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
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/31/2025 has been entered.
Status of claims
Claims 2-3, 8, and 10 have been cancelled; Claims 1 and 5 have amended; Claims 7 and 9 are withdrawn as non-elected claims; Claims 11-13 are added as new claims; Claims 1, 4-6, and 11-13 remain for Examination, wherein claim 1 is an independent claim.
Previous Rejections/Objections
Previous rejection of Claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends is withdrawn in view of the Applicant’s “Arguments/Remarks with amendment” filed on 12/31/2025.
Previous rejection of Claims 1 and 4-6 under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Couderchon (US 5,919,319, listed in IDS filed on 2/5/2025, thereafter US’319) in view of Takemoto et al (JP 2002075721 A listed in IDS filed on 12/30/2022, with on-line translation, thereafter JP’721) is withdrawn in view of the Applicant’s “Arguments/Remarks with amendment” filed on 12/31/2025.
However, in view of the Applicant’s “Arguments/Remarks with amendment” filed on 12/31/2025, newly recorded prior art, and reconsideration, the new ground rejection is listed as following:
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 4-6, and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over US’319 in view of Waeckerle et al (US 11,767,583 B2, thereafter US’583).
Regarding claims 1 and 12, US’319 teaches an iron-cobalt alloy for a strip (Abstract, examples, and claims of US’319), which reads on the claimed alloy material for an Fe-Co-based magnetic member as claimed in the instant claim. The comparison between the claimed alloy composition ranges and the example #F on Col.4 of US’319 has been listed in following table. All of the essential alloy composition ranges disclosed in the example #F on Col.4 of US’319 are within the claimed alloy composition ranges. It is noted that the example #F on Col.4 of US’319 does not specify 0.1-1.0 mass% Al (cl.1); 0.1-0.5 mass% Al (cl.12) and 1-2 mass% Si (cl.1), however, US’319 teaches adjusting Al in range 0.2-5 mass% in order to reduce the extent of the range of existence of the g phase; aluminum has the additional advantage of increasing the electrical resistivity and of not impairing the cold ductility; (claim 1 and Col.3, lns.15-21 of US’319), and US’319 teaches adjusting Si in range 0-3 mass% (cl.1 and Col.2, ln.22 of US’319), which overlaps the claimed Al and Si ranges. Overlapping in Al and Si ranges creates a prima facie case of obviousness. MPEP 2144 05 I. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to optimize the Al and Si ranges from the disclosure of US’319 in order to reduce the extent of the range of existence of the g phase; aluminum has the additional advantage of increasing the electrical resistivity and of not impairing the cold ductility; (claim 1 and Col.3, lns.15-21 of US’319). Since US’319 indicates all of the essential alloy compositions as claimed in the instant claim, which reads on the “consisting of” language in the instant claim.
Still regarding claim 1 and claim 11, US’319 does not specify the average grain diameter as claimed in the instant claims. US’583 teaches Fe-Co based soft-magnetic sheet or strip (abstract, Col.6, ln.45 to col.7, ln.2, examples and claims of US’583). All of the alloy composition ranges disclosed by US’583 (abstract and claims of US’583) overlaps the claimed alloy composition ranges. MPEP 2144 05 I. US’583 specify cold rolling and recrystallization treatment (Col.21, ln.1 to Col.22, ln.19 and table 2 of US’583) and provides examples having grain diameter 44-150 mm (table 2 of US’583), which are within the claimed average grain diameter ranges as claimed in the instant claim. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to optimize the average crystal grain diameter from the disclosure of US’583 for the alloy member of US’319 in order to optimize the characteristic values (magnetic flux density and relative density) (Col.4, lns.19-26, Col.22, ln.63 to Col.23, ln.51 of US’583). The claimed a/a+g transformation point as claimed in the instant claims is recognized as a material property fully depended on the alloy composition and manufacturing process. Since US’319 in view of US’583 teaches the same Fe-Co based soft magnetic alloy member with the same alloy composition manufactured by the same cold working and recrystallization heat treatment, and having the similar grain diameters, the claimed a/a+g transformation point would be highly expected in the alloy material of US’319 in view of US’583. MPEP 2112 01 and 2145 II.
Element
From instant Claims 1 and 12 (mass %)
Example #F on Col.4 of US’319 (mass %)
Within range
(mass %)
Co
5.00-25.00
15
15
Si
0.10-2.00
0.98
Adjusting 0-5
0.98 close to low limit 1.00
Overlapping 1.00-2.00
Al
0.10-1.00
1.55
Adjusting: 0.2-5 (cl.1)
1.55
Overlapping range:
0.2-1.0 (cl.1)
0.2-0.5 (cl.12)
Total of Si and Al
1.00-3.00
2.53
2.53
C
0.020 or less
0.011
0.011
Mn
0.10 or less
Trace amount
Trace amount
P
0.010 or less
Trace amount
Trace amount
S
0.0001-0.004
0.0005
0.0005
Cu
0.005 or less
Trace amount
Trace amount
Ni
0.10 or less
Trace amount
Trace amount
Cr
0.10 or less
Trace amount
Trace amount
Mo
0.10 or less
Trace amount
Trace amount
Ti
0.010 or less
Trace amount
Trace amount
O
0.005 or less
0.0013
0.0013
N
0.005 or less
0.0012
0.0012
Fe
Balance + impurities
Balance + impurities
Balance + impurities
Regarding claims 4 and 6, US’319 teaches an iron-cobalt alloy for a strip (Abstract, examples, and claims of US’319), US’319 specify applying cold rolling and heat treatment (col.4, lns.7-14 and cl.8 of US’319), which reads on the obtaining cold-worked structure by cold working (cl.4) and obtained recrystallized structure (cl.6).
