 “average shape factor between 0.9 and 1.1”.
Claim 22 lines 1-2 “each composite layer comprises a magnetic anisotropy”.
Applicant’s [00018] recites “The induced anisotropy in Fe-rich alloys is along the ribbon axis” (longitudinal to a ribbon axis) and “In Ni-rich alloys, the induced anisotropy is transverse to the ribbon axis”.
Claim 25 line 2 “(Fe-Ni)80(Nb-Si-B)20”.
Applicant’s specification at [0008] recites “(Fe70Ni30)80(B-Si-Nb)20”.
Claim 26 line 2 “(FexNi100-x)79Nb4Si2B14Cu1”.
Applicant’s specification at [000109] recites “(Fe70Ni30)79Nb4Si2B14Cu1”.
Claim 29 line 1 “further comprising Tantalum (Ta)”.
Applicant’s specification at [00013] and [00075] recites that the nanocomposite includes 50 atomic% or less of one or more metals including tantalum (Ta).
Claim 30 line 1 “further comprising Niobium (Nb)”.
Applicant’s specification at [00013] and [00075] recites that the nanocomposite includes 50 atomic% or less of one or more metals including niobium (Nb).
Claim 38 line 2 “stain-annealed composites comprising relative magnetic permeabilities between 100-9000”.
The following 112(a) rejections are withdrawn due to claim amendment and argument:
Claim 31 lines 1-2 “the Nb having an atomic % selected from the range of 2-5”.
Claim 33 lines 1-2 “Boron with an atomic % selected from the range of 12-16”.
Claim 34 lines 1-2 “Silicon with an atomic % selected from the range of 2-7”.
Claim 35 lines 1-2 “Silicon with an atomic % selected from the range of 0-2”.
Claim 36 line 2 “(Fe70Ni30), the laminate further comprising Boron, Silicon, and Niobium”.
The applicant persuasively argues Table 1 recites various values for atomic% Nb including 0.5, 1, 2, 2.5, 3, 5, 6, 7.5, and 8 ([0113]) (p. 5 para. 4), and a similar argument applies to claims 32-36 (p. 5 para. 5).
As discussed in the pending 112(a) rejection of claims 27 and 31-35, amended claims 27 and 31-35 (and previous claim 36) will be interpreted as a rotor or stator laminate composition including (Fe70-Ni30)(80).
The following 112(b) rejections are withdrawn due to claim amendment:
Claim 17 lines 10-11 “the γ-FeNi nanocrystals include (FeyNi100-y)x, where x is selected from a range of 75-85, and where y is selected from a range of 60-80”.
Claim 17 line 13 “an average shape factor between 0.9 and 1.1”.
Amended claim 17 lines 11-12 recite “an average shape factor of nanocrystal grains between 0.1 and 1”. Applicant’s specification at [00091]-[00093] recite K is a shape factor typically between 0.9 and 1 with respect to the Scherrer equation used to estimate crystal (grain) size.
Claim 26 line 2 “(FexNi100-x)79Nb4Si2B14Cu1”.
Claim 31 line 1 “the Nb”.
Claim 32 line 1 “the Nb”.
Claim 32 lines 1-2 “the Nb having an atomic % selected from the range of 0 to 2”.
Response to Remarks filed June 11, 2026
Claim Objection
Applicant's arguments filed June 11, 2026 with respect to the Claim Objection have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues the claims have been amended to address the Claim Objection (p. 5 para. 2).
Claim 37 has not been amended. The claim 27 amendments do not address recitation of the same property as claim 28 using different language.
Claim 27 lines 2-3 recite “a difference between a crystallization temperature Tx and a glass forming temperature Tg”. Claim 37 lines 1-2 recite “a difference ΔTxg between a glass forming temperature and a crystallization temperature”.
Turcanova (Turcanova et al. Magnetic and Mechanical Properties of Nanocrystalline Fe-Ni-Nb-B Alloys. The 13th International Conference on Rapidly Quenched and Metastable Materials. Journal pf Physics: Conference Series 144 (2009) 012065.) in view of Johnson (US 2010/0243946) and optionally Yoshizawa (US 2009/0184705)
Applicant's arguments filed June 11, 2026 with respect to Turcanova in view of Johnson and optionally Yoshizawa have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues Johnson discloses bulk resistivity of the overall material in [0070] and is silent regarding the differential resistivity claimed, where the nanocrystals have a low resistivity (less than 100 µΩ-cm) while the surrounding amorphous matrix has a high resistivity (greater than 100 µΩ-cm) (p. 6 para. 3).
The claimed “γ-FeNi nanocrystals having an average resistivity of less than 100µΩ-cm and the amorphous matrix having a resistivity greater than 100µΩ-cm” is rejected as naturally flowing from the disclosed composition and structure of the prior art (Turcanova Abstract, 1. Introduction para. 2, 2. Experimental, 3.1. Microstructure, Fig. 1(A), (B)).
In the pending rejection Johnson is relied on to disclosed the obviousness of using an (Fe0.75Ni0.25)81Nb7B12 or (Fe0.67Ni0.33)81Nb7B12 alloy of γ-FeNi (FCC-FeNi phase) in an amorphous matrix (Turcanova Abstract, 1. Introduction para. 2, 3.1. Microstructure, Figs. 1(A), (B)) as a composite layer (Johnson [0044], [0052], [0070]-[0073]) of a rotor or stator laminate (Johnson [0032]-[0035], [0038]-[0046], [0051]) to advantageously increase efficiency of the electrical machine (Johnson [0032], [0051]), reduce machine stacking factor (Johnson [0033]), and mitigate a need for segmenting the permanent magnet content within the plurality of rotor poles, reducing a required permanent magnet piece count, which decreases assembling and manufacturing costs (Johnson [0035]), while having high resistivity (Johnson [0070]) for high performance permanent magnet electric machines (Johnson [0036]).
This pending rejection is not with respect to the argued bulk resistivity disclosed in Johnson [0070]. This feature of Johnson may be related to a bulk metallic glass phase that include Fe, Co, Zr, Mn, Zr, Hf, B, and C and/or a soft magnetic crystalline metal phase that include Fe, Co, Ni, Mo, Cr, and C, which are not the basis for the pending rejection.
The applicant argues Yoshizawa’s [0020] teaching of boron making crystal formation resistant to generate is not structurally equivalent to forming a specific diffusion barrier between the nanocrystals (para. spanning pp. 6-7).
Boron resisting crystal formation generation (Yoshizawa [0020]) inhibits (resists) nanocrystal growth (generation).
The applicant argues improper hindsight to map Yoshizawa’s general compositional effect to the specific microstructural arrangement claims (para. spanning pp. 6-7).
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. MPEP 2145(X)(A).
The cited prior art discloses a product with a composition and structure (Turcanova Abstract, 1. Introduction para. 2, 2. Experimental, 3.1. Microstructure, Fig. 1 (A), (B)) that read on that claimed, such that the claimed properties or functions, including that of boron, naturally flow from the disclosure of the prior art.
