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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 August 17, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment and Status of Claims
Applicant’s amendments to the claims, filed August 17, 2026, is acknowledged. Claims 1 and 10-11 are amended. Claim 6 is cancelled. No new matter has been added.
Claims 1, 5, 8, 10-11 and 13-17 are currently pending and considered in this office action.
Claim Interpretation
Regarding Claim 1, “wherein a permeability of a magnetic core at 100 kHz is 5,500 or more, wherein the permeability at 100 kHz is measured by a method in which the magnetic core in which a ribbon sheet having a thickness of 20 um and a width of 20 mm, which is implemented with the Fe-based soft magnetic alloy, is wound to have an outer diameter of 20 mm and an inner diameter of 10 mm” is interpreted to mean wherein a magnetic core, comprising a ribbon sheet having a thickness of 20um and a width of 20mm and formed of the Fe-based soft magnetic alloy, when wound to have an outer diameter of 20mm and an inner diameter of 10mm, comprises a permeability at 100kHz of 5,500 or more.
Regarding Claim 1 and Claim 11, “a volume fraction of the grains is 60% or more” is interpreted as the alloy comprising 60vol% or more crystallinity.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 1, and dependent Claims 5, 8, 10 and 16-17, and Claim 11, and dependent Claims 13-15, 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.
Regarding Claim 1 and Claim 11, a broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, Claim 1 and Claim 11 recite wherein b+c+d+e is greater than 15.5, but the claimed values of b, c, d and e comprise a range for b+c+d+e only as low as 15.8. Therefore, the claim comprises a broad range (>15.5) and a narrower range (≥15.8). The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 5, 8, 10-11 and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Couderchon (previously cited, US 5911840 A) in view of Bitoh (US 6083325 A) and Yoshidome (US 20180247745 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Claim 5, Claim 8 and Claim 10, Couderchon discloses a nanocrystalline soft magnetic alloy (Abstract), comprising the empirical formula FeaBbCcCudNbe and the composition:
Element/Variable
Claim 1 (at%)
Couderchon (at%)
Citation (Col. 2)
Fe, a
79.0-82.0
≥60
line 35-36
B, b
14.0-17.0
0-25, pref. 15-25 when Si is 0%
line 43-46
C, c
0.5-2.0
silent (0%)
Cu, d
0.5-1.2
0.1-3, pref. 0.5-1.5
line 37
Nb, e
0.8-3.0
pref. 2-4
line 42
Couderchon discloses wherein Si may be 0at% (Abstract).
Further, Bitoh teaches wherein alloys containing Si require longer annealing times which is not preferable because magnetic characteristics do not improve with more annealing time, productivity decreases, and because excessive annealing times cause nucleation due to an inhomogeneous component distribution resulting in nonuniform grain sizes which deteriorate magnetic properties (Col. 3, lines 22-32).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included 0% Si, as disclosed by Couderchon, and as taught by Bitoh, in order to reduce annealing times, thereby preventing decreases in productivity and nonuniform grain sizes which can deteriorate magnetic properties (see teaching above).
Couderchon is silent towards C.
Yoshidome teaches 0.5-1at% C in order to improve the amorphous property, while also lowering coercive force and improving production stability (para. [0048]; para. [0055]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included 0.5-1at% C, which reads on the claimed 0.5-2at% C, as taught by Yoshidome, for the invention disclosed by Couderchon, in order to improve the amorphous property, while also lowering coercive force and improving production stability (see teaching above).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to have comprised an alloy including 0% Si (see teaching by Bitoh), 15% B (see preferred range for B+Si, at least 15%; Col. 2, lines 43-46), 0.5-1at% C (see teaching by Yoshidome), 2% Nb (see preferred range, at least 2%) and 0.5-1.5% Cu (see preferred range), and the rest Fe such that:
variable, equation
Claim 1
Couderchon, Bitoh and Yoshidome
a
79-82
79.5-82
b
14-17
15
c
0.5-2
0.5-1
d
0.5-1.2
0.5-1.5
e
0.8-3
2
b+c+d+e
15.5-22
18-19.5
(a+e)/b
4.7-6.0
5.4-5.6
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP § 2144.05.I.
Couderchon further discloses an grain size of 10-20nm in an amorphous matrix, which reads on the claimed 30nm or less (Col. 3, lines 11-14).
Couderchon fails to disclose (Claim 1) the volume fraction of crystalline grains (crystallinity) and particle size distribution at a depth of 5um from the surface, the (Claim 8) absence of a coarse grain at a depth of 5um from the surface, or the (Claim 5) claimed magnetic properties (saturation magnetic flux density, coercive force and core loss).
However, Couderchon, Bitoh and Yoshidome disclose the same composition as claimed and Couderchon discloses the same method as claimed (see Table below).
