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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of a certified copy of JP 2021-074101 filed April 26, 2021 as required by 37 CFR 1.55. Receipt is also acknowledged of WO 2022/230317, the WIPO publication of PCT/JP2022/006619 filed February 18, 2022.
Response to Restriction Election
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-5 and 11-14, in the reply filed on March 26, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 6-10 and 15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected inventive group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claim Status
This Office Action is in response to Applicant’s Restriction Election filed March 26, 2026 and Claims filed October 10, 2023.
Claims Filing Date
October 10, 2023
Amended
3-6, 8, 9
New
11-15
Pending
1-15
Withdrawn
6-10, 15
Under Examination
1-5, 11-14
Abstract Objection
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because
It is more than 150 words.
A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 4, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yasunaga (JP H01-220216 machine translation).
Regarding claim 1, Yasunaga discloses a soft magnetic iron alloy plate (layer) (p. 1) comprising:
chemical composition containing 2 at.% or more and 10 at.% or less of nitrogen (more particularly 5-15 at%), 0 at.% or more and 30 at.% or less of cobalt (0 at%), 0 at.% or more and 1.2 at.% or less of vanadium (0%), and a remaining portion including iron and an impurity (Abstract, p. 2 para. 2, p. 3 para. 1).
With respect to a nitrogen concentration in a thickness direction, Yasunaga discloses a nitrogen content over the entire part of more particularly preferably 5 to 15 at% with the nitrogen atoms exhibiting a bell-shaped distribution pattern where the ratio of nitrogen atoms to iron atoms in the thickness direction is maximized near the center in the thickness direction (p. 2 para. 2, para. spanning pp. 2-3, p. 3 para. 2, Figure 3).
The maximum amount of nitrogen atoms is not more than the overall nitrogen content of more particularly preferably 5 to 15 at%. This reads on and overlaps with a high nitrogen concentration region where maximum nitrogen concentration is higher than nitrogen concentration of the main surface and less than 11 at.%. Further, around the maximized amount of nitrogen atoms peak, which includes a flat upper region (Figures 3, 5, 6), a variation range of nitrogen concentration is within 1 at.%.
PNG
media_image1.png
376
460
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Further, the nitrogen atoms away from the center in the thickness direction have a lower nitrogen content than the maximum of more particularly preferably 5 to 15 at%. This reads on and overlaps with an outer nitrogen concentration transition region where nitrogen concentration on a main surface is 1 at.% or more and 4 at.% or less and nitrogen concentration increases toward an inner side from the main surface and an inner nitrogen concentration transition region where nitrogen concentration decreases toward an inner side from the high nitrogen concentration region and minimum nitrogen concentration is lower than N concentration in the high nitrogen concentration region and is 1 at.% or more.
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 2, Yasunaga discloses the soft magnetic iron alloy plate according to claim 1 as cited above, wherein maximum nitrogen concentration in the high nitrogen concentration region is 6 at.% or more and 10 at.% or less, and minimum nitrogen concentration in the inner nitrogen concentration transition region is 1 at.% or more and 4 at.% or less (nitrogen content over the entire part of more particularly preferably 5 to 15 at% with the nitrogen atoms exhibiting a bell-shaped distribution pattern where the ratio of nitrogen atoms to iron atoms in the thickness direction is maximized near the center in the thickness direction) (p. 2 para. 2, para. spanning pp. 2-3, p. 3 para. 2, Figure 3). The maximum amount of nitrogen atoms is not more than the overall nitrogen content of more particularly preferably 5 to 15 at% and the nitrogen atoms away from the center in the thickness direction have a lower nitrogen content than the maximum more particularly preferably 5 to 15 at%.
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 4, Yasunaga discloses the soft magnetic iron alloy plate according to claim 1 as cited above,
wherein when x is a numerical value of concentration (unit: at.%) of cobalt, a numerical value y (unit: T) of saturation magnetic flux density of the soft magnetic iron alloy plate satisfies an empirical formula (1) “y ≥ 1.02 * (0.01 * x * 2.14)” (for 0 at% Co, y is more than 0; decreasing saturation magnetic flux density, Bm, is undesirable, such that it is within the scope of Yasunaga to be more than 0) (p. 3 paras. 1-2), and
when a numerical value of an iron loss (unit: W/kg) is z, an iron loss under a condition of magnetic flux density of 1.0 T and 400 Hz satisfies an empirical formula (2) “z < 150 * y – 295” (increased coercivity, which is related to iron loss, increases durability) (p. 3 para. 2).
“[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
Regarding claim 12, Yasunaga discloses the soft magnetic iron alloy plate according to claim 2 as cited above,
wherein when x is a numerical value of concentration (unit: at.%) of cobalt, a numerical value y (unit: T) of saturation magnetic flux density of the soft magnetic iron alloy plate satisfies an empirical formula (1) “y ≥ 1.02 * (0.01 * x * 2.14)” (for 0 at% Co, y is more than 0; decreasing saturation magnetic flux density, Bm, is undesirable, such that it is within the scope of Yasunaga to be more than 0) (p. 3 paras. 1-2), and
when a numerical value of an iron loss (unit: W/kg) is z, an iron loss under a condition of magnetic flux density of 1.0 T and 400 Hz satisfies an empirical formula (2) “z < 150 * y – 295” (increased coercivity, which is related to iron loss, increases durability) (p. 3 para. 2).