“[T]he discovery of a previously unappreciated property of a prior art composition, or of a scientific explanation for the prior art’s functioning, does not render the old composition patentably new to the discoverer.” MPEP 2112(I).
For the above cited reasons the rejection of Turcanova in view of Johnson and optionally Yoshizawa is maintained.
New Grounds
In light of claim amendment and upon further consideration a new grounds of rejection is made over Hasegawa in view of Turcanova and Johnson.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 17 line 6 “a boron diffusion barrier” is interpreted as a diffusion barrier that comprises boron in light of applicant’s specification at [00075].
Claim Objections
Claims 17, 18, 27, 37, and 38 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 17 lines 11-12 “an average diameter of the γ-FeNi nanocrystals is between 5nm-30nm and have an average shape factor of nanocrystal grains between 0.9 and 1” should be reworded to indicate what has “an average shape factor…”. For example, “an average diameter of the γ-FeNi nanocrystals is between 5nm-30nm and an average shape factor of the γ-FeNi nanocrystal grains is between 0.9 and 1”.
Claims 27 and 37 recite the same property using different language. For consistency, when the same property is being claimed the same claim language should be used.
Claim 37 lines 2-3 “a crystallization temperature is includes” is grammatically incorrect.
Claim 38 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate of claim 18. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 17-19 and 21-38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Applicants should specifically point out the support for any amendments made. MPEP 714.02. In the Remarks filed September 24, 2025 applicant did not point out support for the claim 17 amendment nor for new claims 21-38.
Claim 17 lines 9-10 “the γ-FeNi nanocrystals include (FeyNi100-y), where y is selected from a range of 65-75” fails to comply with the written description requirement. According to the claim, the γ-FeNi nanocrystals are 65-75 at% Fe and 25-35 at% Ni. However, applicant’s specification recites in [00014] that “the γ-FeNi nanocrystals are approximately 70 atomic% Ni”. Applicant’s specification does not support the composition of the γ-FeNi nanocrystals recited in amended claim 17.
Claims 27 and 31-35 lines 1-2 “the γ-FeNi nanocrystals include (Fe70-Ni30)80” fails to comply with the written description requirement.
Applicant’s specification discloses a nanocomposition that includes crystalline grains in an amorphous matrix ([0007]) for a range of compositions in the (Fe70Ni30)80(B-Si-Nb)20 system ([0008]). Applicant’s specification also recites γ-FeNi nanocrystals in an amorphous matrix, where the γ-FeNi nanocrystals are approximately 70 atomic% Ni.
Applicant’s specification discloses 1) a composition of the rotor or stator layer being in the (Fe70Ni30)80(B-Si-Nb)20 system, and separately, 2) a composition of the γ-FeNi nanocrystals of approximately 70 at% Ni in the amorphous matrix of the rotor or stator layer composition. In the overall composition, the Ni content is 24 atomic% (30*0.8), but in the γ-FeNi nanocrystal composition the Ni content is approximately 70 atomic%.
Therefore, applicant has support for a rotor or stator laminate composition of (Fe70Ni30)80(B-Si-Nb)20 (applicant’s specification [0008]) or for γ-FeNi nanocrystals that are approximately 70 atomic% Ni (applicant’s specification [00014]), but not for γ-FeNi nanocrystals that “include (Fe70-Ni30)80” as claimed.
For the purpose of examination “the γ-FeNi nanocrystals include (Fe70-Ni30)80” will be interpreted as requiring a rotor or stator laminate composition including (Fe70-Ni30)80 as supported by applicant’s specification.
Claims 18, 19, 21-26, 28-30, and 36-38 are rejected as depending from claim 17.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 17, 19, 21-25, 27, 28, 33, 35, and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Turcanova (Turcanova et al. Magnetic and Mechanical Properties of Nanocrystalline Fe-Ni-Nb-B Alloys. The 13th International Conference on Rapidly Quenched and Metastable Materials. Journal pf Physics: Conference Series 144 (2009) 012065.) in view of Johnson (US 2010/0243946) and optionally Yoshizawa (US 2009/0184705).
Regarding claim 17, Turcanova discloses:
y-FeNi (FCC-FeNi phase) nanocrystals in an amorphous matrix (3.1. Microstructure, Fig. 1 (A), (B)); and
a boron diffusion barrier ((Fe0.75Ni0.25)81Nb7B12; (Fe0.67Ni0.33)81Nb7B12) (Abstract, 1. Introduction para. 2);
wherein the y-FeNi nanocrystals include (FeyNi100-y), where y is selected from a range of 65-75 (FCC-FeNi phase in a (Fe0.75Ni0.25)81Nb7B12 composition where y is 75 or in a (Fe0.67Ni0.33)81Nb7B12 composition where y is 67) (Abstract, 1. Introduction para. 2);
wherein an average diameter of the y-FeNi (FCC-FeNi phase) nanocrystals is between 5nm-30nm and have an average shape factor of nanocrystal grains between 0.9 and 1 (the average diameter and average shape factor is evidenced by the white y-FeNi nanocrystals on the TEM micrographs with respect to the 100 nm scale bar) (3.1. Microstructure, Fig. 1 (A), (B)); and
wherein the one or more composite layers are each less than approximately 25um thick (20-25 um thick) (2. Experimental).
With respect to the claimed average diameter and average shape factor if it is determined that the y-FeNi nanocrystals do not have an average diameter and/or shape factor that fall within the scope of the claim, then differences in concentration or temperature (or average diameter or shape factor) will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature (or average diameter or shape factor) is critical. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
The γ-FeNi nanocrystals having an average resistivity of less than 100 microOhm-cm and the amorphous matrix having a resistivity greater than 100 microOhm-cm have been considered and determined to recite properties of the claimed γ-FeNi nanocrystals in an amorphous matrix. The prior art discloses a product with a composition and structure (Turcanova Abstract, 1. Introduction para. 2, 2. Experimental, 3.1. Microstructure, Fig. 1 (A), (B)) that read on that claimed, such that the claimed properties of the y-FeNi nanocrystals, including an average resistivity of less than 100 microOhm-cm and the amorphous matrix having a resistivity greater than 100 microOhm-cm, naturally flow from the disclosure of the prior art. In support, Johnson discloses nanostructured high resistivity soft magnetic materials ([0051]) including a bulk metallic glass phase and a soft magnetic crystalline metal phase with a resistivity of at least about 150 microOhm-cm ([0070]), such that the amorphous matrix has a resistivity greater than 100 microOhm-cm.
