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 .
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Claim(s) 1-6, 8, 12-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jang et al (US 2015/0342099) in view of Gu et al (CN 108666115), an English computer translation (CT) is provided, Li et al (CN 1852653), an English computer translation (CT2) is provided, and Qin et al (CN 109402369), an English computer translation (CT3) is provided.
Jang et al teaches a method for preparing a modified nanocrystalline strip, comprising: (1) performing roller-pressing treatment on a nanocrystalline strip (nanocrystalline ribbon) with a double- sided tape 3 adhered to one side to obtain a micro-crushed nanocrystalline strip (roller flake device 110, 120 separating ribbon into fine pieces 20 having a size range of several tens micrometers to 3 mm) ([0058]-[0105]). Jang et al also teaches conducting a humidity test at 85°C and a humidity of 85% and the ribbon was oxidized ([0112]-[0115]). Jang et al also teaches a Fe-Si-B-Cu-Nb alloy can be used for the nanocrystalline ribbon ([0072]).
Jang et al does not teach (2) performing acid corroding surface treatment on the micro-crushed nanocrystalline strip obtained in step (1);
In a method of preparing a nanocrystalline sheet, Gu et al teaches nanocrystalline strips are bonded to the polymer substrate film by gluing; the nanocrystalline strips are crushed by rolling to form fragments; spray the passivation liquid comprising nitric acid mixed with ethanol evenly onto the surface of the crushed nanocrystalline strips; drying the nanocrystalline strips sprayed with passivation liquid (CT [0010]-[0022], [0033]), which clearly suggests performing acid corroding surface treatment on the micro-crushed nanocrystalline strip. Gu et al teaches the method can obtain very high magnetic permeability (CT [0023])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Jang et al by performing an acid treatment, as taught by Gu et al, to obtain a very high magnetic permeability.
The combination of Jang et al and Gu et al does not teach (3) performing alkali washing surface treatment on the nanocrystalline strip after the acid corroding surface treatment in step (2); (4) performing water washing, alcohol washing and drying in sequence on the nanocrystalline strip obtained through the alkali washing surface treatment in step (3).
In a method of making a nanocrystalline magnetic strip, Li et al teaches electroplating copper on the surface of a nanocrystalline magnetic alloy strip, wherein the nanocrystalline magnetic alloy strip undergoes electrolytic degreasing, hot alkali cleaning, pickling, cold and hot water rinsing, activation and cold and hot water cleaning and drying prior to electroplating copper (CT2 [0008]-[0014], [0039]), which clearly suggests performing alkali washing surface treatment on the nanocrystalline strip after the acid corroding surface treatment in step (2); (4) performing water washing, and drying in sequence on the nanocrystalline strip obtained through the alkali washing surface treatment in step (3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the combination of Jang et al and Gu et al by performing alkali washing surface treatment on the nanocrystalline strip after the acid corroding surface treatment in step (2); (4) performing water washing, and drying, as taught by Li et al, to clean the nanocrystalline strip.
The combination of Jang et al, Gu et al and Li et al teaches washing, however the combination of Jang et al, Gu et al and Li et al does not explicitly teach alcohol washing.
In a method of making nanocrystalline strips, Qin et al teaches iron-based nanocrystalline strips are repeatedly washed with anhydrous ethanol (alcohol) and finally dried naturally to obtain iron-based porous strips (CT3 [0012]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the combination of Jang et al, Gu et al and Li et al by washing with an alcohol, as taught by Qin et al, to clean the nanocrystalline strip.
In regards to (5) performing micro-oxidation treatment on the dried nanocrystalline strip in step (4) to obtain the modified nanocrystalline strip, the combination of Jang et al, Gu et al, Li et al and Qin et al conducting a humidity test at 85°C and a humidity of 85% and the ribbon was oxidized (Jang [0112]-[0115]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the combination of Jang et al, Gu et al, Li et al and Qin et al, after step (4) to preform a humidity test to oxidize the ribbon.
Referring to claim 2, the combination of Jang et al, Gu et al, Li et al and Qin et al teaches a Fe-Si-B-Cu-Nb alloy can be used for the nanocrystalline ribbon, wherein the content of Fe is 73-80 at %, the content of the sum of Si and B is 15-26 at %, and the content of the sum of Cu and Nb is 1-5 at %. (Jang [0072]). The combination of Jang et al, Gu et al, Li et al and Qin et al does not explicitly teach the claimed composition. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the combination of Jang et al, Gu et al, Li et al and Qin et al by optimizing the concentration of element of the alloy within the known ranges by conducting routine experimentation to obtain desired physical properties. Changes in concentration are prima facie obvious (MPEP 2144.05).
Referring to claim 3, the combination of Jang et al, Gu et al, Li et al and Qin et al teaches roller flake device 110, 120 separating ribbon into fine pieces 20 having a size range of several tens micrometers to 3 mm) (Jang [0058]-[0105]), which clearly suggests a roller press in contact with the nanocrystalline strip so that nanocrystalline strip is micro-crushed.
