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 .
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 September 24, 2025.
Claims Filing Date
September 24, 2025
Amended
17
New
21-38
Cancelled
1-16, 20
Pending
17-19, 21-38
Applicant’s specification at [00040] and [00056] recites Ni in the 20%-80% range, supporting amended claim 17 lines 10-11 “(FeyNi100-y)x,…where y is selected from a range of 60-80”. When y is 60, 100-60 is 40. When y is 80, 100-80 is 20. Ni of 20% to 40% is within the scope of [00040].
With respect to new claim 23, applicant’s specification at [00013] recites that the “nanocomposite comprises 30 atomic% or less of cobalt (Co)”.
With respect to new claim 24, applicant’s specification at [00094] recites “Superplasticity can simply be defined as the ability of a material to undergo significant plastic deformation in tension without rupture.”
With respect to new claim 27, applicant’s Table 1 presents ΔTxg values ranging from 48 to 183, where the claimed ranges of a difference between a primary crystallization temperature Tx and a glass transition temperature Tg of between 150 and 183 falls within the scope of the range of Table 1.
With respect to new claim 28, applicant’s Table 1 presents Trg values ranging from 0.238 to 0.381, where the claimed range of between 0.307 and 0.381 falls within the scope of the range of Table 1.
With respect to new claim 37, applicant’s Table 1 presents ΔTxg values ranging from 48 to 183, where the claimed ranges of a difference between a primary crystallization temperature Tx and a glass transition temperature Tg of between 100 and 163 falls within the scope of the range of Table 1.
Withdrawn Title Objection
The following title objection is withdrawn due to argument:
The title of the invention not being descriptive.
The applicant persuasively argues the features of the amended claims are direct to Fe-Ni nanocomposite alloys (Remarks para. spanning pp. 7-8).
Withdrawn Abstract Objection
The following objection is withdrawn due to abstract amendment:
Legal phraseology “comprising”.
Withdrawn Drawings Objections
The following drawings objections are withdrawn due to specification amendment:
[00052] recites “The binary Fe-Ni phase diagram can be seen in FIGS. 8a-b.” There is a FIG. 8, but not FIGS. 8a nor 8b. [0029] recites “FIG. 7 shows Fe-Ni binary phase diagram.” and [0030] recites “FIG. 8 shows saturation magnetization as a function of composition in as-cast alloys.”
[00053] recites “FIG. 8B plots the Tc for the γ-FeNi phase and the α-Fe phase as a function of composition.” There is no FIG. 8B.
[00054] states “γ-FeNi, or an ordered L12 (FIG. 1) structure”. According to [00050], “FIG. 2B shows alloy 210 includes L12 FeNi3.” According to [00040], “FIG. 1 shows a nanocomposite material 100”.
FIG. 4 includes reference characters 410, 420, and 430 now mentioned in amended [00061].
FIG. 7 includes reference character 700 now mentioned in amended [00052].
Withdrawn Claim Objection
The following objection is withdrawn due to claim amendment:
Claim 17 lines 6-7 “between one or more of the γ-FeNi nanocrystals the amorphous matrix”.
Withdrawn Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following 112(b) rejections are withdrawn due to claim amendment:
Claim 17 lines 1-2 “rotor laminate comprising: one or more composite layers”.
Claim 17 line 6 “one or more boron diffusion barriers”.
Claims 18 and 19 line 1 “wherein composite layers”.
Response to Arguments
Kopcewicz in view of Johnson, Park, and optionally Yoshizawa
Applicant’s claim amendments, see claim 17 lines 10-11, filed September 24, 2025, with respect to Park have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of Kopcewicz in view of Johnson, Park, and optionally Yoshizawa has been withdrawn.
Amended claim 17 lines 10-11 recite “(FeyNi100-y)x, where x is selected from a range of 75-85, and where y is selected from a range of 60-80”. Park discloses Ni80-xMxB16Si4 where M is Fe and x is 9 or 11 (Experimental, Fig. 1). Therefore, Park discloses (Fe0.11Ni0.89)80B16Si4 and (Fe0.14Ni0.86)80B16Si4, which is outside the scope of amended claim 17.
Kopcewicz in view of Johnson, Martis, and optionally Yoshizawa
Applicant’s claim amendments, see claim 17 lines 10-13, filed September 24, 2025, with respect to Kopcewicz in view of Johnson, Martis, and optionally Yoshizawa have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of Kopcewicz in view of Johnson, Martis, and optionally Yoshizawa has been withdrawn.
Amended claim 17 lines 10-13 recite “γ-FeNi nanocrystals include (FeyNi100-y)x, wherein x is selected from a range of 75-85, and where y is selected from a range of 60-80; wherein an average diameter of the γ-FeNi nanocrystals is between 5nm-30nm and have an average shape factor between 0.9 and 1.1”.
