DETAILED ACTION
Examiner’s Note
This office action is in response to applicants’ remarks filed July 7, 2026. Claims 1-1-12 are pending with claims 6-12 remaining withdrawn as directed to non-elected subject matter.
Claim Interpretation
Applicants’ claims are directed to “An amorphous nanocrystalline alloy,” that is further defined by the strip’s ability to achieve a defined relative length difference. This is distinct from a claim directed to a plurality of amorphous nanocrystalline alloy strips, where the amorphous nanocrystalline alloy strips have a set relative length difference. It is further distinct from a product-by-process claim directed to a plurality of amorphous nanocrystalline alloy strips formed by cutting an amorphous nanocrystalline alloy strip into plurality of amorphous nanocrystalline alloy strips having a width of 10mm or less.
Applicants’ claimed “relative length difference” does not limit the manner in which the length of the strips is measured and therefore allow the length to be defined by measuring a surface length (following the contours of the surface), or by a straight line. Applicants claimed relative length difference is not found to be indefinite but is considered to allow different measures of length as long as a single defined measurement process is applied across the plurality of strips.
Drawings
Applicants’ drawings filed July 7, 2026 have been received and are approved.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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.
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 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Yoshizawa et al. (PGPub US 2013/0314198).
Yoshizawa et al. teach the manufacture of an amorphous nanocrystalline strip (paragraph 0031), but do not appear to characterize the strip’s ability to be cut into a plurality of strips having a width of 10mm or less, where the relative length difference of the plurality of strips is not greater than 0.5% (claim 1), 0.20% (claim 2), 0.10% (claim 3), 0.05% (claim 4), or 0.02% (claim 5). However substantially identical materials treated in a substantially identical manner are expected to have substantially identical properties.
Applicants disclose flowing molten steel form a nozzle on a cooling roller where the transverse temperature is controlled to not greater than 40°C where the non-uniformity of the surface of the cooling roller is not greater than 20°C (present specification page 9).
Yoshizawa et al. disclose melting raw materials into molten steel (fig 3a, melt 11); pouring the molten steel into a nozzle package (fig 3a, nozzle 14) with a nozzle at a bottom (fig 3a); enabling the molten steel to flow out of the nozzle (fig 3a) and spread on an outer circumferential surface of a cooling roller (cooling roll 15), and forming a melting pool (figs 4a-4b, paddle 11a) containing the molten steel between a surface of the cooling roller and a bottom surface of the nozzle (figs 4a-4b); keeping a transverse temperature distribution in a melt nozzle within +/- 15°C to have as small a temperature distribution as possible in a melt paddle of the alloy (paragraph 0013).
Given that (i) the amorphous nanocrystalline alloy strip of Yoshizawa et al. is formed by treating substantially identical materials in a substantially identical manner, and (ii) the relative length difference is a functional requirement that does not limit the manner in which the length is measured or the process by which it is cut, the amorphous nanocrystalline alloy strip formed by Yoshizawa et al. would be capable of being cut into a plurality of strips in a substantially identical manner to applicants’ strip, including such as to achieve a relative length difference within, or at least overlapping, applicants’ claimed range(s).
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over CN’173 (CN 102259173 A, references herein made to the English machine translation dated October 9, 2025).
CN’173 disclose the formation of a strip but do not appear to describe the strip as an amorphous nanocrystalline alloy strip, or characterize the strip’s ability to be cut into a plurality of strips having a width of 10mm or less where the relative length difference of the plurality of strips is not greater than 0.5% (claim 1), 0.20% (claim 2), 0.10% (claim 3), 0.05% (claim 4), or 0.02% (claim 5). However substantially identical materials treated in a substantially identical manner are expected to have substantially identical properties.
Applicants disclose flowing molten steel form a nozzle on a cooling roller where the transverse temperature is controlled to not greater than 40°C where the non-uniformity of the surface of the cooling roller is not greater than 20°C (present specification page 9).
CN’173 disclose the temperature gradient on the cooling roller along the width direction of the strip is the main reason for the uneven cooling of the strip (paragraph 0005) and disclose heating the cooling roller at the junction with the strip forming liquid, thereby reducing the temperature gradient on the cooling roller along the width of the strip (paragraph 0007), where the temperature difference when no temperature compensation is performed to be about 25°C in the strip-covered area (paragraph 0052, between points A1 and D1), and after temperature compensation, to be about 18°C (paragraph 0052), thereby reducing stress concentration and thickness increases at the edge of the strip due to excessive temperature gradient (paragraph 0052).
