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
Receipt is acknowledged of a certified copy of JP 2020-165903 filed September 30, 2020 as required by 37 CFR 1.55. Receipt is also acknowledged of WO 2022/070499, a copy of the WIPO publication of PCT/JP 2021/018300 filed May 13, 2021.
Claim Status
This Office Action is in response to Applicant’s Remarks and Claim Amendments filed June 2, 2026.
Filing Date
June 2, 2026
Amended
1, 6
Cancelled
2-4
Pending
1, 5-13
The applicant argues amended claims 1 and 6 have a minimum “b” value of 0.001 as supported by [0041] (p. 4 para. 1).
Response to Remarks filed June 2, 2026
Katsuto
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks p. 5, filed June 2, 2026, with respect to Katsuto have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of Katsuto has been withdrawn.
The applicant persuasively argues b is 0.001 or more for improving corrosion resistance as evidenced by the higher corrosion potential and lower corrosion current density for samples with 0.001≤b≤0.070 (applicant’s [0041], Tables 3A to 3B) (p. 5 para. 3), whereas Katsuto does not disclose P (p. 5 para. 4).
New Grounds
In light of claim amendment a new grounds of rejection is made over Katsuto in view of Zhou.
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 1, 6-8, 10, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Katsuto (JP S58-225613 including machine translation) in view of Zhou (CN 101840764 machine translation).
Regarding claim 1, Katsuto discloses a soft magnetic alloy with a composition that falls within the scope of that claimed ((CoxFe1-x)75Mn0.5Si10B14.5 where x = 0.4) (p. 60 col. 2 para. 2, Fig. 1).
Variable
Range
Katsuto
a
0.020 to 0.200
0.145
b
0 to 0.070
(0 to 0.050)
0
c
0 to 0.100
0.10
d
0 to 0.050
0
e
0 to 0.040
(0.001 to 0.020)
0
f
0.002 to 2.800 at%
0.5
alpha
0.150 to 0.500
0.4
beta
0 to 0.200
(0.001 to 0.050)
0
gamma
0 to < 0.030
(>0 to < 0.030)
0
1-(a+b+c+d+e)
0.720 to 0.900
(0.780 to 0.890)
0.75
f/alpha(1-gamma)(1-(a+b+c+d+e))
0.050 to 8.0
0.94
Katsuto is silent to P, b, of 0.001 to 0.070.
Zhou discloses a soft magnetic alloy ([0002], [0016]) with 0.002 to 5 at% P (0.00002 to 0.05 atomic ratio) ([0034]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in the soft magnetic alloy of Katsuto to include 0.002 to 5 at% P to enhance amorphous formation and inhibit crystallization without decreasing the saturation magnetic induction (Zhou [0034]). 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 6, Katsuto in view of Zhou discloses 0.001 ≤ b ≤ 0.050 is satisfied (0.002 to 5 at%, 0.00002 to 0.05) (Zhou [0034]). 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 7, the (CoxFe1-x)75Mn0.5Si10B14.5, x = 0.4 example of Katsuto (p. 60 col. 2 para. 2, Fig. 1) is silent to 0.780 ≤ 1-(a+b+c+d+e) ≤ 0.890.
Katsuto discloses M is selected from Co, Fe, and Ni and is 50 to 95 (0.50 to 0.95) (Abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in the example of Katsuto to vary the Co and Fe content from 0.50 to 0.95 because this is within the scope of the inventive alloy composition of Katsuto (Abstract), which has reduced variation in squareness resulting from non-uniformity of internal stresses and excellent squareness (Katsuto Abstract, machine translation p. 1 para. 1). 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 8, the (CoxFe1-x)75Mn0.5Si10B14.5, x = 0.4 example of Katsuto (p. 60 col. 2 para. 2, Fig. 1) is silent to 0.001 ≤ β ≤ 0.050.
Katsuto discloses M is selected from Co, Fe, and Ni (Abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in the example of Katsuto to include Ni with the Co and Fe because this is within the scope of the inventive alloy composition of Katsuto (Abstract), which has reduced variation in squareness resulting from non-uniformity of internal stresses and excellent squareness (Katsuto Abstract, machine translation p. 1 para. 1). 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 10, Katsuto discloses an amorphous alloy (Abstract) inventive composition (machine translation p. 1), which reads on a more than 50% amorphous ratio X. 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 13, Katsuto discloses a magnetic component (core) made of the soft magnet alloy according to claim 1 (Abstract, p. 60 col. 2 para. 2, Fig. 1, machine translation).
Claims 5, 8, 9, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Katsuto (JP S58-225613 including machine translation) in view of Zhou (CN 101840764 machine translation) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yoshizawa (US 2010/0040503).