Specifically, Couderchon discloses a recrystallization heat treatment from 500-600C for at least 0.1 hour (6 min), followed by a second annealing step below the recrystallization temperature (i.e., Tx1), for a time such as 1 hour, in order to modify the shape of the hysteresis loop (Col. 3, lines 14-21, lines 27-34; Col. 4, lines 59-63).
One of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that 500C is at least the Tx1 (recrystallization initiation temperature) because precipitation of nanocrystals (crystallization) occurs at this temperature (Col. 3, lines 10-13). Couderchon also discloses that 480C is below the onset temperature for recrystallization, such that 500C is at most Tx1+20C. A crystallization annealing temperature of 500C is therefore within the range of Tx1 to Tx1+20C, which reads on the claimed range of Tx1 to Tx1+60C.
In summary, Couderchon discloses:
Process Step
Instant invention
Claim
Couderchon
T1 annealing T
Tx1 to Tx1+60C
11
Tx1 to Tx1+20C
T1 annealing time
2-30 minutes
14
at least 6 min
T2 annealing T
T1-15 to T1-60C
11
<Tx1
Tx1-55C to Tx1+20C
13
<Tx1
T2 annealing time
5-70 minutes
15
1 hour (60 min)
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that the invention of Couderchon, Bitoh and Yoshidome would comprise the claimed (Claim 1) volume fraction of crystalline grains (crystallinity) and particle size distribution at a depth of 5um from the surface, the claimed (Claim 8) absence of a coarse grain at a depth of 5um from the surface, and the claimed (Claim 5) magnetic properties (saturation magnetic flux density, coercive force and core loss), because the alloy of Couderchon, Bitoh and Yoshidome comprises the same composition and manufacturing process as the instant and claimed invention. When the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP 2112.01.
Regarding the claimed limitation (Claim 1) “wherein a permeability of a magnetic core at 100 kHz is 5,500 or more, wherein the permeability at 100 kHz is measured by a method in which the magnetic core in which a ribbon sheet having a thickness of 20 um and a width of 20 mm, which is implemented with the Fe-based soft magnetic alloy, is wound to have an outer diameter of 20 mm and an inner diameter of 10 mm”, and the claimed limitation (Claim 10) “wherein a real part of a complex permeability of a flaked magnetic sheet formed of the Fe-based soft magnetic alloy is 1000 or more”, these are intended use limitations.
One of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that the Fe-based soft magnetic alloy of Couderchon, Bitoh and Yoshidome would behave the same as claimed when implemented in the claimed manner of a magnetic core or in the claimed manner as a flaked magnetic sheet because the claimed composition and manufacturing process, and therefore the claimed soft magnetic alloy, is disclosed by Couderchon, Bitoh and Yoshidome. All structural limitations have been met.
Regarding Claim 11, Claim 13, Claim 14 and Claim 15, Couderchon discloses a method of manufacturing an Fe-based soft magnetic alloy (Abstract), comprising:
Preparing an Fe-based initial alloy represented by the empirical formula FeaBbCcCudNbe and comprising the composition:
Element/Variable
Claim 11 (at%)
Couderchon (at%)
Citation (Col. 2)
Fe, a
79.0-82.0
≥60
line 35-36
B, b
14.0-17.0
0-25, pref. 15-25 when Si is 0%
line 43-46
C, c
0.5-2.0
silent (0%)
Cu, d
0.5-1.2
0.1-3, pref. 0.5-1.5
line 37
Nb, e
0.8-3.0
pref. 2-4
line 42
Couderchon discloses wherein Si may be 0at% (Abstract).
Further, Bitoh teaches wherein alloys containing Si require longer annealing times which is not preferable because magnetic characteristics do not improve with more annealing time, productivity decreases, and because excessive annealing times cause nucleation due to an inhomogeneous component distribution resulting in nonuniform grain sizes which deteriorate magnetic properties (Col. 3, lines 22-32).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included 0% Si, as disclosed by Couderchon, and as taught by Bitoh, in order to reduce annealing times, thereby preventing decreases in productivity and nonuniform grain sizes which can deteriorate magnetic properties (see teaching above).
Couderchon is silent towards C.
Yoshidome teaches 0.5-1at% C in order to improve the amorphous property, while also lowering coercive force and improving production stability (para. [0048]; para. [0055]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included 0.5-1at% C, which reads on the claimed 0.5-2at% C, as taught by Yoshidome, for the invention disclosed by Couderchon, in order to improve the amorphous property, while also lowering coercive force and improving production stability (see teaching above).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to have comprised an alloy including 0% Si (see teaching by Bitoh), 15% B (see preferred range for B+Si, at least 15%; Col. 2, lines 43-46), 0.5-1at% C (see teaching by Yoshidome), 2% Nb (see preferred range, at least 2%) and 0.5-1.5% Cu (see preferred range), and the rest Fe such that:
variable, equation
Claim 1
Couderchon, Bitoh and Yoshidome
a
79-82
79.5-82
b
14-17
15
c
0.5-2
0.5-1
d
0.5-1.2
0.5-1.5
e
0.8-3
2
b+c+d+e
15.5-22
18-19.5
(a+e)/b
4.7-6.0
5.4-5.6
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP § 2144.05.I.