Given that (i) the strip of CN’173 is formed by treating substantially identical materials in a substantially identical manner, and (ii) the claimed relative length difference is a functional requirement that does not limit the manner in which the length is measured or the process by which the strips are cut, the amorphous nanocrystalline alloy strip formed by CN’173 would be capable of being cut into a plurality of strips in a substantially identical manner to applicants’ strip, including such as to achieve a relative length difference within or at least overlapping applicants’ claimed range(s).
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments filed July 7, 2026 have been reconsidered but have not been found to be persuasive.
Applicants note that to achieve their claimed features they control the transverse temperature non-uniformity of the molten steel in the melting pool and the surface temperature non-uniformity of the cooling roller. However, paragraph 0018 of the published application states that they control “the transverse temperature non-uniformity of the molten steel inside the melting pool…and/or controlling the surface temperature non-uniformity of the cooling roller…” Applicants’ specification does not appear to require control of the transverse non-uniformity of both the melt pool and cooling roller to achieve the claimed uniformity.
Applicants argue that Yoshizawa et al. contains no technical disclosure relating to strip splitting or length measurement, however as discussed in the claim interpretation section above, the claims do not require and are not directed to narrow strips. Applicants’ claims are directed to an alloy strip that “when” cut satisfies the claimed relative length difference.
Applicants argue that Yoshizawa et al. deliberately generates undulations that would inevitably lead to inconsistent lengths, where strips with prefabricated wave features inherently cannot satisfy the requirement of the claimed relative length difference, however no evidence is provided in support of applicants’ position. While applicants contend that undulations generated by transverse non-uniformity result in strips that, when cut, do not satisfy the claimed relative length requirements, Yoshizawa et al. do address the transverse uniformity of the cooling roller. The undulations are provided as surface roughness features imposed mechanical treatment of the surface of the strip. Such mechanical treatment is unrelated to the microstructure and stresses imposed on the strip during cooling. Further the claims do not restrict the surface roughness of the claimed alloy strips.
Applicants argue that because Yoshizawa et al. never measures or discloses any relative length difference it cannot be presumed that the disclosed strips fall within the scope of the instant claims. However there is no requirement that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the inherent disclosure at the relevant time, but only that the subject matter is in fact inherent in the prior art reference (MPEP 21112 II). Further, “Where applicant claims a composition in terms of a function, property or characteristic and the composition of the prior art is the same as that of the claim but the function is not explicitly disclosed by the reference, the examiner may make a rejection under both 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103" (MPEP 2112 III).
Applicants’ argue that CN’173 contains no disclosure of amorphous nanocrystalline material, strips or relative length difference, however as discussed above, the claims are not directed to a plurality of strips limited by their relative length difference, and substantially identical materials are expected to have substantially identical properties. Further CN’173 references the strip being amorphous at paragraph 0053.
Applicants’ argue that similar processes do not equate to a showing that a feature is necessarily present in the prior art. However once a reference teaching a product appearing to be substantially identical is made the basis of a rejection, and the examiner presents evidence or reasoning to show inherency the burden of production shifts to the applicants. The PTO can require an applicant to prove that the prior art products do not necessarily or inherently possess the characteristics of his [or her] claimed product. Whether the rejection is based on ‘inherency’ under 35 U.S.C. 102, on ‘prima facie obviousness’ under 35 U.S.C. 103, jointly or alternatively, the burden of proof is the same. MPEP 2112 V.
Applicants discuss the core motivations of Yoshizawa et al. and CN’173 however obviousness under 103 is not negated because the motivation to arrive at the claimed invention as disclosed by the prior art does not agree with applicants’ motivation. Regardless of the motivation of the prior art the resulting amorphous alloy steel strips are formed in a manner such that one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected them to behave in a substantially identical manner to applicants’ steel strips. The discovery of a previously unappreciated property of a prior art composition (can be cut into narrow strips with a narrow relatively length difference), does not render the old composition patentably new to the discoverer.
Applicants discuss advantageous technical effects of their invention, however there is no requirement that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the inherent disclosure at the relevant time, but only that the subject matter is in fact inherent in the prior art reference (MPEP 2112 II). The establishment of an objective quantitative index for characterizing superior flatness or the elevation of a core stacking factor are properties that result from applicants’ manufacturing process, a process which has been demonstrated in the prior art. While applicants argue that they have streamlined post-processing workflows, applicants have not demonstrated evidence demonstrating the processes in the cited art results in distinct steel strips, particularly steel strips, that when cut, would not yield narrow strips within applicants’ claimed parameters.
For these reasons and for those reasons as discussed in the rejections above, the rejections or record are maintained, and this action is made final.
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 ADAM C KRUPICKA whose telephone number is (571)270-7086. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8-5pm EST.
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, Humera Sheikh can be reached at (571)272-0604. 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.
/Adam Krupicka/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1784
Prosecution Insights