New Grounds
In light of claim amendment and upon further consideration new grounds of rejection are made over 112(a), 112(b), and Turcova in view of Johnson and optionally Yoshizawa.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 17 line 7 “the diffusion barrier” is interpreted as having antecedent basis to claim 17 line 6 “a boron diffusion barrier”.
Claim Objection
Claims 27 and 37 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Reciting the same property using different language. For consistency, when the same property is being claimed the same claim language should be used.
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 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” fails to comply with the written description requirement. With respect to the composition of the γ-FeNi nanocrystals, 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.
Claim 17 lines 10-11 “(FeyNi100-y)x, where x is selected from a range of 75-85” fails to comply with the written description requirement. Applicant’s Table 1 examples have x of 80. Applicant’s specification at [00077] recite “(FexNi1-x)80Nb4Si2B14”. Applicant’s specification does not support x being selected from a range of 75-85.
Claim 17 line 13 “average shape factor between 0.9 and 1.1” fails to comply with the written description requirement. Applicant’s specification at [00093] mentions the term “shape factor” as being “typically between 0.9 and 1”. Applicant’s specification does not support a shape factor outside of this disclosed range nor an “average” shape factor.
Claim 22 lines 1-2 “each composite layer comprises a magnetic anisotropy” fails to comply with the written description requirement. Applicant’s specification such as [00018], [00020], and [00059] recite magnetic anisotropy along the ribbon direction, which is transverse to the ribbon axis. In contrast, new claim 22 does not limit the direction of the magnetic anisotropy of the layer, such that it is broader than what is supported by applicant’s specification.
Claim 25 line 2 “(Fe-Ni)80(Nb-Si-B)20” fails to comply with the written description requirement. Applicant’s specification at [0008] recites “(Fe70Ni30)80(B-Si-Nb)20” and at [00077] “(FexNi1-x)80Nb4Si2B14”. Applicant’s specification supports “(B-Si-Nb)20” in combination with “(Fe70Ni30)80” or (Fe-Ni)80 as (FexNi1-x)80 in combination with Nb4Si2B14. Neither of these combinations are recited in claim 25.
Claim 26 line 2 “(FexNi100-x)79Nb4Si2B14Cu1” fails to comply with the written description requirement. Applicant’s specification at [000109] recites an “(Fe70Ni30)79Nb4Si2B14Cu1” alloy, which requires a specific amount of Fe and Ni with x being 70. In contrast, x in pending claim 26 is not limited, such that it is broader than what is supported by applicant’s specification.
Claim 29 line 1 “further comprising Tantalum (Ta)” fails to comply with the written description requirement. Applicant’s specification at [00013] and [00075] recite the nanocomposite includes 50 atomic% or less of one or more of metals including tantalum (Ta). While pending claim 29 recites the presence of tantalum, it does not limit the amount of tantalum such that it is broader than what is supported by applicant’s specification.
Claim 30 line 1 “further comprising Niobium (Nb)” fails to comply with the written description requirement. Applicant’s specification at [00013] and [00075] recite the nanocomposite includes 50 atomic% or less of one or more of metals including niobium (Nb). While pending claim 30 recites the presence of niobium, it does not limit the amount of niobium present such that it is broader than what is supported by applicant’s specification.
Claim 31 lines 1-2 “the Nb having an atomic % selected from the range of 2-5” fails to comply with the written description requirement. Applicant’s specification at [00013] and [00075] recite the nanocomposite includes 50 atomic% or less of one or more of metals including niobium (Nb). However, applicant does not specifically recite a condition in which the one or more metals is niobium (Nb) nor that niobium is present in a range of 2-5 at%.
Claim 33 lines 1-2 “Boron with an atomic % selected from the range of 12-16” fails to comply with the written description requirement. Applicant’s specification at [00013] and [00075] recite the nanocomposite includes 50 atomic% or less of one or more of metals including boron (B). However, applicant does not specifically recite a condition in which the one or more metals is boron (B) nor that boron is present in a range of 12-16 at%. Further, in applicant’s Table 1 the examples include B in a range of 4 to 18, however all of these examples also require (Fe70Ni30)80 and specific amounts of Si and Nb. In contrast, pending claim 33 is not limited to this Fe and Ni composition nor does it require amounts of Si and Nb within the scope of the examples of Table 1.
Claim 34 lines 1-2 “Silicon with an atomic % selected from the range of 2-7” fails to comply with the written description requirement. Applicant’s specification at [00013] and [00075] recite the nanocomposite includes 50 atomic% or less of one or more of metals including silicon (Si). However, applicant does not specifically recite a condition in which the one or more metals is silicon (Si) nor that silicon is present in a range of 2-7 at%. Further, in applicant’s Table 1 the examples include Si in a range of 0 to 8.5, however all of these examples also require (Fe70Ni30)80 and specific amounts of B and Nb. In contrast, pending claim 34 is not limited to this Fe and Ni composition nor does it require amounts of B and Nb within the scope of the examples of Table 1.