The boron diffusion barrier being between one or more of the γ-FeNi nanocrystals in the amorphous matrix and being configured to inhibit diffusional growth of the γ-FeNi nanocrystals during forming of the y-FeNi nanocrystals have been considered and determined to recite properties of the claimed y-FeNi nanocrystals in an amorphous matrix. The prior art discloses a product with a composition and structure (Turcanova Abstract, 1. Introduction para. 2, 2. Experimental, 3.1. Microstructure, Fig. 1 (A), (B)) that read on that claimed, such that claimed properties, including the boron diffusion barrier being between one or more of the y-FeNi nanocrystals in the amorphous matrix and being configured to inhibit diffusional growth of the y-FeNi nanocrystals during forming of the y-FeNi nanocrystals, naturally flow from the disclosure of the prior art.
In the event it is determined that the boron diffusion barrier claim limitation does not naturally flow from the disclosure of Turcanova, then the below rejection in view of Yoshizawa is applied.
Turcanova discloses (Fe0.75Ni0.25)81Nb7B12 and (Fe0.67Ni0.33)81Nb7B12 (Abstract, 1. Introduction para. 2).
Yoshizawa discloses an Fe-Ni-Nb-B alloy ([0016], [0021]) with more than 8 at% and less than or equal to 25 at% B, such that the crystal formation is resistant to generate (diffusion barrier between one or more of the nanocrystals and the amorphous matrix configured to inhibit diffusional growth of the nanocrystals during forming of the nanocrystals) ([0020]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the instant invention in the alloy of Turcanova for the 12 at% boron to be a diffusion barrier between one or more of the γ-FeNi nanocrystals and the amorphous matrix configured to inhibit diffusional growth of the γ-FeNi nanocrystals during forming of the γ-FeNi nanocrystals because in an Fe-Ni-Si-B alloy boron within this range resists generation of crystal formation (Yoshizawa [0020]).
Turcanova is silent to a rotor or a stator laminate comprising composite layers.
Johnson discloses a rotor or stator laminate ([0032]-[0035], [0038]-[0046], [0051]) comprising composite layers each comprising nanocrystals in an amorphous matrix ([0044], [0052], [0070]-[0073]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the instant invention to form the ribbons of Turcanova into a rotor or stator laminate to reduce eddy current losses, increasing efficiency of the electrical machine (Johnson [0032], [0051]), to reduce machine stacking factor (Johnson [0033]), and to mitigate a need for segmenting the permanent magnet content within the plurality of rotor poles, reducing a required permanent magnet piece count, which decreases assembling and manufacturing costs (Johnson [0053]), while having high resistivity (Johnson [0070]) for high performance permanent magnet electric machines (Johnson [0036]).
Regarding claim 19, Turcanova discloses copper (prior art families of Fe-M-B-(Cu) and Fe-Co-M-B-(Cu), where “(Cu)” indicates the optional presence of copper in related alloys) (1. Introduction).
Regarding claim 21, Turcanova discloses the average diameter of the γ-FeNi nanocrystals is between 5-20 nm (the average diameter and average shape factor is evidenced by the white y-FeNi nanocrystals on the TEM micrographs with respect to the 100 nm scale bar) (3.1. Microstructure, Fig. 1 (A), (B)).
If it is determined that the y-FeNi nanocrystals do not have an average diameter that falls within the scope of the claim, then differences in concentration or temperature (or average diameter) will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature (or average diameter) is critical. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
Regarding claim 22, magnetic anisotropy that is longitudinal to a ribbon axis or transverse to the ribbon axis has been considered and determined to recite a property of the claimed y-FeNi nanocrystals in an amorphous matrix. The prior art discloses a product with a composition and structure (Turcanova Abstract, 1. Introduction para. 2, 2. Experimental, 3.1. Microstructure, Fig. 1 (A), (B)) that read on that claimed, such that the claimed property of magnetic anisotropy that is longitudinal to a ribbon axis or transverse to the ribbon axis naturally flows from the disclosure of the prior art.
Regarding claim 23, Turcanova discloses 30 atomic% or less of cobalt (Co) (0 at%) ((Fe0.75Ni0.25)81Nb7B12; (Fe0.67Ni0.33)81Nb7B12) (Abstract, 1. Introduction para. 2).
Regarding claim 24, Turcanova discloses superplasticity (evolution of ductile/brittle behavior with annealing temperature, where εf=1 for ductile samples that can be bent through 180° without fracture, where increased Ni has a tendency to decrease embrittlement level) (3.3. Mechanical properties, Fig. 4). One of ordinary skill in the art, based on the disclosure of Turcanova, would understand how to vary the Ni content and/or the annealing temperature in order to change the ductile/brittle behavior and create a superplastic alloy.
Regarding claim 25, Turcanova discloses (Fe-Ni)80(Nb-Si-B)20 ((Fe0.75Ni0.25)81Nb7B12; (Fe0.67Ni0.33)81Nb7B12) (Abstract, 1. Introduction para. 2). (Fe-Ni)81 and (Nb-B)19 are so close to the claimed (Fe-Ni)80 and (Nb-B-Si)20 that one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the composition of the prior art to have the same properties as the claimed composition. A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are close. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 27, Turcanova discloses wherein the γ-FeNi nanocrystals includes (Fe70-Ni30)80 (FCC-FeNi phase in a (Fe0.75Ni0.25)81Nb7B12 composition or in a (Fe0.67Ni0.33)81Nb7B12 composition) (Abstract, 1. Introduction para. 2). (Fe75-Ni25)81 and (Fe67-Ni33)81 are so close to the claimed (Fe70-Ni30)80 that one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the composition of the prior art to have the same properties as the claimed composition. A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are close. MPEP 2144.05(I).
A difference between a primary crystallization temperature Tx and a glass forming temperature Tg of between 150 and 183 has been considered and determined to recite a property of the claimed γ-FeNi nanocrystals in an amorphous matrix. The prior art discloses a product with a composition and structure (Turcanova Abstract, 1. Introduction para. 2, 2. Experimental, 3.1. Microstructure, Fig. 1 (A), (B)) that read on that claimed, such that the claimed property of a difference between a primary crystallization temperature Tx and a glass transition temperature Tg of between 150 and 183 naturally flows from the disclosure of the prior art.
In support, the compositions of Turcanova, (Fe0.75Ni0.25)81Nb7B12; (Fe0.67Ni0.33)81Nb7B12 (Abstract, 1. Introduction para. 2), are close to applicant’s example composition (Fe70Ni30)80B4Si0Nb6, which has a ΔTxg of 163 (applicant’s Table 1), which falls within the scope of claim 27.
Regarding claim 28, a reduced glass-forming temperature Trg of between 0.307 and 0.381 has been considered and determined to recite a property of the claimed γ-FeNi nanocrystals in an amorphous matrix. The prior art discloses a product with a composition and structure (Turcanova Abstract, 1. Introduction para. 2, 2. Experimental, 3.1. Microstructure, Fig. 1 (A), (B)) that read on that claimed, such that the claimed property of a reduced glass-forming temperature Trg of between 0.307 and 0.381 naturally flows from the disclosure of the prior art.
