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
Information Disclosure Statement
1. The references disclosed within the information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on August 27, 2025, has been considered and initialed by the Examiner.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC 112
2. 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.
3. Claims 14-18, 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention.
In claims 14, 16, 22-24, the phrase, “the foil” is indefinite. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, as claim 10 does not recite a foil. At best, claim 10 recites an amorphous foil.
Claims 15 and 17-18 are rejected for being dependent on claim 14.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 103
4. 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 may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
5. Claims 10-13, 19, 21, 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshizawa (U.S. 2017/0178805).
Yoshizawa discloses an amorphous foil produced by Planar-Flow Melt Spinning (PFMS), the method comprising: mechanically scribing the amorphous foil spaced at regular wavelengths such that a uniform scribing pattern is formed continuously on the amorphous foil (see Fig. 1 and [0033]- [0035]). Yoshizawa does not appear to explicitly teach width or wavelength of the scribed amorphous foil, however substantially identical materials treated in a substantially identical manner are expected to have substantially identical properties. In the present case amorphous foil is carried out using material and process conditions which are substantially identical to those disclosed by applicants. Therefore the amorphous foil discussed above would be expected to meet the claimed width and wavelength of the scribed amorphous foil, as in claims 10-13.
Concerning claim 19, Yoshizawa does not explicitly disclose the thickness of the foil; however, thickness modifications involve a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art and therefore obvious. Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert, denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984) See MPEP 2144.04.
Concerning claim 21, Yoshizawa discloses an amorphous foil produced by Planar-Flow Melt Spinning (PFMS), the method comprising: mechanically scribing the amorphous foil spaced at regular wavelengths such that a uniform scribing pattern is formed continuously on the amorphous foil (see Fig. 1 and [0033]- [0035]). Yoshizawa does not appear to explicitly teach width or wavelength of the scribed amorphous foil, however substantially identical materials treated in a substantially identical manner are expected to have substantially identical properties. In the present case amorphous foil is carried out using material and process conditions which are substantially identical to those disclosed by applicants. Therefore the amorphous foil discussed above would be expected to meet the claimed width and wavelength of the scribed amorphous foil. In claim 21, the phrase, “wherein the amorphous foil is tested in the single sheet configuration…when tested at 1.3 t, 60Hz” introduces a process limitation to the product claim. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966.
Concerning claim 24, Yoshizawa does not appear to explicitly teach lamination factor of the foil, however substantially identical materials treated in a substantially identical manner are expected to have substantially identical properties. In the present case amorphous foil is carried out using material and process conditions which are substantially identical to those disclosed by applicants. Therefore the amorphous foil discussed above would be expected to meet the claimed lamination factor of the foil.
Allowable Claim
6. Claim 20 is allowed. The closest prior art does not teach or suggest the recited amorphous core further including an amorphous foil having a width of 75 to 260 mm and a scribed pattern with a wavelength of 1 to 5 mm, wherein the amorphous foil is wound into a toroidal core or into a laced distribution transformer core, and wherein the amorphous core has reduced losses of core losses less than 0.2 W/kg when tested at 1.4 T, 60 Hz and less than 0.17 W/kg when tested at 1.3 T, 60 Hz.
Cited Reference
7. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Sato (U.S. 2013/0037233).discloses an amorphous foil strip (abstract and paragraph 39) ; however, does not disclose a scribed pattern.
Conclusion
8. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Lawrence Ferguson whose telephone number is 571-272-1522. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday 9:00 AM – 5:30PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Frank Vineis, can be reached on 571-270-1547. 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).
/LAWRENCE D FERGUSON/Examiner, Art Unit 1781