Claim 35 lines 1-2 “Silicon with an atomic % selected from the range of 0-2” fails to comply with the written description requirement. Applicant’s specification at [00013] and [00075] recite the nanocomposite includes 50 atomic% or less of one or more of metals including silicon (Si). However, applicant does not specifically recite a condition in which the one or more metals is silicon (Si) nor that silicon is present in a range of 0-2 at%. Further, in applicant’s Table 1 the examples include Si in a range of 0 to 8.5, however all of these examples also require (Fe70Ni30)80 and specific amounts of B and Nb. In contrast, pending claim 34 is not limited to this Fe and Ni composition nor does it require amounts of B and Nb within the scope of the examples of Table 1.
Claim 36 line 2 “(Fe70Ni30), the laminate further comprising Boron, Silicon, and Niobium” fails to comply with the written description requirement. Applicant’s specification at [00013] and [00075] recite the nanocomposite includes 50 atomic% or less of one or more of metals including boron (B), silicon (Si), and niobium (Nb). However, applicant does not specifically recite a condition in which the one or more metals is boron (B), silicon (Si), and niobium (Nb). Further, in applicant’s Table 1 the examples include combinations of B, Si, and Nb with (Fe70Ni30)80 and specific amounts of B, Si, and Nb. In contrast, pending claim 34 is not limited to this Fe and Ni composition nor does it require amounts of B, Si, and Nb within the scope of the examples of Table 1.
Claim 38 line 2 “stain-annealed composites comprising relative magnetic permeabilities between 100-9000” fails to comply with the written description requirement. Applicant’s specification at [00013] and [00015] recites a strain-annealed structure with a relative magnetic permeability above 10,000 and at [000102] an example with a stain annealed magnetic permeability of 16,000. The range of claim 38 is less than the range supported by applicant’s specification.
Claims 18, 19, 21, 23, 24, 27, 28, 32, and 37 are rejected as depending from claim 17.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 17-19 and 21-38 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 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” renders the claim indefinite. If x is 75-85, then what is the balance of the γ-FeNi such that it totals to 100?
Claim 17 line 13 “an average shape factor between 0.9 and 1.1” renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear what a shape factor is with respect to the y-FeNi nanocrystals and how it is determined.
Claim 26 line 2 “(FexNi100-x)79Nb4Si2B14Cu1” renders the claim indefinite. Claim 26 depends from claim 17, which recites in lines 10-11 “(FeyNi100-y)x, where x is selected from a range of 75-85”. It is unclear how x in claim 17 is related to the proportion of the combination of Fe and Ni, but in claim 26 the same variable x is related to the amount of Fe relative to the amount of Ni. It is also unclear in claim 26 if and/or how y is related to the composition of claim 26.
Claim 31 line 1 “the Nb” renders the claim indefinite. Claim 31 depends from claim 29, which recites in line 1 “Tantalum (Ta)”. Claim 29 depends from claim 17, which does not recite Nb. Therefore, there is insufficient antecedent basis.
Claim 32 line 1 “the Nb” renders the claim indefinite. Claim 32 depends from claim 29, which recites in line 1 “Tantalum (Ta)”. Claim 29 depends from claim 17, which does not recite Nb. Therefore, there is insufficient antecedent basis.
Claim 32 lines 1-2 “the Nb having an atomic % selected from the range of 0 to 2” renders the claim indefinite. How can the rotor or stator laminate further comprise Nb and have 0 at% Nb, which is no Nb?
For the purpose of examination claims 17, 26, 31, and 32 will be interpreted as requiring the features as recited in the respective claims.
Claims 18, 19, 21-25, 27-30, and 33-38 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 Turcanov (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)x, where x is selected from a range of 75-85, and where y is selected from a range of 60-80 ((Fe0.75Ni0.25)81Nb7B12, x is 81 and y is 75; (Fe0.67Ni0.33)81Nb7B12, x is 81 and 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 between 0.9 and 1.1 (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 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 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, the magnetic anisotropy 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 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, a difference between a primary crystallization temperature Tx and a glass transition 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 Turcavnoa, (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 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 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 Turcavnoa, (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 Turcanov (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 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
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 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 Turcanov (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 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 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 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 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 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 the Nb having an atomic % selected from the range of 0 to 2 (0at%) ((Fe0.75Ni0.25)81Nb7B12; (Fe0.67Ni0.33)81Nb7B12) (Abstract, 1. Introduction para. 2).
Turcanova in view of Martis discloses Nb having an atomic % selected from the range of o 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 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 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 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).
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]).
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]).
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.
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-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
/KEITH WALKER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1735