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 .
Response to Amendment and Status of Claims
Applicant’s amendments to the claims, filed March 17, 2026, is acknowledged. Claims 1 and 10-11 are amended. Claim 4 is cancelled. No new matter has been added.
Claims 1, 5-6, 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 § 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, 5-6, 8, 10-11 and 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohta647 (US 20110108167 A1) in view of Akihisa (previously cited and cited by Applicant in IDS filed January 11, 2022, JP 2000160241 A, English Equivalent EP 1001437 A1 used).
Regarding Claim 1, Ohta167 discloses a nanocrystalline soft magnetic alloy comprising the composition:
Fe100-x-y-zCuxByXz
wherein x is 0.1-3%, y is 10-20at%, preferably 14-17at%, X is at least one of Si, S, C, P, Al, Ge, Ga and Be and 0-10at%, wherein y+z is 10-24at%, and further comprising at least one element Fe substitutional element, which includes Nb, in an amount of 5at% or less (Abstract; para. [0011]; para. [0013]; para. [0044]).
Ohta167 further teaches that when Nb is included, the amount of Nb is 2at% or less, and to obtain high saturation magnetic flux density, Fe substitution element is preferably 1.8at% or less in total (para. [0051]).
Ohta167 also teaches that element X is 0-4at% (see z values) and y+z (amounts of boron and element X) is 14-17at% in order to maximize saturation magnetic flux density to be 1.8T or higher.
Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that the invention and teachings of Ohta167 includes an alloy comprising, for example, 1at% Cu, 15at% B, 1at% C, 1.8at% Nb and a balance (81.2at%) of Fe, in order to produce a high saturation magnetic flux density and one which is 1.8T or more. Therefore, Ohta167 reads on and overlaps the claimed composition requiring 79-82at% Fe, 14-17at% B, 0.5-2at% C, 0.5-1.2at% Cu, and 0.8-3at% Nb.
One of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that Ohta647 discloses that P may be 0% when C is selected as element X, and therefore reads on the claimed limitation wherein the soft magnetic alloy does not comprise P as an alloy element (see also Tables 8-9 and 15, sample no. 8-3, 8-4, 9-3 and 15-14, which include C but not P).
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]), and 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 the claimed limitation wherein, among grains distributed from a surface of the alloy to a depth of 5um, grains having a particle size of +/-20% of an average particle size account for 60% or more of total grains. However, Ohta167 discloses the claimed composition (see above), and Ohta167 and Akihisa teach the claimed process (see details below).
Ohta167 teaches a manufacturing method of quenching a melt to form an initial alloy ribbon, and then heat treating above a first crystallization temperature, 430C or higher, for a 1hr or less, preferably 20min or less, in order to further precipitate and control growth of nanocrystalline grains (para. [0061]-[0062]; para. [0066]; para. [0070]-[0074]).
Akihisa 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.
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 performed a subsequent heat treatment after the first precipitating heat treatment, and at 200-400C for 30minutes, as taught by Akihisa, for the invention disclosed by Ohta167, in order to further improve magnetic characteristics and reduce changes over time when the magnetic alloy is exposed to high temperatures for long periods, and to obtain these effects while minimizing changes to magnetic characteristics during the annealing time (see teaching above), and in order to minimize manufacturing time.
The first heat treatment of Ohta167 (430C or higher for 20 minutes or less) and second heat treatment of Akihisa (200-400C for 30 minutes) reads on the instant and claimed heat treatment (see instant specification Pg. 19, lines 1-3, first heat treatment of 430-530C and 30 minutes or less; Pg. 23, line 1-3, second heat treatment temperature up to 60C less than first heat treatment temperature; Pg. 24, lines 3-5, second heat treatment time, 5-70 minutes; see also Pg. 20, lines 20-25 and Claims 11 and 13 wherein a first heat treatment temperature is Tx-1 to [Tx-1+60°C], second heat treatment temperature T2 is less than T1 and within the range of [Tx-1–55°C] to [Tx-1+20°C]).
Because the composition of Ohta167 and the heat treatments of Ohta167 in view of Akihisa are the same as the instant invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate the Fe-based soft magnetic alloy of Ohta167 and Akihisa to possess the same grain structure distributions and magnetic properties as claimed. 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.
Ohta167 discloses implementing the Fe-based soft magnetic alloy for a wound magnetic core using a ribbon (para. [0121]), but fails to disclose a magnetic core with the claimed parameters, in which a ribbon sheet having a thickness of 20 um and a width of 20 mm is wound to have an outer diameter of 20 mm and an inner diameter of 10 mm, and further the permeability thereof.
However, the claimed limitation “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 an intended use limitation. One of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that the Fe-based soft magnetic alloy of Ohta167 and Akihisa would behave the same as claimed when implemented in the claimed manner of the magnetic core because the claimed composition is disclosed by Ohta167 and the claimed method and therefore claimed structure have been met by the method of Ohta167 and Akihisa (see above).