“[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
Claims 3 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yasunaga (JP H01-220216 machine translation) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nose (JP 2020-111806 machine translation).
Regarding claim 3, Yasunaga discloses the soft magnetic iron alloy plate according to claim 1 as cited above.
Yasunaga discloses a nitrogen content over the entire part of more particularly preferably 5 to 15 at% with the nitrogen atoms exhibiting a bell-shaped distribution pattern where the ratio of nitrogen atoms to iron atoms in the thickness direction is maximized near the center in the thickness direction (p. 2 para. 2, para. spanning pp. 2-3, p. 3 para. 2, Figure 3).
Yasunaga is silent to an average nitrogen concentration gradient of the outer nitrogen concentration transition region and of the inner nitrogen concentration transition region.
Nose discloses a large change in the distribution of nitrogen content in the thickness direction will change the strength distribution ([0061]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in the metal layer of Yasunaga to control the change in the distribution of nitrogen content in the thickness direction to control the strength distribution in the thickness direction, preventing stress concentration during deformation and poor workability (Nose [0061]).
With respect to an average nitrogen concentration gradient of the outer nitrogen concentration transition region is 0.1 at.%/um or more and 0.6 at.%/um or less, and an average nitrogen concentration gradient of the inner nitrogen concentration transition region is 0.1 at.%/um or more and 0.3 at.%/um or less, “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
Regarding claim 13, Yasunaga in view of Nose discloses the soft magnetic iron alloy plate according to claim 3 as cited above,
wherein when x is a numerical value of concentration (unit: at.%) of cobalt, a numerical value y (unit: T) of saturation magnetic flux density of the soft magnetic iron alloy plate satisfies an empirical formula (1) “y ≥ 1.02 * (0.01 * x * 2.14)” (for 0 at% Co, y is more than 0; decreasing saturation magnetic flux density, Bm, is undesirable, such that it is within the scope of Yasunaga to be more than 0) (p. 3 paras. 1-2), and
when a numerical value of an iron loss (unit: W/kg) is z, an iron loss under a condition of magnetic flux density of 1.0 T and 400 Hz satisfies an empirical formula (2) “z < 150 * y – 295” (increased coercivity, which is related to iron loss, increases durability) (p. 3 para. 2).
“[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
Claims 11 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yasunaga (JP H01-220216 machine translation) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Nose (JP 2020-111806 machine translation).
Regarding claim 11, Yasunaga discloses the soft magnetic iron alloy plate according to claim 2 as cited above.
Yasunaga discloses a nitrogen content over the entire part of more particularly preferably 5 to 15 at% with the nitrogen atoms exhibiting a bell-shaped distribution pattern where the ratio of nitrogen atoms to iron atoms in the thickness direction is maximized near the center in the thickness direction (p. 2 para. 2, para. spanning pp. 2-3, p. 3 para. 2, Figure 3).
Yasunaga is silent to an average nitrogen concentration gradient of the outer nitrogen concentration transition region and of the inner nitrogen concentration transition region.
Nose discloses a large change in the distribution of nitrogen content in the thickness direction will change the strength distribution ([0061]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in the metal layer of Yasunaga to control the change in the distribution of nitrogen content in the thickness direction to control the strength distribution in the thickness direction, preventing stress concentration during deformation and poor workability (Nose [0061]).
With respect to an average nitrogen concentration gradient of the outer nitrogen concentration transition region is 0.1 at.%/um or more and 0.6 at.%/um or less, and an average nitrogen concentration gradient of the inner nitrogen concentration transition region is 0.1 at.%/um or more and 0.3 at.%/um or less, “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
Regarding claim 14, Yasunaga in view of Nose discloses the soft magnetic iron alloy plate according to claim 11 as cited above,
wherein when x is a numerical value of concentration (unit: at.%) of cobalt, a numerical value y (unit: T) of saturation magnetic flux density of the soft magnetic iron alloy plate satisfies an empirical formula (1) “y ≥ 1.02 * (0.01 * x * 2.14)” (for 0 at% Co, y is more than 0; decreasing saturation magnetic flux density, Bm, is undesirable, such that it is within the scope of Yasunaga to be more than 0) (p. 3 paras. 1-2), and
when a numerical value of an iron loss (unit: W/kg) is z, an iron loss under a condition of magnetic flux density of 1.0 T and 400 Hz satisfies an empirical formula (2) “z < 150 * y – 295” (increased coercivity, which is related to iron loss, increases durability) (p. 3 para. 2).
“[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (US 2015/0380135).