Referring to claim 4, the combination of Jang et al, Gu et al, Li et al and Qin et al teaches roller-pressing in step (1) is performed at least 1 times. All the other steps are optional and not required.
Referring to claim 5, the combination of Jang et al, Gu et al, Li et al and Qin et al the alkali washing surface treatment and washing with water (Li [0014]), which clearly suggests coating an alkaline solution on the surface of the nanocrystalline strip and washing with deionized water which is a purified form of water. The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended purpose is prima facie obvious (MPEP 2144.07). All the other steps are optional and not required.
Referring to claim 6, the combination of Jang et al, Gu et al, Li et al and Qin et al does not explicitly teach the water washing in step (4) is performed for at least three times. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the combination of Jang et al, Gu et al, Li et al and Qin et al by repeating the water rinsing step to ensure the prior cleaning reactants are removed.
Referring to claim 8, the combination of Jang et al, Gu et al, Li et al and Qin et al teaches the method of claim 1, as discussed above; therefore, teaches the product of claim 8.
Referring to claim 12, the combination of Jang et al, Gu et al, Li et al and Qin et al teaches a laminated structure comprising the nanocrystalline product of claim 8.
Referring to claim 13, the combination of Jang et al, Gu et al, Li et al and Qin et al teaches a release film 4; a plurality of magnetic sheets 22 and 24 and a double side tape 3b; and laminating two to four pieces of magnetic sheets 22/24, which clearly suggests a third and fourth nanocrystalline strip stack in sequence (Jang [0070]-[0087]; Fig 1-2). Furthermore, duplication of parts is prima facie obvious (MPEP 2144.04).
Referring to claim 14-15, the combination of Jang et al, Gu et al, Li et al and Qin et al teaches a sheet thickness of 10-35 micrometers (Jang [0072]-[0080]). Overlapping ranges are prima facie obvious (MPEP 2144.05). Furthermore, changes in size and shape are prima facie obvious (MPEP 2144.04).
Referring to claim 16, the combination of Jang et al, Gu et al, Li et al and Qin et al teaches a double side tape having a thickness of 10 micrometers, and the invention is not limited thereto (Jang [0070]-[0080]). Changes in size and shape are prima facie obvious (MPEP 2144.04). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the combination of Jang et al, Gu et al, Li et al and Qin et al to have a thickness of 4-5 micrometers for making a thinner laminated structure.
Referring to claims 17-20, the combination of Jang et al, Gu et al, Li et al and Qin et al does not explicitly teach the claimed properties of each of the modified nanocrystalline strips. The combination of Jang et al, Gu et al, Li et al and Qin et al teaches improving the magnetic permeability and a similar method of manufacturing, as taught by applicant; therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the combination of Jang et al, Gu et al, Li et al and Qin et al by optimizing the process to obtain the claimed properties through routine experimentation.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jang et al (US 2015/0342099) in view of Gu et al (CN 108666115), an English computer translation (CT) is provided, Li et al (CN 1852653), an English computer translation (CT2) is provided, and Qin et al (CN 109402369), an English computer translation (CT3) is provided, as applied to claims 1-6, 8, 12-20 above, and further in view of Kim et al (KR20050066465), an English computer translation (CT4).
In a method of Fe-based nanoalloy, Kim et al teaches a nanocrystal is etch by immersing in an acid solution such as 0.5-10% hydrochloric acid, nitric acid or sulfuric acid and then dried (CT 4 page 6). Overlapping ranges are prima facie obvious (MPEP 2144.05).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the combination of Jang et al, Gu et al, Li et al and Qin et al by using hydrochloric acid because substituting equivalents known for the same purpose is prima facie obvious (MPEP 2144.06 II).
In regards to the nanocrystalline composition of step (1), see the remarks above regarding claim 2.
In regards to the acid corroding treatment, Kim et al teaches HCl with an overlapping concentration. The treatment time would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing by conducting routine experimentation to optimize the etching time.
In regards to the alkali washing treatment comprising a sodium hydroxide solution having a 0.5-2 wt% for 5-10 min, the combination of Jang et al, Gu et al, Li et al, Qin et al and Kim et al teaches an alkali treatment, however is silent to the sodium hydroxide solution having a 0.5-2 wt%. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the combination of Jang et al, Gu et al, Li et al, Qin et al and Kim et al by selecting a sodium hydroxide solution having a 0.5-2 wt% because the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended purpose is prima facie obvious (MPEP 2144.07). The treatment time would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing by conducting routine experimentation to optimize the treatment time.
In regards to step (4), Qin et al teaches iron-based nanocrystalline strips are repeatedly washed with anhydrous ethanol (alcohol) and finally dried naturally to obtain iron-based porous strips (CT3 [0012]). The combination of Jang et al, Gu et al, Li et al and Qin et al does not explicitly teach the water washing in step (4) is performed for at least three times. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the combination of Jang et al, Gu et al, Li et al, Qin et al and Kim et al by repeating the water rinsing step to ensure the prior cleaning reactants are removed.