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 Akihisa to comprise the claimed magnetic properties at the claimed conditions because Ohta167 and Akihisa 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 6, the compositions of Ohta167 read on and overlap the claimed range wherein (a+e)/b is 4.7-6.0 (Abstract; para. [0011]; para. [0013]; para. [0044]; para. [0051], see composition referred to in Claim 1 wherein b=15, a=81.2 and e=1.8, which equates to (81.2+1.8)/15 is 5.53). 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.
Regarding Claim 8, Ohta167 discloses an average grain size preferably 30nm or less (para. [0053]), but fails to disclose wherein no grains more than 40 nm exist from a surface to a depth of 5 µm, as claimed. However, the magnetic alloy of Ohta167 and Akihisa is the same as claimed because the composition of Ohta167 and the method of Ohta167 and Akihisa (second heat treatment) is the same as claimed (see Claim 1 rejection above). Therefore, it would be obvious that magnetic alloy of Ohta167 and Akihisa comprise the claimed grain structure. 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 10, Ohta167 fails to disclose the complex permeability of a flaked magnetic sheet formed from the Fe-based soft magnetic alloy.
However, the claims are directed towards the soft magnetic alloy, and the limitation directed to a flaked magnetic sheet formed from the soft magnetic alloy is considered an intended use limitation. While intended use recitations and other types of functional language are not entirely disregarded, the intended use must result in a structural different between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. (MPEP 2114).
The limitations directed towards the soft magnetic alloy have been met by Ohta167 and Akihisa (see Claim 1 above), and the soft magnetic alloy of Ohta167 and Akihisa would be capable of forming the flaked magnetic sheet with the claimed properties (complex permeability). 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 11, Ohta167 discloses a method of manufacturing a nanocrystalline soft magnetic alloy comprising the composition:
Fe100-x-y-zCuxByXz
wherein x is 0.1-3%, y is 10-20at%, preferably 14-17at%, X is at least one of Si, S, C, P, Al, Ge, Ga and Be and 0-10at%, wherein y+z is 10-24at%, and further comprising at least one element Fe substitutional element, which includes Nb, in an amount of 5at% or less (Abstract; para. [0011]; para. [0013]; para. [0044]).
Ohta167 further teaches that when Nb is included, the amount of Nb is 2at% or less, and to obtain high saturation magnetic flux density, Fe substitution element is preferably 1.8at% or less in total (para. [0051]).
Ohta167 also teaches that element X is 0-4at% (see z values) and y+z (amounts of boron and element X) is 14-17at% in order to maximize saturation magnetic flux density to be 1.8T or higher.
Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that the invention and teachings of Ohta167 includes an alloy comprising, for example, 1at% Cu, 15at% B, 1at% C, 1.8at% Nb and a balance (81.2at%) of Fe, in order to produce a high saturation magnetic flux density and one which is 1.8T or more. Therefore, Ohta167 reads on and overlaps the claimed composition requiring 79-82at% Fe, 14-17at% B, 0.5-2at% C, 0.5-1.2at% Cu, and 0.8-3at% Nb.
One of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that Ohta647 discloses that P may be 0% when C is selected as element X, and therefore reads on the claimed limitation wherein the soft magnetic alloy does not comprise P as an alloy element (see also Tables 8-9 and 15, sample no. 8-3, 8-4, 9-3 and 15-14, which include C but not P).
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 further discloses heat-treating the initial Fe-based alloy by heat treating above a first crystallization temperature, specifically 430C or higher, for a 1hr or less, preferably 20min or less, in order to further precipitate and control growth of nanocrystalline grains (para. [0061]-[0062]; para. [0066]; para. [0070]-[0074]), which reads on the claimed first heat treatment temperature Tx1 to Tx1+60, wherein Tx1 is the crystallization initiation temperature (see also instant specification Pg. 19, lines 1-3, first heat treatment is 430-530C and 30 minutes or less).
Ohta167 fails to disclose a second heat treatment after the first heat treatment.
Akihisa 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.
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 performed a subsequent heat treatment after the first precipitating heat treatment, and at 200-400C for 30minutes, as taught by Akihisa, for the invention disclosed by Ohta167, in order to further improve magnetic characteristics and reduce changes over time when the magnetic alloy is exposed to high temperatures for long periods, and to obtain these effects while minimizing changes to magnetic characteristics during the annealing time (see teaching above), and in order to minimize manufacturing time. A heat treatment temperature of 400C, for example, reads on the claimed second heat treatment of 15 to 60C less than the first heat treatment temperature of Ohta167 (400C is 30C less than 430C).