Regarding claim 33, Turcanova discloses wherein the γ-FeNi nanocrystals includes (Fe70-Ni30)80 (FCC-FeNi phase in a (Fe0.75Ni0.25)81Nb7B12 composition or in a (Fe0.67Ni0.33)81Nb7B12 composition) (Abstract, 1. Introduction para. 2). (Fe75-Ni25)81 and (Fe67-Ni33)81 are so close to the claimed (Fe70-Ni30)80 that one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the composition of the prior art to have the same properties as the claimed composition. A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are close. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Turcanova discloses Boron with an atomic % selected from the range of 12-16 (12 at%) ((Fe0.75Ni0.25)81Nb7B12; (Fe0.67Ni0.33)81Nb7B12) (Abstract, 1. Introduction para. 2).
Regarding claim 35, Turcanova discloses wherein the γ-FeNi nanocrystals includes (Fe70-Ni30)80 (FCC-FeNi phase in a (Fe0.75Ni0.25)81Nb7B12 composition or in a (Fe0.67Ni0.33)81Nb7B12 composition) (Abstract, 1. Introduction para. 2). (Fe75-Ni25)81 and (Fe67-Ni33)81 are so close to the claimed (Fe70-Ni30)80 that one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the composition of the prior art to have the same properties as the claimed composition. A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are close. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Turcanova discloses Silicon with an atomic % selected from the range of 0-2 (0 at%) ((Fe0.75Ni0.25)81Nb7B12; (Fe0.67Ni0.33)81Nb7B12) (Abstract, 1. Introduction para. 2).
Regarding claim 37, a value of a difference ATxg between a glass forming temperature and a crystallization temperature includes the range of 100 to 163 has been considered and determined to recite a property of the claimed γ-FeNi nanocrystals in an amorphous matrix. The prior art discloses a product with a composition and structure (Turcanova Abstract, 1. Introduction para. 2, 2. Experimental, 3.1. Microstructure, Fig. 1 (A), (B)) that read on that claimed, such that the claimed property of a value of a difference ATxg between a glass forming temperature and a crystallization temperature is includes the range of 100 to 163 naturally flows from the disclosure of the prior art.
In support, the compositions of Turcanova, (Fe0.75Ni0.25)81Nb7B12; (Fe0.67Ni0.33)81Nb7B12 (Abstract, 1. Introduction para. 2), are close to applicant’s example composition (Fe70Ni30)80B4Si0Nb6, which has a ΔTxg of 163 (applicant’s Table 1), which falls within the scope of claim 27.
Claims 18 and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Turcanova (Turcanova et al. Magnetic and Mechanical Properties of Nanocrystalline Fe-Ni-Nb-B Alloys. The 13th International Conference on Rapidly Quenched and Metastable Materials. Journal pf Physics: Conference Series 144 (2009) 012065.) in view of Johnson (US 2010/0243946) and optionally Yoshizawa (US 2009/0184705) as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Leary (US 2014/0338793).
Regarding claim 18, Turcanova is silent to the composite layers each being strain-annealed composites comprising relative magnetic permeabilities above 10,000.
Leary discloses composite layers each are strain-annealed composites ([0002], [0015], [0035], [0048]-[0052]) with high magnetic permeability ([0004], [0009], [0018], Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the instant invention to strain anneal the alloys of Turcanova to have high magnetic permeability to that the alloys act as electromagnetic interference (EMI) shielding materials (Leary [0018]) with a high squareness that approaches unit (Leary [0040]) that can be idealized for the application (Leary [0061]). Generally, differences in concentration or temperature (or high magnetic permeability) will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature (or high magnetic permeability) is critical. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
Leary also discloses tunable magnetic permeability ([0002], [0004]) adjusted by strain annealing ([0009]-[0010], [0015], [0035]), where the relationship between increasing stress and decreasing permeability is a general one that is observed ubiquitously ([0041], [0062]). Therefore, the strain-annealing conditions are a result-effective variable that achieves a recognized result of magnetic permeability. The determination of the optimum or workable ranges of the magnetic permeability are characterized as routine experimentation. MPEP 2144.05(II)(B).
Regarding claim 38, Turcanova is silent to the composite layers each being strain-annealed composites comprising relative magnetic permeabilities above 10,000.
Leary discloses composite layers each are strain-annealed composites ([0002], [0015], [0035], [0048]-[0052]) with high magnetic permeability ([0004], [0009], [0018], Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the instant invention to strain anneal the alloys of Turcanova to have high magnetic permeability to that the alloys act as electromagnetic interference (EMI) shielding materials (Leary [0018]) with a high squareness that approaches unit (Leary [0040]) that can be idealized for the application (Leary [0061]). Generally, differences in concentration or temperature (or high magnetic permeability) will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature (or high magnetic permeability) is critical. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
Leary also discloses tunable magnetic permeability ([0002], [0004]) adjusted by strain annealing ([0009]-[0010], [0015], [0035]), where the relationship between increasing stress and decreasing permeability is a general one that is observed ubiquitously ([0041], [0062]). Therefore, the strain-annealing conditions are a result-effective variable that achieves a recognized result of magnetic permeability. The determination of the optimum or workable ranges of the magnetic permeability are characterized as routine experimentation. MPEP 2144.05(II)(B).
Claims 19, 26, 29-32, 34, and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Turcanova (Turcanova et al. Magnetic and Mechanical Properties of Nanocrystalline Fe-Ni-Nb-B Alloys. The 13th International Conference on Rapidly Quenched and Metastable Materials. Journal pf Physics: Conference Series 144 (2009) 012065.) in view of Johnson (US 2010/0243946) and optionally Yoshizawa (US 2009/0184705) as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Martis (WO 92/15998).
Regarding claim 19, Turcanova discloses (Fe0.75Ni0.25)81Nb7B12 and (Fe0.67Ni0.33)81Nb7B12) (Abstract, 1. Introduction para. 2).
Martis discloses nanocrystals in an amorphous matrix (1:5-13, 4:14-35, 5:1-19) with a composition that further comprises copper (17:33 to 18:3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the instant invention in the composition of Turcanova to further comprise copper to seed nanocrystalline growth (Martis 2:25-27, 4:9-10).