Regarding claim 5, the (CoxFe1-x)75Mn0.5Si10B14.5, x = 0.4 example of Katsuto (p. 60 col. 2 para. 2, Fig. 1) is silent to 0.001 ≤ e ≤ 0.020.
Yoshizawa discloses a soft magnetic alloy ([0001]) with Cr of less than 1 atomic% (less than 0.01) ([0020]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in the example composition of Katsuto to include less than 1 at% of Cr to help fine crystal grains grow and contribute to improvement in soft magnetic properties (Yoshizawa [0020]). Therefore, α(1-γ){1-(a+b+c+d+e)} x e x 10000, is less than 30, (0.4(1-0)(0.75)*0.01*10000, where minimum b of 0.002 at% does not change the upper limit) (Zhou [0034]). 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 8, the (CoxFe1-x)75Mn0.5Si10B14.5, x = 0.4 example of Katsuto (p. 60 col. 2 para. 2, Fig. 1) is silent to 0.001 ≤ β ≤ 0.050.
Yoshizawa discloses a soft magnetic alloy ([0001]) with less than 2 at% Ni relative to the amount of Fe ([0019]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in the example composition of Katsuto to include less than 2 at% Ni relative to the amount of Fe to control induced magnetic anisotropy and improve corrosion resistance (Yoshizawa [0019]). 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 9, the (CoxFe1-x)75Mn0.5Si10B14.5, x = 0.4 example of Katsuto (p. 60 col. 2 para. 2, Fig. 1) is silent to 0 < γ < 0.030.
Yoshizawa discloses a soft magnetic alloy ([0001]) with at least one of Ti, Zr, Hf, V, Nb, Ta, Mo, W, Re, Au, Ag, Zn, In, Sn, As, Sb, Bi, Y, N, O, and rare earth elements of less than 1 atomic% (less than 0.01) ([0020]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in the example composition of Katsuto to include less than 1 at% of at least one of Ti, Zr, Hf, V, Nb, Ta, Mo, W, Re, Au, Ag, Zn, In, Sn, As, Sb, Bi, Y, N, O, and rare earth elements to help fine crystal grains grow and contribute to improvement in soft magnetic properties (Yoshizawa [0020]). Therefore, γ is less than 0.01. 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 11, Katsuto discloses a thin plate (Abstract, machine translation p. 1).
Katsuto is silent to the alloy being in a form of powder.
Yoshizawa discloses a soft magnetic alloy ([0001]) that is a thin film (plate) or powder ([0030]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the example composition of Katsuto to be a powder because it is capable of giving excellent characteristics and it is an art recognized equivalent of a ribbon (Yoshizawa [0030]). It is prima facie obvious to substitute equivalents known for the same purpose. MPEP 2144.06(II).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Katsuto (JP S58-225613 including machine translation), Zhou (CN 101840764 machine translation), and Yoshizawa (US 2010/0040503) as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Inoue (JP 2010-212442).
Regarding claim 12, Katsuto in view of Zhou and Yoshizawa is silent to the average Wadell’s circularity of the powder.
Inoue discloses amorphous soft magnetic powder ([0001]) with a Wadell’s sphericity preferably 0.90 or more ([0022]-[0025], [0048]-[0049]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form the powder of Katsuto in view of Yoshizawa with a Wadell’s sphericity (circularity) of 0.90 or more to advantageously reduce the number of contacts between powder particles, enabling higher packing density during compaction, resulting in higher green density and magnetic permeability (Inoue [0023]) and enabling production by low pressure molding (Inoue [0024]). 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).
Related Art
Blazquez (Blazquez et al. Influence of Mn and Cu addition on the hyperfine parameters of amorphous and nanocrystalline FeCoNbB alloys. Journal of Alloys and Compounds 370 (2004) 36-42.)
Blazquez discloses an amorphous ribbon with a composition of Fe37Co39Mn2Nb6B16 (2. Experimental, x=2, y=0).
Ishida (JP H01-119642 machine translation)
Ishida discloses a soft magnetic material with 25-65 wt% Co, 0.005-1.0 wt% B, 0.05-5.0 wt% Mn, and balance of Fe (Abstract, pp. 1-2, Table 1).
Zhou ‘812 (CN 101935812 machine translation)
Zhou ‘812 discloses an iron-based amorphous soft magnetic alloy ([0002], [0014]) including 0.002 to 8 at% P to reduce the saturation magnetic induction without dropping it very low and to also improve the amorphous forming ability of the alloy ([0052]).
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, 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
Prosecution Insights