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 average particle size of 35nm or less and a volume fraction of 60% or more, but Ohta167 fails to disclose the claimed limitation wherein, among grains distributed from a surface of the alloy to a depth of 5um, grains having a particle size of +/-20% of an average particle size account for 60% or more of total grains.
However, because the composition of Ohta167 and the heat treatments of Ohta167 in view of Akihisa are the same as the instant invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate the Fe-based soft magnetic alloy of Ohta167 and Akihisa to possess the same grain structure distributions and magnetic properties as claimed. 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 13, Akihisa discloses wherein the second heat treatment temperature is more than (Tx1-55C) to (Tx1+20C) (see Claim 11 above, 400C reads on the claimed range (30C less than Tx1 of 430C)). 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.
Regarding Claim 14, Ohta167 discloses wherein the first heat treatment is performed for 20 minutes or less, which reads on the claimed 2-30 minute range (para. [0072]).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.
Regarding Claim 15, Akihisa discloses wherein the second heat treatment is performed for 30 minutes, which reads on the claimed 5-70 minute range (para. [0148]; see Claim 11 teaching and rejection above). 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.
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 Ohta647 (US 20110108167 A1) in view of Akihisa (previously cited and cited by Applicant in IDS filed January 11, 2022, JP 2000160241 A, English Machine Translation previously provided), 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 nor 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 March 17, 2026, with respect to Claim 1 and Claim 11, and dependent Claims thereof, rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Urata in view of Akihisa and over Yoshizawa in view of Akihisa, have been fully considered and are found persuasive in view of the amendments to the claims further limiting the composition of the initial Fe-based alloy. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration a new ground(s) of rejection is made over Ohta167 in view of Akihisa, as detailed above.
Arguments directed to Urata and to Yoshizawa are deemed moot in view of the new ground(s) or rejection.
Regarding the heat treatment of Akihisa:
Applicant argues that the teachings of Akihisa are only compatible with compositions comprising Nb and Zr because Akihisa discloses Nb and Zr are essential for producing an amorphous phase, and therefore argues there is not a reasonable expectation of success to combine heat treatment teachings of Akihisa with a composition which does not comprise Zr (Remarks, Pg. 12).
This argument is not found persuasive.
The second heat treatment of Akihisa is specifically applied after the precipitation of the crystalline phase and below the crystallization temperature in order to improve magnetic properties without impacting the grain size or volume fraction. Akihisa does not disclose any connection between requiring Nb or Zr for these improvements to occur, and therefore the second heat treatment of Akihisa is applicable to similar compositions which have already precipitated crystalline grains.
Further, Ohta167, which is now applied above, discloses both Zr and Nb (para. [0051]).
Regarding unexpected results:
Applicant has updated which examples (presented previously in the Declaration filed April 30, 2025) are not commensurate in scope with the claimed invention in order to demonstrate unexpected results of obtaining the claimed permeability at 100kHz, and argues the data therefore is sufficient to show unexpected results (Remarks, Pg. 16-17).
This argument is not found persuasive.
It appears that Examples 19-21 are the only examples within scope of the invention (all other examples are labelled ‘not satisfied’), which is an insufficient number of examples/data points to show unexpected results. It is also unclear which parameter or compositional range is critical to producing the unexpected results from the three examples shown. Sufficient data points, close to and inside the claimed range are required to demonstrate a showing of unexpected results. Applicant should pointedly show where data points are close to and inside the claimed range, for the specifically claimed parameter Applicant deems critical, for achieving the unexpected result.
Further, Applicant argues that Example 17, while having the claimed permeability, has an unsatisfactory standard deviation of permeability. Applicant argues that Example 17 does not deter from the showing of unexpected results of improved permeability (Remarks, Pg. 18).
This argument is not found persuasive.
The standard deviation of permeability is not a currently claimed feature and therefore not commensurate in scope with the claims. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., standard deviation of permeability) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
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]).
Couderchon (US 5911840 A): teaches a nanocrystalline soft magnetic alloy comprising 60at% or more Fe, 0.1-3at% Cu, 0-25at% B, 0-30at% Si, and at least one element including Nb of 0.1-30at%, preferably 2-4at% Nb, and wherein the amorphous ribbon is heat treated by a relaxation heat treatment which occurs below the recrystallization temperature such as 250-450C for 0.1-100 hours, a recrystallization heat treatment at 500-600C, or up to 30C above the recrystallization temperature, for 0.1-10 hours, and optionally in a magnetic field, in order to precipitate nanocrystals, and further includes a complimentary heat treatment below the onset of the recrystallization temperature, such as 400C, also in an magnetic field in order to narrow the hysteresis loop (Abstract; Col. 3, lines 10-40; Col. 4, lines 48-63, relaxation annealing at 400C for 1 hour; crystallization annealing at 530C or 1 hour, traverse magnetic field annealing at 400C 1 hour to form a narrow hysteresis loop).
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.
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
Prosecution Insights