DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, claims 1-5, in the reply filed on December 5, 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the grounds that the cited references do not disclose all of the technical features, specifically a plurality of narrow strips. This is not found persuasive because the claims do not require a plurality of narrow strips. Applicants’ claims are directed to “An amorphous nanocrystalline alloy strip,”. The claimed strip is further limited by a functional limitation which requires that the strip be capable of being cut into strips of 10mm or less in width such that the plurality of strips achieve a set relative length difference.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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 a 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
Figures 1 and 2 are objected to. Figures 1 and 2 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. According to applicants’ written description at page 5 under “BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS” figures 1 and 2 depict “existing planar flow technology”. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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).
Conclusion
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