Regarding claim 26, Turcanova discloses (Fe0.75Ni0.25)81Nb7B12 and (Fe0.67Ni0.33)81Nb7B12) (Abstract, 1. Introduction para. 2). (Fe0.75Ni0.25)81 and (Fe0.67Ni0.33)81 are close to the claimed (FexNi100-x)79 and B12 is close to the claimed B14, such that one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the composition of Turcanova to have the same properties as the claimed composition. A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are close. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Martis discloses nanocrystals in an amorphous matrix (1:5-13, 4:14-35, 5:1-19) with a composition (Fe1-xNix)aMb(B1-ySiy)c, where M is Nb, x is about 0.2 to about 0.9, a is about 60 to about 90, b is most preferred at about 2.0 to about 4.0, c is about 0.1 to about 30, and y is about 0 to about 15 (6:15 to 8:3) with Cu of 1 (17:34). Therefore, Martis discloses Nb is about 2.0 to about 4.0 (Nb4), Si is about 0 to 4.5 (30*0 to 30*0.15) (Si2), and Cu is 1 (Cu1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the instant invention in the alloys of Turcanova to include:
about 2.0 to about 4.0 at% Nb because below about 2.0 at% the nanocrystalline particles become more difficult to form during useful annealing conditions and more than 10 at% the alloys are difficult to cast via melt quenching (Martis 7:1-11);
about 0 to about 4.5 at% Si to facilitate formation of crystallites by increasing the temperature difference between the first crystallization temperature and the second crystallization temperature and aids in forming the amorphous metallic material (Martis 7:28 to 8:3); and
1 at% Cu to seed nanocrystalline growth (Martis 2:25-27, 4:9-10).
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 29, Turcanova is silent to Tantalum (Ta).
Martis discloses nanocrystals in an amorphous matrix (1:5-13, 4:14-35, 5:1-19) comprising Ta (6:19, 6:34 to 7:1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the instant invention in the alloys of Turcanova to include tantalum so that the nanocrystalline particles do not become more difficult to form during useful annealing conditions and the alloys do not become difficult to cast via melt quenching (Martis 7:1-11).
Regarding claim 30, Turcanova is silent to Niobium (Nb).
Martis discloses nanocrystals in an amorphous matrix (1:5-13, 4:14-35, 5:1-19) comprising Nb (6:19, 6:34-35).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the instant invention in the alloys of Turcanova to include niobium so that the nanocrystalline particles do not become more difficult to form during useful annealing conditions and the alloys do not become difficult to cast via melt quenching (Martis 7:1-11).
Regarding claim 31, Turcanova discloses wherein the γ-FeNi nanocrystals includes (Fe70-Ni30)80 (FCC-FeNi phase in a (Fe0.75Ni0.25)81Nb7B12 composition or in a (Fe0.67Ni0.33)81Nb7B12 composition) (Abstract, 1. Introduction para. 2). (Fe75-Ni25)81 and (Fe67-Ni33)81 are so close to the claimed (Fe70-Ni30)80 that one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the composition of the prior art to have the same properties as the claimed composition. A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are close. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Turcanova in view of Martis discloses Nb having an atomic % selected from the range of 2-5 (Mb, M is Nb, b is preferably about 2.0 to about 4.0) (Martis 6:19, 6:34 to 7:11). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 32, Turcanova discloses wherein the γ-FeNi nanocrystals includes (Fe70-Ni30)80 (FCC-FeNi phase in a (Fe0.75Ni0.25)81Nb7B12 composition or in a (Fe0.67Ni0.33)81Nb7B12 composition) (Abstract, 1. Introduction para. 2). (Fe75-Ni25)81 and (Fe67-Ni33)81 are so close to the claimed (Fe70-Ni30)80 that one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the composition of the prior art to have the same properties as the claimed composition. A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are close. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Turcanova in view of Martis discloses Nb having an atomic % selected from the range of 1 to 2 (Mb, M is Nb, b is preferably about 2.0 to about 4.0) (Martis 6:19, 6:34 to 7:11). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 34, Turcanova discloses wherein the γ-FeNi nanocrystals includes (Fe70-Ni30)80 (FCC-FeNi phase in a (Fe0.75Ni0.25)81Nb7B12 composition or in a (Fe0.67Ni0.33)81Nb7B12 composition) (Abstract, 1. Introduction para. 2). (Fe75-Ni25)81 and (Fe67-Ni33)81 are so close to the claimed (Fe70-Ni30)80 that one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the composition of the prior art to have the same properties as the claimed composition. A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are close. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Turcanova is silent to Silicon with an atomic % selected from the range of 2-7.
Martis discloses nanocrystals in an amorphous matrix (1:5-13, 4:14-35, 5:1-19) with a composition (Fe1-xNix)aMb(B1-ySiy)c, where c is about 0.1 to about 30 and y is about 0 to about 15 (6:15 to 8:3). Therefore, Martis discloses Si is about 0 to 4.5 (30*0 to 30*0.15) (Si2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the instant invention in the alloys of Turcanova to include about 0 to about 4.5 at% Si to facilitate formation of crystallites by increasing the temperature difference between the first crystallization temperature and the second crystallization temperature and aids in forming the amorphous metallic material (Martis 7:28 to 8:3). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 36, Turcanova discloses include (Fe70Ni30) ((Fe0.75Ni0.25) and (Fe0.67Ni0.33)) and the laminate further comprising Boron (B12) and Niobium (Nb7) ((Fe0.75Ni0.25)81Nb7B12; (Fe0.67Ni0.33)81Nb7B12) (Abstract, 1. Introduction para. 2).
Turcanova is silent to Silicon.
Martis discloses nanocrystals in an amorphous matrix (1:5-13, 4:14-35, 5:1-19) with a composition including Silicon (6:15 to 8:3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the instant invention in the alloys of Turcanova to include Silicon to facilitate formation of crystallites by increasing the temperature difference between the first crystallization temperature and the second crystallization temperature and aids in forming the amorphous metallic material (Martis 7:28 to 8:3).
Claims 17, 19, 21-25, and 27-37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hasegawa (US 2008/0212644) in view of Turcanova (Turcanova et al. Magnetic and Mechanical Properties of Nanocrystalline Fe-Ni-Nb-B Alloys. The 13th International Conference on Rapidly Quenched and Metastable Materials. Journal pf Physics: Conference Series 144 (2009) 012065.) and Johnson (US 2010/0243946).
Regarding claim 17, Hasegawa discloses composite layers (amorphous alloy strip) ([0031]) each comprising:
an amorphous matrix (amorphous alloy strip) ([0031], Table IV Fe80B10Si10); and
a boron diffusion barrier ([0031], Table IV Fe80B10Si10);
wherein the composite layers are each less than approximately 25um thick (about 20 um) ([0026], [0031], Table IV Fe80B10Si10).
Hasegawa discloses replacing up to 50% of Fe with Ni ([0009]-[0014], [0026]), such that the example Fe80B10Si10 alloy is (Fe50-100Ni0-50)80B10Si10.
Hasegawa is silent to y-FeNi nanocrystals in an amorphous matrix.
Turcanova discloses composite layers (amorphous ribbons) (2. Experimental) each comprising:
y-FeNi nanocrystals (FCC Fe-Ni phase) in an amorphous matrix (Abstract, 2. Experimental, 3.1. Microstructure),
wherein an average diameter of the y-FeNi nanocrystals is between 5nm-30nm (5-10nm) and have an average shape factor of nanocrystal grains between 0.9 and 1 (2. Experimental, 3.1. Microstructure, Figure 1 (A, B)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the instant invention for the composite layer ((Fe50-100Ni0-50)80B10Si10 amorphous alloy strip) of Hasegawa to comprise y-FeNi nanocrystals in an amorphous matrix as disclosed by Turcanova for improved magnetic softness with improved bend ductility (Turcanova Abstract) and a lower tendency towards embrittlement (Turcanova Conclusion).
