/F-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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 2, 4, 7, and 9 have been cancelled; Claims 1, 3, 5-6, 8, and 10 have been amended; Claims 11-18 are added as new claims; Claims 1, 3, 5-6, 8, and 10-18 remain for Examination, wherein claims 1 and 6 are independent claims.
Previous Claim Objections/Rejections
Previous objection of claims 2-5 and 7-10 because of the informalities is withdrawn in view of the Applicant’s “Arguments/Remarks with amendment” filed on 7/16/2026.
Previous rejection of claims 2-5 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or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention is withdrawn in view of the Applicant’s “Arguments/Remarks with amendment” filed on 7/16/2026.
Previous rejection of claims 1-10 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fohr et al (US-PG-pub 2020/03118212 A1, listed in IDS filed on 8/22/2025, updated as thereafter PG’212) is withdrawn in view of the Applicant’s “Arguments/Remarks with amendment” filed on 7/16/2026.
Previous rejection of claims 1-10 on the ground of non-statutory obviousness type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-7 and 9 of co-pending application No. 18/014098 (US-PG-pub 2023/0257859 A1), listed in IDS filed on 8/22/2025) in view of PG’212 is withdrawn since the co-pending application No. 18/014098 (US-PG-pub 2023/0257859 A1), listed in IDS filed on 8/22/2025) has been abandoned.
In view of the Applicant’s “Arguments/Remarks with amendment” filed on 7/16/2026, newly cited reference(s), and reconsideration, a new rejections are listed as following:
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, 3, 5-6, 8, and 10-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato et al (WO-2022/009483 A1, with publication date 01-2022, corresponding to US-PG-pub 2023/0257859 A1, thereafter PG’859) in view of CHO TSUTOMU et al (JP 2004303825 A, with on-line translation, thereafter JP’825).
Regarding claims 1, 3, 5-6, 8, 10, 12-15, and 18, PG’859 teaches a an alloy for Fe—Co-based soft magnetic member containing Si and Al (Abstract, examples, and claims of PG’859), which reads on the Fe-Co soft magnetic alloy for magnetic member application as claimed in the instant claims. The comparison between the claimed alloy composition ranges and the example #4 in Fig.2 of PG’859 has been listed in following table. All of the essential alloy composition ranges disclosed in the example #4 in Fig.2 of PG’859 are within the claimed alloy composition ranges in the instant claims. PG’859 teaches the same core loss as claimed in the instant claim 6. PG’859 specify having grain size from 40-200 mm (cl.3 and 5 of PG’859), which overlaps the claimed alloy composition range and creates a prima facie case of obviousness. MPEP 2144 05 I. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to optimize the grain size range as claimed from the disclosures of PG’859 since PG’859 teaches the same Fe-Co based soft magnetic alloy as claimed throughout whole disclosing range.
Still regarding claims 1 and 6, PG’859 does not specify including 0.01-0.1 mass% Y or Ta as claimed in the instant claims. JP’825 teaches a Fe-Co based soft magnetic member containing 20 to 60 at% of Co and having a saturation magnetic flux density of 2.0 T or more (par.[0016] of JP’825). JP’825 specify including optional elements including Ta and Cr at less than 15 at% (par.[0016] of JP’825), which overlaps the claimed Ta range in order to obtain the desired magnetic properties (par.[0016] of JP’825). MEPE 2144 05 I. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to optimize the amount of Ta and Cr in the Fe-Co alloy as claimed as demonstrated by JP’825 in the alloy of PG’859 since both JP’825 and PG’859 teaches the same Fe-Co based soft magnetic alloy as claimed throughout whole disclosing range.
Element
From instant Claims 1, 6, and 12-15 (mass %)
Example #4 in Fig.2 of PG’859 (mass %)
Within range
(mass %)
Co
10.00-20.00 (cl.1,6)
15.00-20.00 (cl.12)
16.00-20.00 (cl.13)
17.99
17.99
Si
0.10-2.00 (cl.1,6)
0.5-1.5 (cl.14)
0.50
0.50
Al
0.10-2.00 (cl.1,6)
0.5-1.5 (cl.15)
1.49
1.49
M: one of Ta and Y
0.01-0.10
--
15 at% Ta or less (JP’825)
Overlapping
0.01-0.10 Ta
Fe
Balance + impurities
Balance + impurities
Balance + impurities
From instant Claims 5 and 10 (mass %)
Cr
Cr: 0.10-2.0;
Cr < 0.01
close
From claim 3 and 8 (mass %)
Impurities:
C: ≤ 0.02;
Mn: ≤ 0.10;
P: ≤ 0.01;
S: ≤ 0.005;
Cu: ≤ 0.05;
Ni: ≤ 0.10;
Mo: ≤ 0.10;
Ti: ≤ 0.010;
O: ≤ 0.005;
N: ≤ 0.005;
C: <0.001
Mn: < 0.01;
P: <0.002;
S: 0.0005;
Cu: < 0.01;
Ni: 0.015;
Mo: < 0.01;
Ti: < 0.002;
O: 0.001;
N:0.001;
C: <0.001
Mn: < 0.01;
P: <0.002;
S: 0.0005;
Cu: < 0.01;
Ni: 0.015;
Mo: < 0.01;
Ti: < 0.002;
O: 0.001;
N:0.001;
Grain size (mm)
50 or more (cl.6)
40-200 (cl.3 and 5)
Overlapping 50-200
Core loss
200W/kg or less at 1.5T and 1kHz
150W/kg
150W/kg
From claim 18
Example #4 in Fig.3 of PG’859
Flux density
2.10 T or more
2.15 T
2.15 T
Regarding claim 11, DBTT is recognized as material a property fully depended on the alloy composition and microstructure. PG’859 in view of JP’825 teaches the similar Fe-Co alloy composition with the similar grain size as discussed above, the claimed DBTT would be highly expected in the alloy of PG’859 in view of JP’825. MPEP 2112 01 and 2145 II.
Regarding claims 16-17, PG’859 does not specify including Ta or Y included carbides in the alloy, which reads on the claimed limitation since 0.10 mass% or less including “zero”.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments to the art rejection to Claims 1, 3, 5-6, 8, and 10-18 have been considered but they are moot in view of new ground rejection as stated above.
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 JIE YANG whose telephone number is (571)270-1884. The examiner can normally be reached on IFP.
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, Jonathan J Johnson can be reached on 571-272-1177. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JIE YANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1734
Prosecution Insights