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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
Responsive to the amendment filed 18 July 2025 claims 3 and 8-17 are amended and claims 1-2 and 4-7 are cancelled. Claims 3 and 8-17 are currently under examination.
Status of Previous Rejections
Responsive to the amendment filed 18 July 2025 new grounds of rejection are presented.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 3 and 8-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US 9287028 B2 (hereinafter “Urata”).
Regarding claim 1, Urata teaches an Fe-based nano crystalline alloy (see title). Urata teaches that the alloy includes Fe, B, P and Cu (See SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION and claim 1). Urata teaches that the alloy includes 79-86 at% of Fe (see SUMMARY or claim 1). Urata does not mention intent to include other alloying elements, teaching that these are impurities and limited (see cols 3-7). The composition of Urata matches the claimed composition.
Urata teaches that the amorphous alloy is heat treated to generate nanocrystals (See cols 8-9 and Examples 1-15 and Comparative Examples 1-4). Urata teaches that nanoclusters are formed containing Cu (See col 5., first paragraph). The microstructure of the alloy of Urata matches that of the claim.
Urata further teaches examples of the alloy (see Examples 1-15 and Comparative Examples 1-4). For just one such example, Urata teaches Example 3, which includes Fe84.8B10P4Cu1.2 (see Table 1). Urata teaches that the alloy is heat treated to 425 C for 10 minutes (see Table 2).
Regarding an average concentration of boron in a region of 90% Fe among regions, Urata does not teach average concentration of boron in a region as claimed. However, Urata teaches in Example 3 that the same composition claimed is processed in the same way, to have the same microstructure as is claimed. The properties not disclosed by the prior art would have been inherently present in the alloy of Urata. Other examples of Urata are also believed to meet the limitations, such as Examples 7 thru 14.
Regarding claim 8, Urata teaches Example 3, which includes Fe84.8B10P4Cu1.2 (see Table 1). The composition of Urata falls entirely within the claimed ranges, anticipating the ranges. Applicant is directed to MPEP 21313.03.
Regarding claim 9, Urata teaches Example 3, which includes Fe84.8B10P4Cu1.2 (see Table 1). The Example 3 value of B/P would be 10/4 = 2.5 inherently.
Regarding claim 10, Urata does not teach a density of clusters in any region. However, Urata teaches in Example 3 that the same composition claimed is processed in the same way (see Examples 1-15 and Comparative Examples 1-4). The properties not disclosed by the prior art would have been inherently present in the alloy of Urata. Other examples of Urata are also believed to meet the limitations, such as Examples 7 thru 14.
Regarding claim 11, Urata does not teach an average of a P concertation in a region in which a Fe concentration is 90% or greater. Urata is silent as to this feature. However, Urata teaches in Example 3 that the same composition claimed is processed in the same way, to have the same microstructure as is claimed. The properties not disclosed by the prior art would have been inherently present in the alloy of Urata. Other examples of Urata are also believed to meet the limitations, such as Examples 7 thru 14.
Regarding claim 12, Urata does not teach an average of a P concertation in a region in which a Fe concentration is 80% or greater. Urata is silent as to this feature. However, Urata teaches in Example 3 that the same composition claimed is processed in the same way, to have the same microstructure as is claimed. The properties not disclosed by the prior art would have been inherently present in the alloy of Urata. Other examples of Urata are also believed to meet the limitations, such as Examples 7 thru 14.
Regarding claim 13, Urata does not teach a proxigram as claimed. Urata does not endeavor to describe a proxigram of a region in which a boundary with Fe concentrations of 80% and Cu of 1.25% or more. However, Urata teaches in Example 3 that the same composition claimed is processed in the same way, to have the same microstructure as is claimed. The properties not disclosed by the prior art would have been inherently present in the alloy of Urata. Other examples of Urata are also believed to meet the limitations, such as Examples 7 thru 14.
Regarding claim 14, Urata does not teach a proxigram as claimed. Urata does not endeavor to describe a proxigram of a region in which a boundary with Fe concentrations of 80% and P/B concentration has a local minimum and local maximum as claimed. However, Urata teaches in Example 3 that the same composition claimed is processed in the same way, to have the same microstructure as is claimed. The properties not disclosed by the prior art would have been inherently present in the alloy of Urata. Other examples of Urata are also believed to meet the limitations, such as Examples 7 thru 14.
Regarding claim 15, Urata does not teach a proxigram as claimed. Urata does not endeavor to describe a proxigram of a region in which a boundary with Fe concentrations of 80% and P/B concentration is 1.0 or greater. However, Urata teaches in Example 3 that the same composition claimed is processed in the same way, to have the same microstructure as is claimed. The properties not disclosed by the prior art would have been inherently present in the alloy of Urata. Other examples of Urata are also believed to meet the limitations, such as Examples 7 thru 14.
Regarding claim 16, Urata does not teach a proxigram as claimed. Urata does not endeavor to describe a proxigram of a region in which a boundary with Fe concentrations of 80% and P/B concentration has a local minimum and local maximum as claimed. However, Urata teaches in Example 3 that the same composition claimed is processed in the same way, to have the same microstructure as is claimed. The properties not disclosed by the prior art would have been inherently present in the alloy of Urata. Other examples of Urata are also believed to meet the limitations, such as Examples 7 thru 14.
Regarding claim 17, Urata does not teach a size of the copper clusters within a region of 2.3% Cu concentration. Urata teaches that a size of clusters in general is 10 nm or smaller (see col 5) but is silent with regard to the size of clusters specifically within regions of 2.3% Cu or more. However, Urata teaches in Example 3 that the same composition claimed is processed in the same way, to have the same microstructure as is claimed. The properties not disclosed by the prior art would have been inherently present in the alloy of Urata. Other examples of Urata are also believed to meet the limitations, such as Examples 7 thru 14.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 18 July 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the amendments overcome the rejections under 35 USC 112. In response no rejections are made under 35 USC 112 at this time.
Applicant argues that the prior art cited (“Makino”) requires the presence of Silicon. Applicant has amended claim 3 in order to require that the alloy consists of Fe, B, Cu, and P. In response, no rejections are made over Makino at this time. The arguments are considered moot in view of new grounds of rejection.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER S KESSLER whose telephone number is (571)272-6510. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5:30.
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, Curt Mayes can be reached at 571-272-1234. 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.
CHRISTOPHER S. KESSLER
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1734
/CHRISTOPHER S KESSLER/Examiner, Art Unit 1759