With respect to the y-FeNi nanocrystals including (Fey-Ni100-y), where y is selected from a range of 65-75, Hasegawa in view of Turcanova discloses a (Fe50-100Ni0-50)80B10Si10 alloy (y is 50 to 100) (Hasegawa [0009]-[0014], [0026], [0031], Table IV) with y-FeNi nanocrystals (FCC Fe-Ni phase) in an amorphous matrix (Turcanova Abstract, 2. Experimental, 3.1. Microstructure). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I).
The y-FeNi nanocrystals having an average resistivity of less than 100µΩ-cm and the amorphous matrix having a resistivity greater than 100µΩ-cm and the boron diffusion barrier being between one or more of the y-FeNi nanocrystals in the amorphous matrix and configured to inhibit diffusional growth of the y-FeNi nanocrystals during forming of the y-FeNi nanocrystals have been considered and determined to recite functions, properties, or characteristics of the claimed composite layer. The prior art discloses a composite layer that reads on that claimed (Hasegawa [0009]-[0014], [0026], [0031], Table IV; Turcanova Abstract, 2. Experimental, 3.1. Microstructure, Figure 1 (A, B)), such that the claimed functions, properties, or characteristics naturally flow, including the y-FeNi nanocrystals having an average resistivity of less than 100µΩ-cm and the amorphous matrix having a resistivity greater than 100µΩ-cm and the boron diffusion barrier being between one or more of the y-FeNi nanocrystals in the amorphous matrix and configured to inhibit diffusional growth of the y-FeNi nanocrystals during forming of the y-FeNi nanocrystals.
Hasegawa in view of Turcanova is silent to a rotor or a stator laminate comprising composite layers.
Johnson discloses a rotor or stator laminate ([0032]-[0035], [0038]-[0046], [0051]) comprising composite layers each comprising nanocrystals in an amorphous matrix ([0044], [0052], [0070]-[0073]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the instant invention to form the ribbons of Hasegawa in view of Turcanova into a rotor or stator laminate to reduce eddy current losses, increasing efficiency of the electrical machine (Johnson [0032], [0051]), to reduce machine stacking factor (Johnson [0033]), and to mitigate a need for segmenting the permanent magnet content within the plurality of rotor poles, reducing a required permanent magnet piece count, which decreases assembling and manufacturing costs (Johnson [0053]), while having high resistivity (Johnson [0070]) for high performance permanent magnet electric machines (Johnson [0036]).
Regarding claim 19, Hasegawa is silent to the composite layers each further comprise copper.
Turcanova discloses the composite layers each further comprise copper (prior art families of Fe-M-B-(Cu) and Fe-Co-M-B-(Cu), where “(Cu)” indicates the optional presence of copper in related alloys) (1. Introduction).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the instant invention in the (Fe50-100Ni0-50)80B10Si10 alloy composite layer of Hasegawa to include Cu because it is a known additional element in Fe-M-B alloys (Turcanova 1. Introduction).
Regarding claim 21, Hasegawa in view of Turcanova discloses an average diameter of the y-FeNi nanocrystals is between 5-20nm (5-10nm) (Turcanova 3.1. Microstructure, Figure 1 (A, B)).
Regarding claim 22, each composite layer comprises a magnetic anisotropy that is longitudinal to a ribbon axis or transverse to the ribbon axis has been considered and determined to recite a function, property, or characteristic of the claimed composite layer. The prior art discloses a composite layer that reads on that claimed (Hasegawa [0009]-[0014], [0026], [0031], Table IV; Turcanova Abstract, 2. Experimental, 3.1. Microstructure, Figure 1 (A, B)), such that the claimed function, property, or characteristic naturally flows, including each composite layer comprises a magnetic anisotropy that is longitudinal to a ribbon axis or transverse to the ribbon axis.
Regarding claim 23, Hasegawa discloses each composite layer comprises 30 atomic% or less of cobalt (Co) (Fe80B10Si10 with up to 50% of Fe replaced with Ni: (Fe50-100Ni0-50)80B10Si10 is 40 at% or less Co) ([0009]-[0014], [0026], [0031], Table IV). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 24, Hasegawa in view of Turcanova discloses each composite layer (Hasegawa [0009]-[0014], [0026], [0031], Table IV) being superplastic (evolution of ductile/brittle behavior with annealing temperature, where ε1=1 for ductile samples that can be bent through 180° without fracture, where increased Ni has a tendency to decrease embrittlement level (Turcanova 3.3. Mechanical properties, Fig. 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the instant invention to vary the Ni content and/or the annealing temperature in order to change the ductile/brittle behavior of the alloy of Hasegawa to create a superplastic alloy (Turcanova 3.3. Mechanical properties, Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 25, Hasegawa discloses each composite layer comprises (Fe70-Ni30)80(Nb-Si-B)20 (Fe80B10Si10 with up to 50% of Fe replace with Ni: (Fe50-100Ni0-50)80B10Si10 is (Fe50-100Ni0-50)80(B-Si)20) ([0009]-[0014], [0026], [0031], Table IV). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 27, Hasegawa in view of Turcanova disclose the y-FeNi nanocrystals include (Fe70-Ni30)80 (FCC Fe-Ni phase in an (Fe50-100Ni0-50)80B10Si10 alloy with (Fe50-100Ni0-50)80) (Hasegawa [0009]-[0014], [0026], [0031], Table IV; Turcanova Abstract, 2. Experimental, 3.1. Microstructure). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I).
A composite layer having a difference between a primary crystallization temperature Tx and a glass forming transition temperature Tg of between 150 and 183 has been considered and determined to recite a function, property, or characteristic of the claimed composite layer. The prior art discloses a composite layer that reads on that claimed (Hasegawa [0009]-[0014], [0026], [0031], Table IV; Turcanova Abstract, 2. Experimental, 3.1. Microstructure, Figure 1 (A, B)), such that the claimed function, property, or characteristic naturally flows, including having a difference between a primary crystallization temperature Tx and a glass forming transition temperature Tg of between 150 and 183.
Regarding claim 28, a composite layer having a reduced glass-forming temperature Trg of between 0.307 and 0.381 has been considered and determined to recite a function, property, or characteristic of the claimed composite layer. The prior art discloses a composite layer that reads on that claimed (Hasegawa [0009]-[0014], [0026], [0031], Table IV; Turcanova Abstract, 2. Experimental, 3.1. Microstructure, Figure 1 (A, B)), such that the claimed function, property, or characteristic naturally flows, including a composite layer having a reduced glass-forming temperature Trg of between 0.307 and 0.381.