Regarding claim 5, US’319 teaches an iron-cobalt alloy for a strip (Abstract, examples, and claims of US’319), US’319 specify applying cold rolling and heat treatment (col.4, lns.7-14 and cl.8 of US’319), however, US’319 does not specify the average grain diameter as claimed in the instant claims. US’583 teaches Fe-Co based soft-magnetic sheet or strip (abstract, Col.6, ln.45 to col.7, ln.2, examples and claims of US’583). All of the alloy composition ranges disclosed by US’583 (abstract and claims of US’583) overlaps the claimed alloy composition ranges. MPEP 2144 05 I. US’583 specify cold rolling and recrystallization treatment (Col.21, ln.1 to Col.22, ln.19 and table 2 of US’583) and provides examples having grain diameter 44-150 mm (table 2 of US’583), which are within the claimed average grain diameter ranges as claimed in the instant claims. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to optimize the average crystal grain diameter from the disclosure of US’583 for the alloy member of US’319 in order to optimize the characteristic values (magnetic flux density and relative density) of the magnetic core (Abstract and examples of US’583). The claimed core loss in claim 5 fully is depended on the alloy composition and manufacturing process. Since US’319 in view of US’583 teaches the same Fe-Co based soft magnetic alloy member with the same alloy composition manufactured by the same cold working and recrystallization heat treatment, and having the similar grain diameters, the claimed core loss would be highly expected in the alloy member of US’319 in view of US’583. MPEP 2112 01 and 2145 II.
Regarding claim 13, US’319 specify that the alloy is cast in the form of a remelting electrode which is remelted under vacuum or under an electrically conductive slag in order to obtain the intermediate product before hot-rolling. (Col.2, lns.28-37 of US’319), which includes billet form as claimed in the instant claim. furthermore, US’583 teaches that it is cast in the form of an ingot or a semi-finished continuously cast product; wherein the said ingot or semi-finished continuously cast product is hot-shaped in the form of a strip or a sheet 2 to 5 mm thick (Col.7, lns.56-60 of US’583), which reads on the billet form of member as claimed in the instant claim.
Notes: Foster et al (US 4,416,707) is cited as a reference only.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments to the art rejection to Claims 1, 4-6, and 11-13 have been considered but they are moot in view of the new ground rejection as stated as above. Regarding the arguments related to the amended features, the Examiner’s position has stated as above.
The Applicant’s arguments have been summarized as following:
1, Regarding the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Couderchon (US’319) in view of Waeckerle et al (US’583), the grain diameters in Waeckerle et al (US’583) are post-final annealing, which different to the grain diameter in pre-cold-work state as disclosed in the instant invention. The Annealing temperature 900oC may yield large grain than Applicant’s 750oC, and Waeckerle et al (US’583) does not suggest 950oC or more transformation point.
2, All examples in Couderchon (US’319) have large Al content and Couderchon (US’319) indicates Si may impair the cold ductility. The combination lacks motivation for the claimed features.
In response,
Regarding the argument 1, Firstly, there is no limitation in the instant claim to indicate the average crystal grain diameter must be in pre-cold-work state as argued. Secondly, the process temperature does not included in the instant claims and the average crystal grain diameter may not only depend on temperature, but also depend on process time. Finally, The claimed / transformation point as claimed in the instant claims is recognized as a material property fully depended on the alloy composition and manufacturing process. Since Couderchon (US’319) in view of Waeckerle et al (US’583) teaches the same Fe-Co based soft magnetic alloy member with the same alloy composition manufactured by the same cold working and recrystallization heat treatment, and having the similar grain diameters, the claimed / transformation point would be highly expected in the alloy material of Couderchon (US’319) in view of US’583. MPEP 2112 01 and 2145 II.
Regarding the argument 2, Firstly, Couderchon (US’319) teaches adjusting Al in range 0.2-5 mass% in order to reduce the extent of the range of existence of the phase; aluminum has the additional advantage of increasing the electrical resistivity and of not impairing the cold ductility; (claim 1 and Col.3, lns.15-21 of US’319), and Couderchon (US’319) teaches adjusting Si in range 0-3 mass% (cl.1 and Col.2, ln.22 of US’319), which overlaps the claimed Al and Si ranges. Overlapping in Al and Si ranges creates a prima facie case of obviousness. MPEP 2144 05 I. Secondly, the invention of Couderchon (US’319) ought to be taken as a whole, and should not in any way be limited to the examples provided in the reference. It has been well settled in many court decisions that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to construct the process comprising said parameter within the disclosed range. Waeckerle et al (US’583) indicates optimize the average crystal grain diameter from the disclosure of US’583 in order to optimize the characteristic values (magnetic flux density and relative density) (Col.4, lns.19-26, Col.22, ln.63 to Col.23, ln.51 of US’583).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JIE YANG whose telephone number is (571)270-1884. The examiner can normally be reached on IFP.
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, Jonathan J Johnson can be reached on 571-272-1177. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JIE YANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1734