Couderchon further discloses subjecting the Fe-based initial alloy to a recrystallization heat treatment (first heat treatment T1) from 500-600C for at least 0.1 hour (6 min), followed by a second annealing step (second heat treatment T2) below the recrystallization temperature (i.e., Tx1), for a time such as 1 hour, in order to modify the shape of the hysteresis loop (Col. 3, lines 14-21, lines 27-34; Col. 4, lines 59-63).
One of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that 500C is at least the Tx1 (recrystallization initiation temperature) because precipitation of nanocrystals (crystallization) occurs at this temperature (Col. 3, lines 10-13). Couderchon also discloses that 480C is below the onset temperature for recrystallization, such that 500C is at most Tx1+20C. A crystallization annealing temperature of 500C is therefore within the range of Tx1 to Tx1+20C, which reads on the claimed range of Tx1 to Tx1+60C.
Therefore, Couderchon discloses the claimed steps:
Process Step
Instant invention
Claim
Couderchon
T1 annealing T
Tx1 to Tx1+60C
11
Tx1 to Tx1+20C
T1 annealing time
2-30 minutes
14
at least 6 min
T2 annealing T
T1-15 to T1-60C
11
<Tx1
Tx1-55C to Tx1+20C
13
<Tx1
T2 annealing time
5-70 minutes
15
1 hour (60 min)
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP § 2144.05.I.
Couderchon further discloses an grain size of 10-20nm in an amorphous matrix, which reads on the claimed 30nm or less (Col. 3, lines 11-14), but fails to disclose the volume fraction of crystalline grains (crystallinity) and particle size distribution at a depth of 5um from the surface.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that the invention of Couderchon, Bitoh and Yoshidome would comprise the claimed volume fraction of crystalline grains (crystallinity) and particle size distribution at a depth of 5um from the surface because the alloy of Couderchon, Bitoh and Yoshidome comprise the same composition and manufacturing process as the instant and claimed invention. When the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP 2112.01.
Claim 16 and Claim 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Couderchon (previously cited, US 5911840 A) in view of Bitoh (US 6083325 A) and Yoshidome (US 20180247745 A1), as applied to Claim 1 above, in further in view of Jang (previously cited, US 20140362505 A1).
Regarding Claim 16 and Claim 17, Couderchon fails to disclose (Claim 16) an electromagnetic shielding material which comprises the soft magnetic alloy, and the (Claim 17) manufacturing thereof.
Jang teaches an electromagnetic shielding material comprising a Fe-based alloy made by laminating a single layer of ribbon sheet divided into multiple pieces, thereby enabling the isolation of the fine pieces and reducing a distortion problem (Abstract; para. [0034]; para. [0038]-[0039]; para. [0053]-[0054]). Jang teaches forming a magnetic field shield sheet this way in order to make a digitizer which blocks magnetic fields generated form portable terminal devices and minimizes the influence from geomagnetic sensors (Abstract)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have manufactured an electromagnetic shielding material by laminating a single or multiple layers of ribbon sheets divided into multiple pieces, as taught by Jang, for the invention of Couderchon, in order to enable the isolation of the pieces and thereby reduce distortion problems in the electromagnetic shielding material, and in order to form a digitizer which blocks magnetic fields generated from portable terminal devices and minimizes the influence from geomagnetic sensors (see teaching above).
Claims 1, 5, 8, 10-11 and 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohta167 (previously cited, US 20110108167 A1) in view of Couderchon (previously cited, US 5911840 A).
Regarding Claim 1, Claim 8 and Claim 10, Ohta167 discloses a nanocrystalline soft magnetic alloy (Abstract), and compositions including the composition Febal.Cu1.35B16C1 and the composition Fe81.75Cu1.25Nb1B16 (Table 8, sample no. 8-3; Table 11, ex. 11-4 para. [0051]).
Ohta teaches including up to 2at% Nb in order to improve the soft magnetic properties by accelerating the formation of fine bcc-Fe crystal grains, and wherein C is included in order to increase the saturation magnetic flux density Bs and improvement in the squareness ratio of a B-H curve. Ohta167 also teaches wherein the most preferable range for Cu is as low as 1.2% in order to precipitate fine crystal grains while balancing the formation of an amorphous ribbon (para. [0043]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have comprised a FeCuBNbC alloy, including Nb at 1at% (see sample no. 8-3) and C at 1at% (see Table 11, ex. 11-4), in order to improve the soft magnetic properties by accelerating the formation of fine bcc-Fe crystal grains and in order to increase the saturation magnetic flux density Bs and improvement in the squareness ratio of a B--H curve, and to have further comprised 1.2at% Cu, as preferred, in order to balance precipitation of fine crystal grains with forming an amorphous ribbon.