Regarding claim 29, Hasegawa discloses Tantalum (Ta) of a value up to 50 atomic % Ta (0 at% Ta for Fe80B10Si10 alloy with up to 50% of Fe replaced with Ni: (Fe50-100Ni0-50)80B10Si10) ([0009]-[0014], [0026], [0031], Table IV Fe80B10Si10).
Regarding claim 30, Hasegawa discloses Niobium (Nb) of a value up to 50 atomic % Nb (0 at% Nb for Fe80B10Si10 alloy with up to 50% of Fe replaced with Ni: (Fe50-100Ni0-50)80B10Si10) ([0009]-[0014], [0026], [0031], Table IV Fe80B10Si10).
Alternatively, Hasegawa discloses Niobium (Nb) of a value up to 50 atomic % Nb (amorphous alloy includes 0 to 15 at% Nb) ([0009]-[0014], [0026]). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 31, Hasegawa in view of Turcanova discloses the y-FeNi nanocrystals include (Fe70-Ni30)80 (FCC Fe-Ni phase in an (Fe50-100Ni0-50)80B10Si10 alloy with (Fe50-100Ni0-50)80) (Hasegawa [0009]-[0014], [0026], [0031], Table IV; Turcanova Abstract, 2. Experimental, 3.1. Microstructure), and the Nb having an atomic % selected from the range of 2-5 (amorphous alloy includes 0 to 15 at% Nb) (Hasegawa [0009]-[0014], [0026]). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 32, Hasegawa in view of Turcanova discloses the y-FeNi nanocrystals include (Fe70-Ni30)80 (FCC Fe-Ni phase in an (Fe50-100Ni0-50)80B10Si10 alloy with (Fe50-100Ni0-50)80) (Hasegawa [0009]-[0014], [0026], [0031], Table IV; Turcanova Abstract, 2. Experimental, 3.1. Microstructure), and the Nb having an atomic % selected from the range of 1-2 (amorphous alloy includes 0 to 15 at% Nb) ([0009]-[0014], [0026]). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 33, Hasegawa in view of Turcanova disclose the y-FeNi nanocrystals include (Fe70-Ni30)80 (FCC Fe-Ni phase in an (Fe50-100Ni0-50)80B10Si10 alloy with (Fe50-100Ni0-50)80) (Hasegawa [0009]-[0014], [0026], [0031], Table IV; Turcanova Abstract, 2. Experimental, 3.1. Microstructure), and further comprising Boron ((Fe50-100Ni0-50)80B10Si10 with 10 at% boron) (Hasegawa [0031], Table IV).
The example composition of Hasegawa is silent to Boron with an atomic % selected from the range of 12-16.
Hasegawa discloses 0 to 15 at% boron ([0009]-[0014]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the instant invention in the example composition of Hasegawa to vary the boron content between 0 to 15 atomic% because this is disclosed boron content range (Hasegawa [0009]-[0014]). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 34, Hasegawa in view of Turcanova disclose the y-FeNi nanocrystals include (Fe70-Ni30)80 (FCC Fe-Ni phase in an (Fe50-100Ni0-50)80B10Si10 alloy with (Fe50-100Ni0-50)80) (Hasegawa [0009]-[0014], [0026], [0031], Table IV; Turcanova Abstract, 2. Experimental, 3.1. Microstructure), and further comprising Silicon ((Fe50-100Ni0-50)80B10Si10 with 10 at% silicon) (Hasegawa [0031], Table IV).
The example composition of Hasegawa is silent to Silicon with an atomic % selected from the range of 2-7.
Hasegawa discloses 0 to 10 at% silicon ([0009]-[0014]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the instant invention in the example composition of Hasegawa to vary the silicon content between 0 to 10 atomic% because this is disclosed silicon content range (Hasegawa [0009]-[0014]). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 35, Hasegawa in view of Turcanova disclose the y-FeNi nanocrystals include (Fe70-Ni30)80 (FCC Fe-Ni phase in an (Fe50-100Ni0-50)80B10Si10 alloy with (Fe50-100Ni0-50)80) (Hasegawa [0009]-[0014], [0026], [0031], Table IV; Turcanova Abstract, 2. Experimental, 3.1. Microstructure), and further comprising Silicon with an atomic % selected from the range of 0-2 (amorphous alloy includes 0 to 10 at% silicon) (Hasegawa [0009]-[0014])). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 36, Hasegawa in view of Turcanova disclose the y-FeNi nanocrystals include (Fe70-Ni30)80 (FCC Fe-Ni phase in an (Fe50-100Ni0-50)80B10Si10 alloy with (Fe50-100Ni0-50)80) (Hasegawa [0009]-[0014], [0026], [0031], Table IV; Turcanova Abstract, 2. Experimental, 3.1. Microstructure), the laminate further comprising Boron, Silicon, and Niobium ((Fe50-100Ni0-50)80B10Si10 alloy which further includes 0 to 15 at% Nb) (Hasegawa [0009]-[0014], [0026]). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 37, a value of a difference ATxg between a glass forming temperature and a crystallization temperature being in the range of 100 to 163 has been considered and determined to recite a function, property, or characteristic of the claimed composite layer. The prior art discloses a composite layer that reads on that claimed (Hasegawa [0009]-[0014], [0026], [0031], Table IV; Turcanova Abstract, 2. Experimental, 3.1. Microstructure, Figure 1 (A, B)), such that the claimed function, property, or characteristic naturally flows, including a value of a difference ATxg between a glass forming temperature and a crystallization temperature being in the range of 100 to 163.
Claims 18 and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hasegawa (US 2008/0212644) in view of Turcanova (Turcanova et al. Magnetic and Mechanical Properties of Nanocrystalline Fe-Ni-Nb-B Alloys. The 13th International Conference on Rapidly Quenched and Metastable Materials. Journal pf Physics: Conference Series 144 (2009) 012065.) and Johnson (US 2010/0243946) as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Leary (US 2014/0338793).
Regarding claims 18 and 38, Hasegawa in view of Turcanova is silent to the composite layers each being strain-annealed composites comprising relative magnetic permeability above 10,000.
Leary discloses composite layers each are strain-annealed composites ([0002], [0015], [0035], [0048]-[0052]) with high magnetic permeability ([0004], [0009], [0018], Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the instant invention to strain anneal the alloy of Hasegawa in view of Turcanova to have high magnetic permeability so that the alloy acts as an electromagnetic interference (EMI) shielding material (Leary [0018]) with high squareness that approaches unity (Leary [0040]) that can be idealized for the application (Leary [0061]).
