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 .
Status of Claims
Claim 1 is amended. Claims 6-7 are withdrawn. Claims 1-5 and 8-12 are examined herein.
Status of Previous Rejections
The rejections of claims 1-5 and 8-12 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph are maintained.
The rejections of claims 1-5 and 8-12 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Furukimi (Materials Transactions, Vol. 57, No. 9, 2016, Page 1587-1592), have been withdrawn in view of the amendment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-5 and 8-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “wherein in the surface layer region, both a first main surface and a second main surface, individually, have a thickness that is 1% or more and 30% or less of the entire soft magnetic iron alloy sheet” in line 10-11. It is unclear whether the recited thickness ratio is relative to the length, width and thickness of the alloy sheet. Further, it’s unclear the recited thickness ratio is a ratio of the thickness of surface layer region to the thickness of the alloy sheet or a ratio of the thickness of main surface to the thickness of the alloy sheet. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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.
Claims 1-5 and 8-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Furukimi (Materials Transactions, Vol. 57, No. 9, 2016, Page 1587-1592), and further in view of JP’722 (JPH06-267722A, IDS dated 05/20/2025).
Regarding claim 1, Furukimi teaches a soft magnetic steel sheet having a size of 1.2 mm in thickness, 10 mm in length and 10 mm in width and the steel sheet contains a nitride surface layer formed by nitriding a pure iron sheet (Abstract; Page 1587, right column, 2nd paragraph; Page 1588, right column, last paragraph; Table 1; Fig. 5, Steel C), which meets the soft magnetic alloy sheet limitation recited in claim 1. Furukimi discloses that the steel sheet is made from pure iron sheet containing no V (Table 1), which meets the recited amount of V in claim 1. Furukimi further discloses that the nitride surface layer has a thickness of about 90 µm and the nitrogen content in the nitride surface layer is 0.1-1.7 mass% (Page 1588, right column, last paragraph), which converts to 2.735-6.453 at% and meets the surface layer nitrogen composition and the iron nitride martensite tetragonal structural limitation recited in claim 1. Furukimi further discloses that the nitrogen enriched surface layer contains iron nitride martensite (Page 1588, right column, last paragraph), which meets the limitation that the surface layer contains iron nitride martensite tetragonal structure recited in claim 1.
The total nitrogen content in the steel sheet can be estimated based on the nitrogen distribution in the depth direction from steel surface provided in Fig. 5 of Furukimi:
Fig. 5 (Steel C) shows that the nitride layer has a thickness of ~90 µm and the nitrogen content in the nitride layer is 0.1-1.7 mass% (Page 1588, right column, last paragraph), which converts to 2.735-6.453 at%. There is two nitride surface layers perpendicular to the thickness direction of the steel sheet.
Fig. 5 (Steel C) also shows that the average nitrogen concentration of the internal region at a depth greater than 90 µm from the surface of Steel C is close to 0 at %.
Based on Fig. 5 (Steel C) and the fact that the steel sheet has a thickness of 1.2 mm (i.e. 1200 µm), the average nitrogen content in the steel sheet is estimated to be 0.41 at% to 0.97 at% (calculated by (2.735 at.% x 90 x 2) /1200 to (6.453 at% x 90 x 2) /1200), which meet the recited nitrogen amount in the alloy sheet in claim 1.
The ratio of the nitride layer thickness to the steel sheet thickness is 90/1200=7.5%, which meets the recited thickness percentage in claim 1.
The material disclosed by Furukimi is pure iron and does not contain Co as recited in claim 1. JP’722A teaches an alloy having composition of (Fe100-xCox)100-yNy (1≤x≤20, 0<y≤15), wherein the alloy is made by nitriding a Fe-Co alloy (Page 3 and 4). JP’722 discloses that compared to pure iron, addition of Co in Fe increases the formation of Fe16N2 phase (Page 3-4). Thus, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add Co to Fe as taught by JP’722 in the material of Furukimi in order to increase formation of Fe16N2 phase as disclosed by Furukimi. JP’722 discloses an example containing Fe90Co10 (Example 1 and 2), which meets the recited amount of Co in claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, Furukimi discloses that the nitrogen content in the nitride surface layer is 0.1-1.7 mass% (Page 1588, right column, last paragraph), which converts to 2.735-6.453 at%. Furukimi further discloses that the average nitrogen concentration of the internal region at a depth greater than 90 µm from the surface of the steel sheet is close to 0 at % (Fig. 5, Steel C). Thus, Furukimi meets the limitation that the average nitrogen concentration of the surface layer region is higher than the average nitrogen concentration of the internal region by 0.5 at % or more.
Regarding claim 3, Furukimi discloses that the nitriding only occurs in a thickness of 90 µm from the surface of pure iron sheet and little or no nitriding occurs in the internal region at a depth greater than 90 µm from the surface of the pure iron sheet (Fig. 5, Steel C). Thus, the internal region is made of pure iron and pure iron is known to be ferrite having a cubic structure. Thus, claim 3 is anticipated by Furukimi.
Regarding claims 4 and 8, Furukimi discloses that the average nitrogen concentration of the internal region at a depth greater than 90 µm from the surface of the steel sheet is close to 0 at % (Fig. 5, Steel C), which meets the limitation recited in claims 4 and 8.
Regarding claims 5 and 9-12, Furukimi is silent on the recited magnetic properties. However, the recited magnetic properties depend on the alloy composition and the nitride layer composition, thickness and structure. In view of the fact that Furukimi teaches a steel composition that meets the recited composition in claim 1 and a nitride layer that meets the recited composition, thickness, and structure of the surface layer in claim 1, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect that the steel sheet disclosed by Furukimi to meet the limitation that a saturation magnetic flux density is 2.3 T or more, and an iron loss under conditions of a magnetic flux density of 1.0 T and 400 Hz is less than 50 W/kg as recited in claims 5 and 9-12. “Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established.” In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP 2112.01 I.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/25/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicants argued that the alloy disclosed by Furukimi does not contain the recited amount of Co in claim 1.
In response, as set forth above, JP’722A teaches an alloy having composition of (Fe100-xCox)100-yNy (1≤x≤20, 0<y≤15), wherein the alloy is made by nitriding a Fe-Co alloy (Page 3 and 4). JP’722 discloses that compared to pure iron, addition of Co in Fe increases the formation of Fe16N2 phase (Page 3-4). Thus, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add Co to Fe as taught by JP’722 in the material of Furukimi in order to increase formation of Fe16N2 phase as disclosed by Furukimi. JP’722 discloses an example containing Fe90Co10 (Example 1 and 2), which meets the recited amount of Co in claim 1.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 Xiaowei Su whose telephone number is (571)272-3239. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-5:00.
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, Keith Hendricks can be reached at 5712721401. 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.
/XIAOWEI SU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1733
Prosecution Insights