Therefore, Ohta167 teaches a composition comprising:
variable, equation
Claim 1
Ohta167 (see teachings above)
Fe, a
79-82
80.8 (bal.)
B, b
14-17
16
C, c
0.5-2
1
Cu, d
0.5-1.2
1.2
Nb, e
0.8-3
1
b+c+d+e
15.5-22
19.2
(a+e)/b
4.7-6.0
5.1
Ohta167 further discloses an average grain size of 30nm or less and at a volume fraction of 50vol% or more in an amorphous matrix (para. [0053]), which reads on the claimed range of 35nm or less and a volume fraction of 60% or more, and discloses wherein inventive examples comprise a core loss of less than 0.1 W/Kg at 1.0T and 50Hz (see Fig. 18), which reads on a core loss of 0.150W/kg (150mW/kg) or less at 1.0T and 50Hz, as claimed.
Regarding the compositional ranges, grain sizes and volume fraction, and the core loss values, in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP § 2144.05.I.
Ohta167 fails to disclose (Claim 1) the particle size distribution at a depth of 5um from the surface, and the (Claim 8) absence of a coarse grain at a depth of 5um from the surface.
However, Ohta167 discloses the same composition as claimed and Ohta167 and Couderchon discloses the same method as claimed (see details and Table below).
Specifically, Ohta167 teaches a manufacturing method of quenching a melt to form an initial alloy ribbon, and then heat treating at 430C or higher (first heat treatment temperature) for 1hr or less and preferably 20min or less, in order to further precipitate and control growth of nanocrystalline grains (para. [0061]-[0062]; para. [0066]; para. [0070]-[0074]). One of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that 430C would be the recrystallization temperature (see para. [0074], “holding it at a temperature equal to or higher than the crystallization temperature for as short time as 1 hour or less…kept at the highest temperature of 430C or higher for 1 hour or less”). Additionally, it would be obvious to heat treat at a temperature of at least Tx1, as claimed, in order to achieve the affects desired by Ohta167 of precipitating and nucleating crystals in the amorphous matrix (see para. [0071]; para. [0074]).
Ohta167 does not disclose a second, subsequent heat treatment occurring at 15-60C lower than the first heat treatment temperature.
Couderchon teaches recrystallization annealing followed by a second heat treatment step at a temperature below the recrystallization temperature (i.e., Tx1), for a time such as 1 hour at 400C, in order to form a narrow hysteresis loop, which is desirable for class A residual-current circuit breakers and sensitivity to biased fault currents (Col. 3, lines 14-21, lines 27-34; Col. 4, lines 59-63).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied a second heat treatment at a temperature below the recrystallization temperature (i.e., below 430C), such as at 400C, which reads on the claimed range of 15-60C less than the temperature (430C or more) of the first heat treatment, for a time such as 1 hour, as taught by Couderchon, for the invention disclosed by Ohta167. One would be motivated to do this in order to form a narrow hysteresis loop, which is desirable for class A residual-current circuit breakers and sensitivity to biased fault currents (see teaching above).
In summary, Ohta167 and Couderchon disclose:
Process Step
Instant invention
Claim
Ohta167
T1 annealing T
Tx1 to Tx1+60C
11
≥Tx1 , ≥ 430C
T1 annealing time
2-30 minutes
14
20 min or less
Instant invention
Claim
Couderchon
T2 annealing T
T1-15 to T1-60C
11
<Tx1, 400C (T1-30C)
Tx1-55C to Tx1+20C
13
<Tx1, 400C (T1-30C)
T2 annealing time
5-70 minutes
15
1 hour (60 min)
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that the invention of Ohta167 and Couderchon would comprise the claimed (Claim 1) volume fraction of crystalline grains (crystallinity) and particle size distribution at a depth of 5um from the surface, and the claimed (Claim 8) absence of a coarse grain at a depth of 5um from the surface, because the alloy of Ohta167 and Couderchon comprise the same composition and manufacturing process as the instant and claimed invention. When the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP 2112.01.
Regarding the claimed limitation (Claim 1) “wherein a permeability of a magnetic core at 100 kHz is 5,500 or more, wherein the permeability at 100 kHz is measured by a method in which the magnetic core in which a ribbon sheet having a thickness of 20 um and a width of 20 mm, which is implemented with the Fe-based soft magnetic alloy, is wound to have an outer diameter of 20 mm and an inner diameter of 10 mm”, and the limitation (Claim 10) “wherein a real part of a complex permeability of a flaked magnetic sheet formed of the Fe-based soft magnetic alloy is 1000 or more”, these are intended use limitations.