In regards to step (5), Jang et al also teaches conducting a humidity test at 85°C and a humidity of 85% and the ribbon was oxidized ([0112]-[0115]), which clearly suggests an oxygen atmosphere because water comprises oxygen. The time for 15-30 min would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing by conducting routine experimentation to ensure a desired amount of oxidation. Furthermore, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the combination of Jang et al, Gu et al, Li et al, Qin et al and Kim et al by oxidizing in an oxygen atmosphere because substituting equivalents known for the same purpose is prima facie obvious (MPEP 2144.06 II).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/08/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s argument that the prior art does not teach performing a micro-oxidation treatment on the dried nanocrystalline strip in step (4) to obtain the modified nanocrystalline strip is noted but not found persuasive. Applicant alleges that Jang’s humidity test ([0112]-[0115]) is not part of the preparation process of the sheet, but rather a part of product performance testing is noted but not found persuasive. First, claim 1 merely requires “performing a micro-oxidation treatment on the dried nanocrystalline strip in step (4) to obtain the modified nanocrystalline strip” and the humidity test taught by Jang reads on an oxidation step because humidity test oxidizes the ribbon ([0114]). In response to the humidity test being a performance test, rather than a preparation process, there is no patentable difference because the humidity test is performed on the nanocrystalline strip, and the humidity test oxidizes the ribbon (strip). Applicant admits that the humidity test “belongs to a step of final product performance evaluation” (page 8 of the remarks filed 01/08/2026), and the examiner maintains that the humidity test clearly suggests applicant’s final process step (5); thus meets the claimed limitation. It is the examiner’s position that the combination of prior art references teaches step (1)-(4), as discussed above, and the final step (5) for micro-oxidation reads on the humidity test taught by Jang which occurs as final device testing. The examiner maintains that it is obvious to test the device performance by conducting a humidity test; therefore, meets the claimed limitation for micro-oxidation.
Applicant’s argument that Jang and the claimed invention belong to different technical fields is noted but not found persuasive. First, there are no limitations in the claimed invention related to applicant’s field of wireless charging material. Claim 1 broadly claims a method of preparing a nanocrystalline strip. There are no materials claimed or properties claimed. Therefore, applicant’s arguments are not commensurate in scope with the claimed invention; therefore, are not persuasive. Second, the claim is for a nanocrystalline strip which is the same field of endeavor as Jang which claims a thin film sheet made of nanocrystalline alloy made micrometer sized fine pieces (see claims 1-6).
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., form a thin oxide film on the surface of the nanocrystalline strip and at a cross section of each micro-crushed unit, effectively improving resistivity of the nanocrystalline strip and thus reducing the eddy current loss, the micro-oxidation treatment in step (5) is further performed on the dried nanocrystalline strip obtained from step (4)) 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). No resistivity is claimed or any other properties are claimed. It is also noted that none of these alleged advantages or properties would not be inherent given the broadness of claim 1 because claim 1 does not recite any temperature, times, gas or materials etc. For example, applicant teaches “If the oxygen concentration is too low, the treatment is performed at too low a temperature or performed for too short a time, the object of the micro-oxidation treatment cannot be effectively achieved. If the oxygen concentration is too high, the treatment is performed at too high a temperature or performed for too long a time, the excess oxidation is caused, which significantly deteriorates magnetic permeability of the nanocrystalline. Although the eddy current loss can be reduced in some extent, the hysteresis loss is significantly increased, and the total loss does not decrease but increases.” in paragraph [0041] of the published application. Furthermore, the combination of prior art references teaches a substantially similar method, as discussed above, thus the effects/properties would be expected.
Applicant’s argument that Jang intent is to prevent oxidation of the amorphous ribbon is noted but not found persuasive. The claim merely requires performing the micro-oxidization treatment, and there is no actual oxidation required. Claim 1 merely requires “performing a micro-oxidation treatment on the dried nanocrystalline strip in step (4) to obtain the modified nanocrystalline strip.” Jang teaches performing a humidity test which clearly suggest applicant’s performing a micro-oxidation treatment. No results or effects of the oxidation treatment are claimed. In other words, given the broadest reasonable interpretation the claim could be interpreted as “performing a humidity test on the dried nanocrystalline strip in step (4) to obtain the modified nanocrystalline strip” or “performing a micro-oxidation treatment on the dried nanocrystalline strip in step (4) to obtain the modified nanocrystalline strip to evaluate permeability.” The examiner maintains that the nanocrystalline strip after performing the humidity test (micro-oxidation treatment) obtains “the modified nanocrystalline strip.”
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 MATTHEW J SONG whose telephone number is (571)272-1468. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10AM-6PM.
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, Kaj Olsen can be reached at 571-272-1344. 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.
MATTHEW J. SONG
Examiner
Art Unit 1714
/MATTHEW J SONG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1714
Prosecution Insights