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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 6/26/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Examiner acknowledges amended Claim 1 and canceled Claims 2, 4, and 8 in the response filed on 6/26/2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to Claims 1, 3, 5, and 7 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 3, and 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2019189813 (“Itagaki et al.”). The Examiner notes that US Pub. No. 20210057133 is the English language equivalent of WO ‘813 and all citations will refer to US ‘133.
With regards to Claim 1, Itagaki et al. teaches a soft magnetic alloy ribbon which is a ribbon made of a Fe-based soft magnetic alloy, the soft magnetic alloy ribbon comprising a first laser peening trace row and a second laser peening trace row, each of which includes a plurality of laser peening traces in a row in a first direction and which are arranged adjacent to each other in a second direction intersecting the first direction. Itagaki et al. teaches a straight line at a first separation distance from the first laser peening trace row and at a second separation distance from the second laser peening trace row is defined as a central line, the first separation distance is equal to the second separation distance. A circle which is located around a center of a first laser peening trace of the plurality of laser peening traces constituting the first laser peening trace row and which has a first radius shorter than the first separation distance is defined as a first reference circle. A circle which is located around a center of a second laser peening trace of the plurality of laser peening traces constituting the second laser peening trace row and which has a second radius shorter than the second separation distance is defined as a second reference circle. A straight line which passes through the center of the first laser peening trace of the plurality of laser peening traces constituting the first laser peening trace row and the center of the second laser peening trace of the plurality of laser peening traces constituting the second laser peening trace row and is parallel to the second direction is defined as a reference line (Abstract, Fig. 3, [0070], [0071], [0080], and [0253]). Itagaki et al. further teaches a spacing between the first laser peening trace row and the second laser peening trace row is 20 mm [0358].
Itagaki et al. does not explicitly teach σ0<σ1, σ0<σ2, the ratios σ1/σ0 and σ2/σ0 are each greater than 1 and less than 5, and the in-plane stresses σ0, σ1, and σ2 are respectively each 50-1000 MPa, wherein an in-plane stress at an intersection of the reference line and the central line is defined as σ0, an in-plane stress on a circumference of the first reference circle is defined as σ1, and an in-plane stress on a circumference of the second reference circle is defined as σ2.
However in Applicant’s Specification, Applicant discloses that the in-plane stresses σ0, σ1 and σ2 vary depending on the composition of the soft magnetic alloy ([0093] in Applicant’s published application). In Applicant’s Sample No. 1, the soft magnetic alloy has an alloy composition of Fe82Si4B14 ([0130] in Applicant’s published application).
Applicant discloses that the in-plane stress distribution is caused by the laser scribe treatment. The in-plane stress is a scalar quantity called Von Mises stress. The cause of the in-plane stress distribution includes that, at the near position NP1 (i.e. σ1) the soft magnetic alloy around the laser peening trace 15 is compressed by the formation of the laser peening trace 15, and a compressive stress is generated accordingly. The cause also includes that the compressive stress at the middle position MP (i.e. central line area) is relatively small since the middle position MP is separated from the laser peening trace 15 ([0075] in Applicant’s published application).
Applicant further discloses that the in-plane stresses σ0, σ1 and σ2 can be adjusted according to, for example, the energy density (power) of the laser, the pulse width of the pulsed laser light, a temperature and a cooling rate of the rapidly solidified ribbon, and the line spacing d1. Specifically, the compressive stress around the laser peening trace 15 can be increased by increasing the energy density of the laser or increasing the pulse width. Accordingly, the in-plane stresses σ1 and σ2 can be increased ([0121] in Applicant’s published application).
In that regard, Applicant discloses energy density of the laser is preferably 0.01 J/mm2 or more and 1.50 J/mm2 or less, and a pulse width of the pulsed laser light is preferably 50 nanoseconds or more ([0118] and [0120] in Applicant’s published application). Similarly to Applicant, Itagaki et al. substantially disclose the same laser processing step as Applicant (please see [0115]-[0121] in Applicant’s published application and [0247]-[0262] in Itagaki et al.), and also teaches the energy density is preferably 0.01 J/mm2 to 1.50 J/mm2 and the pulse width of the laser is preferably 50 nsec or more ([0254] and [0255]). Itagaki et al. further teaches the exact same material as Applicant for its soft magnetic alloy ribbon. Specifically, Itagaki et al. teaches its Fe-based soft magnetic alloy have a chemical composition of Fe82Si4B14 [0228]. Therefore, it is the Examiner’s position that Itagaki et al. intrinsically teaches σ0< σ1, σ0< σ2, the ratios σ1/σ0 and σ2/σ0 are each greater than 1 and less than 5, and the in-plane stresses σ0, σ1, and σ2 are respectively each 50-1000 MPa in order to obtain a soft magnetic alloy ribbon with reduced iron loss of 0.05 W/kg or less (Fig. 1, [0025], and [0215]-[0217]).
With regards to Claim 3, Itagaki et al. teaches a thickness of the soft magnetic alloy ribbon is 20 µm to 35 µm [0024].
With regards to Claim 5, Itagaki et al. teaches a spacing between the plurality of laser peening traces in the first laser peening trace row is 0.20 mm [0358].
With regards to Claim 6, Itagaki et al. teaches the soft magnetic alloy ribbon has a reduced iron loss under conditions of a frequency of 60 Hz and a magnetic flux density of 1.45 T, and is preferably 0.130 W/kg or less. The lower limit of the iron loss is not particularly limited, but may be 0.050 W/kg ([0025] and [0215]-[0217]). While Itagaki et al. does not measure the iron loss under Applicant’s claimed conditions, however, based on the teachings of Itagaki et al.’s paragraphs [0215]-[0217] and Fig. 1, it appears that Itagaki et al.’s soft magnetic alloy ribbon will have an iron loss of 0.05 W/kg or less under conditions of a frequency of 50 Hz and a magnetic flux density of 1.2 T. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have Itagaki et al.’s soft magnetic alloy ribbon have the claimed iron loss in order to have a low amount of energy loss and achieve a stable soft magnetic alloy ribbon [0217].
With regards to Claim 7, Itagaki et al. teaches a magnetic core comprising the soft magnetic alloy ribbon (Fig. 9A and [0012]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LISA CHAU whose telephone number is (571)270-5496. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 11 AM-730 PM.
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, Mark Ruthkosky can be reached at (571) 272-1291. 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.
/LC/
Lisa Chau
Art Unit 1785
/Holly Rickman/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1785