One of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that the Fe-based soft magnetic alloy of Ohta167 and Couderchon would behave the same as claimed when implemented in the claimed manner of a magnetic core or in the claimed manner as a flaked magnetic sheet because the claimed composition and manufacturing process, and therefore the claimed soft magnetic alloy, is disclosed by Ohta167 and Couderchon. All structural limitations have been met.
Regarding Claim 5, Ohta167 discloses a saturation magnetic flux density of 1.7T or more, including 1.8T or more, a coercive force of 12 A/m or less, and a core loss of 150 mW/kg (0.150 W/kg) or less at 1T and 50Hz (Abstract; para. [0047]; para. [0045]; see also Table 14, sample no. 15-6 to15-27 for example comprising values less than 10 A/m; Fig. 18, see core loss of inventive sample at 1T). Additionally, one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate the magnetic alloy of Ohta167 and Couderchon to comprise the claimed magnetic properties at the claimed conditions because Ohta167 and Couderchon disclose the claimed composition and method as the instant invention (See Claim 1 rejection above). When the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP 2112.01 and 2145.I.
Regarding Claim 11, Claim 13, Claim 14 and Claim 15, Ohta167 discloses a method of manufacturing an Fe-based soft magnetic alloy (Abstract), comprising:
preparing an Fe-based initial alloy comprising compositions including the composition Febal.Cu1.35B16C1 and the composition Fe81.75Cu1.25Nb1B16 (Table 8, sample no. 8-3; Table 11, ex. 11-4 para. [0051]).
Ohta167 teaches including up to 2at% Nb in order to improve the soft magnetic properties by accelerating the formation of fine bcc-Fe crystal grains, and wherein C is included in order to increase the saturation magnetic flux density Bs and improvement in the squareness ratio of a B-H curve. Ohta167 also teaches wherein the most preferable range for Cu is as low as 1.2% in order to precipitate fine crystal grains while balancing the formation of an amorphous ribbon (para. [0043]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have comprised a FeCuBNbC alloy, including Nb at 1at% (see sample no. 8-3) and C at 1at% (see Table 11, ex. 11-4) in order to improve the soft magnetic properties by accelerating the formation of fine bcc-Fe crystal grains and in order to increase the saturation magnetic flux density Bs and improvement in the squareness ratio of a B--H curve, and to have further comprised 1.2at% Cu, as preferred, in order to balance precipitation of fine crystal grains with forming an amorphous ribbon.
Therefore, Ohta167 teaches a composition comprising:
variable, equation
Claim 1
Ohta167 (see teachings above)
Fe, a
79-82
80.8 (bal.)
B, b
14-17
16
C, c
0.5-2
1
Cu, d
0.5-1.2
1.2
Nb, e
0.8-3
1
b+c+d+e
15.5-22
19.2
(a+e)/b
4.7-6.0
5.1
Ohta167 further discloses heat treating the Fe-based initial alloy at 430C or higher (first heat treatment temperature) for 1hr or less and preferably 20min or less, in order to further precipitate and control growth of nanocrystalline grains (para. [0061]-[0062]; para. [0066]; para. [0070]-[0074]). One of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that 430C would be the recrystallization temperature because Ohta167 discloses “holding it at a temperature equal to or higher than the crystallization temperature for as short time as 1 hour or less” and “kept at the highest temperature of 430C or higher for 1 hour or less” (see para. [0074]). Additionally, it would be obvious to heat treat at a temperature of at least Tx1, as claimed, in order to achieve the affects desired by Ohta167 of precipitating and nucleating crystals in the amorphous matrix (see para. [0071]; para. [0074]).
Ohta167 does not disclose a second, subsequent heat treatment occurring at 15-60C lower than the first heat treatment temperature.
Couderchon teaches recrystallization annealing followed by a second heat treatment step at a temperature below the recrystallization temperature (i.e., Tx1), for a time such as 1 hour at 400C, in order to form a narrow hysteresis loop, which is desirable for class A residual-current circuit breakers and sensitivity to biased fault currents (Col. 3, lines 14-21, lines 27-34; Col. 4, lines 59-63).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied a second heat treatment at a temperature below the recrystallization temperature (i.e., below 430C), such as at 400C, which reads on the claimed range of 15-60C less than the temperature (430C or more) of the first heat treatment, for a time such as 1 hour, as taught by Couderchon, for the invention disclosed by Ohta167. One would be motivated to do this in order to form a narrow hysteresis loop, which is desirable for class A residual-current circuit breakers and sensitivity to biased fault currents (see teaching above).