Regarding claim 1, Wang discloses a soft magnetic iron alloy plate ([0005], [0049], [0055]) comprising:
chemical composition containing 2 at.% or more and 10 at.% or less of nitrogen (about 3 at%), 0 at.% or more and 30 at.% or less of cobalt (0 at%), 0 at.% or more and 1.2 at.% or less of vanadium (0 at%), and a remaining portion including iron and an impurity (Fe16N2, about 3 at% N) ([0003], [0049]-[0050]); and
in a thickness direction of the soft magnetic iron alloy plate ([0041], [0288], Fig. 34),
an outer nitrogen concentration transition region where nitrogen concentration on a main surface is 1 at.% or more and 4 at.% or less and nitrogen concentration increases toward an inner side from the main surface ([0041], [0288], Fig. 34);
a high nitrogen concentration region where maximum nitrogen concentration is higher than nitrogen concentration of the main surface and less than 11 at.%, and a variation range of nitrogen concentration is within 1 at.% ([0041], [0288], Fig. 34); and
an inner nitrogen concentration transition region where nitrogen concentration decreases toward an inner side from the high nitrogen concentration region and minimum nitrogen concentration is lower than N concentration in the high nitrogen concentration region and is 1 at.% or more ([0041], [0288], Fig. 34).
PNG
media_image2.png
651
878
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Wang discloses the soft magnetic iron alloy plate according to claim 1 as cited above, wherein
maximum nitrogen concentration in the high nitrogen concentration region is 6 at.% or more and 10 at.% or less ([0041], [0288], Fig. 34), and
minimum nitrogen concentration in the inner nitrogen concentration transition region is 1 at.% or more and 4 at.% or less ([0041], [0288], Fig. 34).
Regarding claim 4, Wang discloses the soft magnetic iron alloy plate according to claim 1 as cited above,
wherein when x is a numerical value of concentration (unit: at.%) of cobalt, a numerical value y (unit: T) of saturation magnetic flux density of the soft magnetic iron alloy plate satisfies an empirical formula (1) “y ≥ 1.02 * (0.01 * x * 2.14)” (for 0 at% Co, y is more than 0; pre-annealing has saturation magnetization of 2.0 T) ([0267]-[0268], Figs. 21A-21B).
A numerical value of an iron loss (unit: W/kg) is z, an iron loss under a condition of magnetic flux density of 1.0 T and 400 Hz satisfying an empirical formula (2) “z < 150 * y – 295” has been considered and determined to recite a property of the claimed soft magnetic iron alloy plate. Wang renders obvious the claimed soft magnetic iron alloy plate ([0005], [0041], [0049]-[0050], [0055], [0288], Fig. 34), such that the claimed relationship of formula (2) naturally flows from the disclosure of the prior art.
Regarding claim 5, Wang discloses the soft magnetic iron alloy plate according to claim 1, wherein the soft magnetic iron alloy plate has a thickness of 0.03 mm or more and 0.3 mm or less (between about 500 nm and about 1 mm) ([0062]-[0063]). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 12, Wang discloses the soft magnetic iron alloy plate according to claim 2 as cited above,
wherein when x is a numerical value of concentration (unit: at.%) of cobalt, a numerical value y (unit: T) of saturation magnetic flux density of the soft magnetic iron alloy plate satisfies an empirical formula (1) “y ≥ 1.02 * (0.01 * x * 2.14)” (for 0 at% Co, y is more than 0; pre-annealing has saturation magnetization of 2.0 T) ([0267]-[0268], Figs. 21A-21B).
A numerical value of an iron loss (unit: W/kg) is z, an iron loss under a condition of magnetic flux density of 1.0 T and 400 Hz satisfying an empirical formula (2) “z < 150 * y – 295” has been considered and determined to recite a property of the claimed soft magnetic iron alloy plate. Wang renders obvious the claimed soft magnetic iron alloy plate ([0005], [0041], [0049]-[0050], [0055], [0288], Fig. 34), such that the claimed relationship of formula (2) naturally flows from the disclosure of the prior art.
Related Art
Sakakima (US 4,904,543)
Sakakima discloses a soft magnetic material (1:8-13, 2:10-12) with nitrogen compositionally modulated along the thickness (2:13-18, 30-34, 6:66-68, Fig. 1a) with an average composition of 1 to 20 at% N (2:38-56).
Johnson (US 2016/0203898)
Johnson discloses a magnetic component with a first region and a second region that have different nitrogen contents of less than 0.1 wt% and about 0.1 to about 0.4 wt%, respectively ([0008]-[0009]) and a third region with less than 0.1 wt% nitrogen ([0042]), where the magnetic component may have any number of first, second, and third regions ([0046]).
Takanabe (JP H06-69032 machine translation)
Takanabe discloses a magnetic thin film ([0001]) heat-treated to diffuse nitrogen into the film ([0050]-[0052], Figure 6).
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHANI HILL whose telephone number is (571)272-2523. The examiner can normally be reached Monday, Wednesday-Friday 7am-12pm.
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 WALKER can be reached at 571-272-3458. 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.
/STEPHANI HILL/Examiner, Art Unit 1735
Prosecution Insights