Detailed Office Action
Notice of Pre-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 certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Restriction/Election
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group II, Claims 3 – 8 in the reply filed on 06/15/26 is acknowledged. Claims 1 – 2 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group I, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 06/15/26.
Claim Rejections – U.S.C. §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 3 – 8 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.
Regarding claim 3, the phrase “liquid rapid cooling” is indefinite. In particular, it is unclear whether “liquid” is referring to the molten alloy being cooled or whether the phrase is referring to the single roller being liquid cooled. For purposes of examination, the former interpretation is taken.
Claims 4 – 8 are rejected by virtue of dependency.
Claim Rejections – U.S.C. §103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 3 – 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hasegawa (US2020/0362442) in view of Hu (CN113025869, using espacenet translation)
Regarding claims 3 and 6, Hasegawa teaches a soft magnetic alloy ribbon [title] and method of making [0085].
Hasegawa teaches that the soft magnetic alloy has a composition of [Abstract]:
(Fe(1-(α+β))X1αX2β)(1-(a+b+c+d+e+f)MaBbPcSidCeSf
With 0≤a≤0.140, 0.020≤b≤0.200, 0≤c≤0.150, 0≤d≤0.090, 0≤e≤0.030, 0≤f≤0.030, α≥0, β≥0, and 0≤α+β≤0.50
Wherein X1 can be Ni [0042]
Wherein X2 can be Cu, Cr, and/or Sn [0043]
Wherein a composition containing Fe: 96.6 wt%, Si: 2.5 wt%, Cu: 0.5 wt%, Cr: 0.1 wt%, Ni: 0.1 wt%, and Sn: 0.2 wt% (within the claimed range) would be approximately equivalent to d = 0.0486, α = 0.0066, β = 0.0093 (within the range/scope of Hasegawa). As such, the compositional range/scope of Hasegawa overlaps with/encompasses the claimed composition of claim 3 and claim 6 as shown above.
“In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976)”, absent evidence of criticality or unexpected results (MPEP 2144.05 I). "The law is replete with cases in which the difference between the claimed invention and the prior art is some range or other variable within the claims. . . . In such a situation, the applicant must show that the particular range is critical, generally by showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art range." In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (MPEP 2144.05 III A).
Hasegawa teaches that the soft magnetic ribbon is produced by forming a molten alloy and melt-spinning [0088, 0089, and Figure 1], meeting the claimed limitation of forming a molten alloy and liquid rapid cooling single roller process. Hasegawa teaches that the ribbon is subjected to a heat treatment dependent upon the composition, but that the temperature range is typically 450 – 650°C, which overlaps with the claimed range, and in an inert atmosphere [0102], which meets the claimed limitation.
Hasegawa does not expressly teach using scrap iron material.
Hu teaches a method of producing iron-based nanocrystalline ribbon using waste ribbon [0001]. Hu teaches that the ribbons are generally recycled to reduce waste but that waste ribbons have unstable/poor performed [0004]. Hu teaches that waste ribbon is melted and deslagging is performed, and the composition is rebalanced/fixed [0005 – 0010]. Lastly, the process allows for the recovery of waste iron alloy material while still achieving impurity reduction and the same effect as slag-forming agents [0019].
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have taken the method of Hasegawa and modified it/combined it with the teachings of Hu of using waste ribbon material as part of the feedstock in order to reduce waste. Both Hasegawa and Hu are directed the manufacture of soft magnetic nanocrystalline ribbons material via smelting and casting and as such, an ordinarily skilled artisan would have considered the teachings of Hu to be pertinent and would have had a reasonable expectation of success in applying them to Hasegawa. Moreover, an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated by the benefit of reducing waste ribbon material.
Regarding claim 4, Hasegawa in view of Hu teaches the invention as applied in claim 3. Hu teaches that waste ribbon is added to molten steel, deslagging is performed, and the composition is rebalanced/fixed [0010], including using industrial silicon [0015], meeting the claimed limitation of the molten material containing “molten silicon”.
Regarding claim 5, Hasegawa in view of Hu teaches the invention as applied in claim 3. Hasegawa states that the raw metals of the alloy can be combined to form the magnet [0111]. As such, Hasegawa reasonably suggests the addition of iron metal which meets the claimed limitation of adding pure iron to the material.
Regarding claim 7, Hasegawa in view of Hu teaches the invention as applied in claim 3. Hasegawa teaches that thickness can reach 30 µm (i.e., 0.03 mm) [0036], which overlaps with the claimed range.
Hasegawa as-modified does not expressly teach the properties of flux density B100 or B10 or the iron loss W10/400, however, Hasegawa teaches an overlapping composition and method of forming (single roller quenching followed by heat treatment) and as such, there is a reasonable expectation to an ordinarily skilled artisan that the composition would possess the claimed properties.
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, in this case composition and method, a prima facie case of obviousness is established (In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977) (MPEP 2112.01 I)
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hasegawa (US2020/0362442) in view of Hu (CN113025869, using espacenet translation), as applied to claim 6, in further view of MetGlas (“Melt Spinning”, NPL)
Regarding claim 8, Hasegawa in view of Hu teaches the invention as applied in claim 6. Hasegawa does not expressly teach a warm or cold rolling process before heat treatment [0102].
PNG
media_image1.png
496
1192
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Metglass provides a diagram of a melting spinning process. As shown in the MetGlas diagram of melt spinning [Page 1], the formed sheet/ribbon is subjected to a rolling/straightening process without heat (i.e., cold rolling) (dashed arrow added by examiner) prior to being coiled (and heated treated).
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have taken the method of Hasegawa as-modified and included a cold-rolling process prior to heat treating, as suggested in MetGlas. MetGlas and Hasegawa teach melting spinning and as such an ordinarily skilled artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success in achieving predictable results when including a cold-rolling step.
The combination of prior art elements to yield predictable results is a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP 2143 A). “The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art”. KSR, 550 U.S. at 416, 82 USPQ2d at 1395; Sakraida v. AG Pro, Inc., 425 U.S. 273, 282, 189 USPQ 449, 453 (1976)
Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US20240387083 – Fe-based soft magnetic alloy with overlapping composition and heat treatment temperature
US2021/0062290 – Formation of a soft-magnetic metal strip with overlapping composition, thickness, and heat treatment temperature
US2016/0319409 – Formation of iron-based amorphous alloy with single roller
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AUSTIN POLLOCK whose telephone number is (571)272-5602. The examiner can normally be reached M - F (8 - 5).
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, Sally Merkling can be reached on (571) 272-6297. 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.
/AUSTIN POLLOCK/Examiner, Art Unit 1738
/SALLY A MERKLING/SPE, Art Unit 1738
Prosecution Insights