Therefore, Ohta167 and Couderchon disclose the claimed limitations (Claim 11, Claim 13, Claim 14 and Claim 15):
Process Step
Limitation
Claim
Ohta167
T1 annealing T
Tx1 to Tx1+60C
11
≥Tx1 , ≥ 430C
T1 annealing time
2-30 minutes
14
20 min or less
limitation
Claim
Couderchon
T2 annealing T
T1-15 to T1-60C
11
<Tx1, 400C (T1-30C)
Tx1-55C to Tx1+20C
13
<Tx1, 400C (T1-30C)
T2 annealing time
5-70 minutes
15
1 hour (60 min)
Ohta167 additionally discloses an average grain size of 30nm or less and at a volume fraction of 50vol% or more in an amorphous matrix (para. [0053]), which reads on the claimed range of 35nm or less and a volume fraction of 60% or more.
Regarding the compositional ranges, heat treatment times and temperatures, and grain size and volume fraction, in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP § 2144.05.I.
Ohta167 fails to disclose (Claim 11) the particle size distribution and volume fraction at a depth of 5um from the surface. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that the invention of Ohta167 and Couderchon would comprise the claimed volume fraction of crystalline grains (crystallinity) and particle size distribution at a depth of 5um from the surface because the alloy of Ohta167 and Couderchon comprises the same composition and the same manufacturing process as the instant and claimed invention. When the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP 2112.01.
Regarding Claim 16, Ohta167 discloses using the magnetic alloy to produce an electromagnetic shield (para. [0082]).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohta167 (previously cited, US 20110108167 A1) in view of Couderchon (previously cited, US 5911840 A), as applied to Claim 16 above, further in view of Jang (previously cited, US 20140362505 A1).
Regarding Claim 17, Ohta167 discloses forming an electromagnetic shield with the soft magnetic alloy (para. [0082]), but fails to disclose the manufacturing method thereof.
Jang teaches an electromagnetic shielding material comprising a Fe-based alloy made by laminating a single layer of ribbon sheet divided into multiple pieces, thereby enabling the isolation of the fine pieces and reducing a distortion problem (Abstract; para. [0034]; para. [0038]-[0039]; para. [0053]-[0054])).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have manufactured the electromagnetic shielding material by laminating a single or multiple layers of ribbon sheets divided into multiple pieces, as taught by Jang, for the invention of Ohta167, in order to enable the isolation of the pieces and thereby reduce distortion problems in the electromagnetic shielding material (see teaching above).
Further, all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). In the present case, incorporation of the shielding material manufacturing method serves only as a narrowing to the general invention of Ohta167, and results in no change in the function of either Ohta167 or the aforementioned elements of Jang. Further, such a combination would predictably result in the Fe-based alloy of Ohta167 being utilized in the method of Jang.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed August 17, 2026, with respect to Claim 1 and Claim 11, and dependent Claims thereof, rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Ohta167 and Akihasa, have been fully considered. Upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made over Couderchon in view of Bitoh and Yoshidome, and over Ohta167 in view of Couderchon, as detailed above.
Arguments directed to Akihasa are deemed moot in view of the new ground(s) or rejection.
Regarding the compositions of Ohta167:
Applicant argues that Ohta167 does not recognize the ratio (a+e)/b as a variable affecting grain uniformity or high-frequency permeability.
Applicant argues that Ohta167 does not contain specific disclosure or example in which B, C, Cu and Nb are all present together, and there is no guidance for the selection of these elements.
Applicant argues that none of the Nb containing composition examples in Ohta167 comprise C.
These arguments are not found persuasive.
Ohta167 discloses and teaches the claimed composition which comprises the claimed ratio. Additionally, the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
Ohta167 also provides guidance and specific teachings for including the claimed composition, elements and ranges, and the combination of B, C, Cu and Nb would be obvious in light of these teachings (see current rejection above). Regarding the disclosed working examples, a reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art, including nonpreferred embodiments, and disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or nonpreferred embodiments (see MPEP 2123.I&II).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ohta908 (US 20160196908 A1): teaches an overlapping composition comprising a core loss at 1.6T and 50Hz of 0.150 W/kg (150kW/kg), and a B800 (at 800A/m) exceeding 1.7T (para. [0018]; para. [0022]; para. [0038]).
Ohta908 teaches a first heat treatment from 430-530C (Tx2-50C) for preferably up to 30s to precipitate and grow fine crystalline particles, followed by a second heat treatment at 400-500C for 900-10.8ks in order to relieve stress and homogenize magnetic properties (para. [0061]-[0062; para. [0070], wherein first heat treatment is at 470C and second heat treatment is at 430C).
Black (US 20050152073 A1): teaches wherein magnetic nanoparticles comprising extreme uniformity and standard deviations of less than 5% improve the special resolution of magnetic sensor devices (para. [0041]; para. [0043]-[0044]).