Generally, differences in concentration or temperature (or high magnetic permeability) will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature (or high magnetic permeability) is critical. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
Leary also discloses tunable magnetic permeability ([0002], [0004]) adjusted by strain annealing ([0009]-[0010], [0015], [0035]), where the relationship between increasing stress and decreasing permeability is a general one that is observed ubiquitously ([0041], [0062]). Therefore, the strain-annealing conditions are a result-effective variable that achieves a recognized result of magnetic permeability. The determination of the optimum or workable ranges of the magnetic permeability are characterized by routine experimentation. MPEP 2144.05(II)(B).
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hasegawa (US 2008/0212644) in view of Turcanova (Turcanova et al. Magnetic and Mechanical Properties of Nanocrystalline Fe-Ni-Nb-B Alloys. The 13th International Conference on Rapidly Quenched and Metastable Materials. Journal pf Physics: Conference Series 144 (2009) 012065.) and Johnson (US 2010/0243946) as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Martis (WO 92/15998).
Regarding claim 26, Hasegawa discloses each composite layer comprises (Fe70Ni30)79Nb4Si2B14Cu1 (Fe80B10Si10 alloy with up to 50% of Fe replaced with Ni: (Fe50-100Ni0-50)80B10Si10 with 0 to 10 at% Si, 0 to 15 at% B, and 0 to 15 at% Nb) ([0009]-[0014], [0026], [0031], Table IV). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are close. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Hasegawa is silent to 1 at% Cu.
Martis discloses nanocrystal in an amorphous matrix (1:5-13, 4:14-35, 5:1-19) with a composition that further comprises 1 at% Cu (2:25-27, 4:9-10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in the alloy of Hasegawa to include 1 at% Cu to seed nanocrystalline growth (Martis 2:25-27, 4:9-10).
Related Art
Yoshizawa (JP H11-297521 machine translation)
Yoshizawa discloses a nanocrystalline highly magnetostrictive alloy ([0001]) including Fe, Ni, at least one of Ti, Zr, Hf, V, Nb, Ta, Mo, and W, and Si and B, with crystal grains having an average grain size of 100 nm or less dispersed in an amorphous matrix ([0005]-[0011]) in the form of a thin ribbon of about 3 um to 50 um ([0013]).
Walker (Walker and Greer. Displacive transformations in Fe-Ni nanophase alloys. Materials Science and Engineering A304-306 (2001) 905-909.)
Walker discloses an Fe-Ni-Zr-B alloy with crystalline and amorphous phases, where for a 50/50 ratio of Fe and Ni the primary crystalline phase is c.c.p, gamma, and a boride phase forms around the gamma phase and the nm grain size is dependent upon the milling time (Abstract, 2. Experimental methods, 3. Results and discussion, 4. Conclusions, Figs. 1-4).
Wang (Wang et al. Effect of Ni addition on the glass-forming ability and soft-magnetic properties of FeNiBPNb metallic glasses. Chinese Science Bulletin (2011), 56(36), 3932-3936. STN Abstract.)
Wang discloses a glass-forming alloy with soft-magnetic properties having a composition of (Fe1-xNix)75.5B14.5P7Nb3 (x=0-0.6), where the additive of Ni allows the alloy to approach a eutectic point and increases the thermal stability of the supercooled liquid, where ΔTx is increased from 49 to 75 K, the reduced glass transition temperature, Trg (Tg/Tl), is increased from 0.540 to 0.594, and γ parameters [Tx/(Tg+Tl)] is increased from 0.373 to 0.405 (STN Abstract).
Svec (Svec et al. Interplanar spacings of complex Fe-Ni phases in rapidly quenched Fe-Ni-Nb-B systems. The 13th International Conference on Rapidly Quenched and Metastable Materials. IOP Publishing. Journal of Physics: Conference Series 144 (2009) 012092.)
Svec discloses an (FexNiy)81Nb7B12 alloy for y/x of 1/3 in the form of an approximately 20-25 um thick ribbon (2. Experimental) that undergoes nanocrystallization and form fcc(γ)-FeNi nanocrystals (3. Results and discussion, Figs. 1, 3, 4).
Svec ‘258 (WO 2014/182258)
Svec ‘258 discloses a metallic glass material (p. 2) of (FexNiy)93-zNb7Bz-1Cu1 where y/x is 1/3 and z is 10 to 30 (p. 3) with a specified glass transition temperature (p. 5).
Shen (CN 102867608 machine translation)
Shen discloses an FeNi-based amorphous soft magnet alloy ([0002], [0015]) with a composition of FeaNibBcSidPeNbf ([0017]-[0023]), such as an Fe54.6Ni23.4B14.2Si2.75P2.75Nb2.3 alloy ((Fe70Ni30)78(B-Si-P)22) (3-3 Table 3).
Inoue (JP 2012-201943 machine translation)
Inoue discloses a metallic glass ([0001]) including FeaCobNicBxSiyMz, where M is Nb and/or Ta, and the metallic glass has a thickness of 10 to 25 um ([0015]-[0020]).
McHenry (US 2010/0265028)
McHenry discloses a soft magnetic alloy ([0035]) nanocomposite ([0014]) with a composition of ((Fe1-x-yCoxMy)100-a-b-cTaBbNc ([0014]-[0016], [0038]-[0044]) in the form of an amorphous ribbon ([0019]) heat treated to produce a nanocomposite ([0017], [0050]) with crystalline grains less than or equal to 20 nm in an amorphous matrix ([0017], [0036], [0050]) with T being Nb, a grain growth inhibitor element ([0015], [0038], [0042]).
Glezer (Glezer et al. Pinning of nanocrystals growth at Fe-Ni-B amorphous alloy crystallization: Atom probe investigations. Materials Letters. 160 (2015) 339-342.)
Glezer discloses an Fe50Ni33B17 amorphous alloy ribbon that is 20 um thick (2. Results and discussion para. 1) with FCC γ(Fe,Ni) nanocrystals of 20-25 nm in size (2. Results and discussion paras. 2-3), where boron has a small solubility in γ(Fe,Ni) such that it precipitates in the amorphous phase at the border of the nanocrystal (2. Results and discussion paras. 3, 10), forming a barrier layer that retards crystal growth (3. Conclusions).
He (He et al. Studies of crystallization and soft magnetic properties of FeNiMoB(Si) alloys. Journal of Magnetism and Magnetic Materials 316 (2007) 34-39.)
He discloses an Fe40Ni38Mo4B18 alloy annealed between 430-450°C with a single-crystalline FCC phase with composition near Ni3Fe solid solution and grain size of about 10 nm in the amorphous matrix (Abstract) with good magnetic properties, such as magnetic permeability of 24,900 or 31,600 (Table 2) (4. Conclusions). He discloses the solubility of boron in iron or nickel is very low such that the FCC nanocrystalline phase is mainly Ni and Fe (3. Experimental results and analyses).
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHANI HILL whose telephone number is (571)272-2523. The examiner can normally be reached Monday, Wednesday-Friday 7am-12pm.
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, KEITH WALKER can be reached on 571-272-3458. 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.
/STEPHANI HILL/Examiner, Art Unit 1735