Miyoshi (US 20120021221 A1): teaches wherein an alpha-Fe phase comprises an average crystal size of 1-50nm, and wherein the standard deviation of the crystal grain size is 6nm or less in order to obtain a uniform fine structure while avoiding decreased exchange interactions and avoiding decreases to remanence and loop squareness in the demagnetization curve (para. [0108]).
Suetsuna (US 20170209924 A1): teaches wherein a coefficient of variation (CV) of soft magnetic particles (wherein CV equates to the standard deviation of particle size distribution/average particle size) is 0.1-40% in order to provide low coercivity, low hysteresis loss, high magnetic permeability, and high thermal stability (para. [0052]). One of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate 0.1-40% reads on and overlaps the claimed range of 20%.
Kanekiyo (US 20090129966 A1): teaches a soft magnetic Fe-based phase with an average crystal grain size of 1-50nm and a crystal grain size standard deviation of 10nm or less in order to increase remanence and loop squareness of the demagnetization curve (para. [0016]; para. [0038])
Li (US 20150318089 A1): teaches a bonded magnet comprising a soft magnetic phase, wherein the soft magnetic phase is a Fe phase having a bcc structure with an average grain size of 1-30nm and a stand deviation of the grain size below 0.3σ in order to uniformly match and couple with a hard magnetic phase, thereby obtaining uniform texture, increasing exchange interaction, remanence and desirable magnetic properties (Abstract; [0011]; para. [0029]). One of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that grain sizes with a standard deviations in the range of less than 0.3σ, wherein σ represents the average grain size, would comprise grain sizes such that 50% or more grains fall within 20% of the average grain size (see para. [0054] and Table 1, wherein a grain size in S2 is 8nm and standard deviation is 1.3).
Kim (previously cited, US 20190010586 A): teaches a Fe-based soft magnetic alloy represented by empirical formula FeaBbCcCud, wherein a is 78.5-86, b+c is 13.5-21, d is 0.5-1.5; however, Kim expressly excludes Nb as it is an expensive element (Abstract; para. [0006]; para. [0013]; Table 1, ex. 6-10 wherein a=79.3 and b+c+d=20.7; Table 3, ex. 21, wherein a=82 and b+c+d=18).
Kim teaches a single heat treatment above a crystallization (Tx1) temperature, forming nanocrystalline grains of 16-25nm in an amorphous matrix, wherein the volume fraction of 45-90% in order to balance saturated magnetic flux density with magnetic loss and coercivity (para. [0019]; para. [0024]-[0025]; para. [0101]; para. [0108], 45-90% reads on the claimed range of 60% or more).
Kim further teaches using the magnetic alloy to produce an electromagnetic shield (para. [0045]).
Lashgari (previously cited, “Composition dependence of the microstructure and soft magnetic properties of Fe-based amorphous/nanocrystalline alloys: A review study”): teaches wherein Nb is particularly effective for stabilizing fine crystal grains within an otherwise amorphous matrix, and wherein Nb additions should be limited to 3at% (Abstract; pg. 64, col. 2, para. 3; and pg. 67, columns 1-2, Section: 2.3. Niobium (Nb)).
Urata (previously cited, JP 2011256453 A, English Machine Translation provided): teaches an Fe-based soft magnetic alloy comprising the composition FeaBbSicPxCyCuz, wherein 79≤a≤86at%, 5≤b≤13at%, 0≤c≤8at%, 1≤x≤10at%, 0≤y≤5at%, 0.4≤z≤1.4at%, and 0.08≤z/x≤1.2, and wherein Nb is chosen to substitute for Fe in an amount of 0-3at% (para. [0014]-[015])
Urata teaches an average grain size of 30nm or less and a standard deviation of 7 or less, including by example an average crystal grain size of 13.7nm and standard deviation of 3.4 (Fig. 7) and an average crystal grain size of 25.5nm and standard deviation of 4.6 (Fig. 9), wherein about 75% of grains comprise a grain size within 20% of the average size, which reads 60% or more of grains within 20% of the average grain size (para. [0014]; para. [0042]; see Fig. 7, see Fig. 9, D50 is 13.7nm and sigma is 3.4 - see distribution graph, wherein 50% or more (about 75%) crystal grains have a grain size within +/-20% (i.e., within 10-17nm) of the average grain size see Fig. 9, D50 is 25.5nm and sigma is 4.6 - see distribution graph, wherein 60% or more (about 75%) crystal grains have a grain size within +/-20% (i.e, within 20-30nm) of the average grain size). One of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate the grain size measurements to represent all grains within the sample, including distributed from a surface of the alloy to a depth of 5um, unless otherwise stated.
Urata further teaches wherein the alloy is nanocrystalline alloy, and therefore would be fully crystallized unless otherwise noted (Urata does not disclose an amorphous matrix or portion after crystallization), and therefore that soft magnetic alloy comprises 100vol% grains.
Urata teaches a heat treatment comprising heating above a first crystallization temperature Tx1 for about 10-20 minutes, which is the same as the instant invention (Fig. 1-2; para. [0029], wherein prior to holding, the alloy is heated to at least 70% or more of the range Tx1 (start of first crystallization temperature) to Tz1 (end of first crystallization temperature); see also Table 2, wherein holding temperatures is 425C-450C and above first crystallization start temperatures ranging from 355-385C in inventive samples; see Instant Invention, Table 1, wherein alloys are held from 420-470C for 10 minutes to convert the amorphous microstructure (before heat treatment) to a crystalline one (after heat treatment)). One of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate from Fig. 1 and Fig. 2 in Urata, that the heating range P2 occurs within the range 30 (Fig. 2) and therefore above the Tx1, and that the holding temperature P4 (see Fig. 1) is further above the heating range of P2, such that the holding temperature is above the initial crystallization temperature.
Urata further teaches wherein a grain size of 30nm or less and a standard deviation of less than 7 achieves a saturation magnetization flux density of 1.65T or more and a coercive force of 20.0 A/m or less, and further a coercive force of 10.0A/m or less when the grain size is 25nm or less (para. [0053]-[0054]).
Yoshizawa (previously cited and cited by Applicant in IDS filed January 11, 2022, US 20100098576 A): discloses a Fe-based soft magnetic alloy comprising 0.1-3at% Cu, 4-20at% B, at least one element selected from C (element ‘X’), wherein C is in an amount of 0.003-2at%, and at least one element selected from Nb (element ‘M’), such that the B, C and Nb (y (amount B) + z (amount of element ‘X’, C) + a (amount of element ‘M’, Nb)) comprise a total amount of 10-30at%, and a remainder of Fe (Abstract; para. [0017]-[0018]; para. [0021]; para. [0026]).
The compositions of Yoshizawa include a composition comprising 16at% B, 1at% C, 1at% Cu, 2at% Nb and a remainder of Fe (80at% Fe), wherein b=16, c=1, d=1, e=2, and b+c+d+e=20 according to the claimed variables a-e (see para. [0017]-[0018] and [0021] in Yoshizawa, 16at% B is within 4-20%, 1at% C is within 0.003-2at% C and 0-20 (z), 1at% Cu is within 0.1-3 (x), and 2at% Nb (a) satisfies the required y+z+a of 10-30at%, i.e., 16+1+2=19). Yoshizawa also discloses wherein P is an optional element when C is included, and is therefore inclusive of 0% (para. [0017], element X; see also Table 1-2, wherein some inventive compositions 9see inventive composition 8 for example) are without P such that one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that P is 0% and not required).
Yoshizawa further discloses a volume fraction of 50% or more nanocrystalline grains within an amorphous matrix, and wherein the grains comprise a grain size of 5-30nm (para. [0024]-[0025]). Yoshizawa discloses wherein heat treatment occurs above a crystallization (Tx1) temperature, for desirably 1min to 1 hr, and may occur in multiple stages (para. [0024]; [0026]), in order to produce this grain structure. Additionally, Yoshizawa discloses a saturation magnetic flux density of 1.83T a coercive force of less than 10A/m (6.1-6.7A/m) (see para. [0037]).
Akihisa (previously cited and cited by Applicant in IDS filed January 11, 2022, JP 2000160241 A, English Equivalent EP 1001437 A1 used): teaches a similar precipitating heat treatment (heating above crystallization temperature for 20 minutes) in order to form nanocrystalline grains which are 30nm or less, as desired by Ohta167, and for a FeBCuNb composition (para. [0160], formula (Fe1-aZa)bBxMyTt, wherein M may be Nb, and T may be Cu; para. [0140], third method; para. [0141]-[0142], heated to higher than the first crystallization temperature and lower than second crystallization temperature).
Akihisa further teaches a second heat treatment subsequently performed after deposition of nanocrystalline grains and at a temperature within the range of 100C up to less than the first heat treatment temperature, preferably 200-400C, in order to further improve magnetic characteristics and reduce changes over time when the magnetic alloy is exposed to high temperatures for long periods (para. [0147]-[0150]; para. [0154]-[0155]).
Akihisa teaches wherein the second heat treatment is performed from 0.5 (30 minutes) to 100 hours in order to achieve improvements in soft magnetic characteristics such as permeability while balancing for large changes in magnetic characteristics over time (para. [0148]). One of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate annealing at 30 minutes in order to achieve improved magnetic characteristics while minimizing changes to magnetic characteristics over time (see teaching above), and in order to minimize manufacturing time.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CATHERINE P SMITH whose telephone number is (303)297-4428. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00-4:00 MT.
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.
/CATHERINE P SMITH/Examiner, Art Unit 1735
/KEITH WALKER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1735
