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 .
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 1-7 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.
In claim 1, line 10, what are the units for the curvature? Applicant defines curvature as the reciprocal of the radius R of the cooling roll (see [0057] of the published application), so it appears the unit should be an inverse length. As claims 2-7 depend directly from claim 1, they are rejected for the same reason.
In claim 7, lines 2-3, is “an Fe-Si-B-based thick plate rapidly solidified alloy ribbon” the same as or different from “an Fe-Si-B-based thick plate rapidly solidified alloy ribbon” as established in lines 1-2? For the purposes of examination, they will be treated as the same.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sunakawa et al. (JP 2002316243 A, hereinafter “Sunakawa”; using the attached English machine translation).
Regarding claim 7, Sunakawa teaches an Fe-Si-B based laminated iron core (see [0051]-[0057] and [0099]-[0103]).
Regarding the limitations “produced by processing an Fe-Si-B-based thick plate rapidly solidified alloy ribbon manufactured by the method for manufacturing an Fe-Si-B-based thick plate rapidly solidified alloy ribbon according to claim 1 into a desired shape”, Applicant is reminded that the patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. See MPEP §2113.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, and 4-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shibasaki et al. (JP 2017-035737 A, hereinafter “Shibasaki”; listed in the IDS filed 14 February 2024; using US 2015/0027592 for the English translation and citations), in view of Sato (US 2011/0036532), Zhu et al. (JP 2020-503686 A, hereinafter “Zhu”; listed in the IDS filed 14 February 2024; using US 2019/0329319 for the English translation and citations), and Li et al. (CN 113151750 A, hereinafter “Li”; using the attached English machine translation for citations).
Regarding claim 1, Shibasaki teaches a method for manufacturing an Fe-Si-B-based thick plate rapidly solidified alloy ribbon, the method comprising:
ejecting an Fe-Si-B-based molten alloy containing iron (Fe), boron (B), and silicon (Si) as essential components (see Table 1 – alloys 1-23) from a tapping nozzle (molten metal nozzle 10, see Fig. 1; [0046]) to a surface of a cooling roll (chill roll 30, see Fig. 1; [0046]) and rotating the cooling roll at a surface speed of 15 m/sec or more and 50 m/sec (10 m/s to 40 m/s; see [0008] and [0077]) or less to rapidly cool the Fe—Si—B-based molten alloy on the surface of the cooling roll to manufacture an alloy ribbon (amorphous alloy ribbon 22C, see Fig. 1; [0046]),
the tapping nozzle (molten metal nozzle 10, see Fig. 1; [0046]) including a single slit (opening 11, see Figs. 2-3; [0018]) formed to have a width of 0.6 mm or more and less than 2.0 mm (0.1 to 1.0 mm, see [0067]),
passing cooling water through the cooling roll (see [0053]) to manufacture a rapidly solidified alloy ribbon having an average thickness of 30 μm or more and less than 55 μm (thickness of ribbon is 10 to 40 μm; [0009]).
Shibasaki is silent to the cooling roll having a curvature of 8×10−4 or more and less than 2×10−3, and passing cooling water in an amount of 0.3 m3/min or more and less than 20 m3/min at 5° C or more and less than 60° C.
Sato teaches a cooling roll 113 with a diameter in the range from 0.4 m to 2.0 m. It is possible to ensure sufficient time within one round of the cooling roll by setting the diameter of the cooling roll 113 equal to or above 0.4 m. As a result, the heat transmitted from the molten alloy to the outer circumferential surface of the cooling roll 113 is efficiently discharged to the cooling water. In the meantime, by setting the diameter of the cooling roll 113 equal to or below 2.0 m, it is possible to facilitate an operation while avoiding an excessive increase in size of the production apparatus 101. Moreover, it is possible to facilitate ensuring strength of mechanical portions such as the bearings of the cooling roll 113 (see [0117]). Therefore the diameter of the cooling roll is a result effective variable.
In view of Sato’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the method of Shibasaki to include wherein the cooling roll has a curvature of 8×10−4 or more and less than 2×10−3 because the diameter of the cooling roll, and in turn, the curvature of the cooling roll which is the reciprocal of the radius, is a result effective variable and so it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. See MPEP §2144.05(II).
The combination of Shibasaki and Sato is silent to passing cooling water in an amount of 0.3 m3/min or more and less than 20 m3/min at 5° C or more and less than 60° C
Zhu teaches in order to remove the heat from the surface of the chill roll in time, the casting flow rate and the cooling water flow rate need to be matched (see [0072]). At the same time, the melt casting speed q (casting melt weight/casting time) should be controlled to achieve the best match with the cooling water flow rate Q. If the q/Q is too large, the loss of the rotating cooling roller is large; if the q/Q is too small, the cooling capacity of the device can be improved (see [0079]). Therefore, cooling water flow rate Q is a result effective variable. Furthermore, Zhu teaches example cooling water flow rates from 7 m3/h (equal to 0.116 m3/min) (see [0092]) to 40 m3/h (equal to 0.667 m3/min). Li teaches the temperature of the circulating cooling water in the cooling roller affects the surface temperature of the cooling roller through the conductivity of the cooling roller. Since the materials of the cooling rollers used in this industry are mostly similar, the effect of the circulating water temperature in the cooling roller on the alloy composition preparation process of this invention is similar to that of the cooling roller surface temperature. When the surface temperature of the cooling roller is too low, the melting energy in the strip-making process will be insufficient, resulting in more slag precipitation in the melting pool. This can easily lead to strip breakage during the strip-making process, affecting the smoothness of the preparation. On the other hand, when the surface temperature of the cooling roller is too high, the cooling capacity of the cooling roller will decrease, making it impossible to obtain a fully quenched amorphous strip. Surface crystallization will occur, causing uneven internal stress in the strip and resulting in transverse warping of the strip (see [0046]). Therefore, the surface temperature of the cooling roller, and in turn, the temperature of the circulating cooling water in the cooling roller is a result effective variable.
In view of Zhu and Li’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the method of the combination of Shibasaki and Sato to include passing cooling water in an amount of 0.3 m3/min or more and less than 20 m3/min at 5° C or more and less than 60° C, as taught by Zhu and Li, because both the cooling water flow and the cooling water temperature are result effective variables and it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. See MPEP §2144.05(II).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Shibasaki, Sato, Zhu, and Li teaches wherein the single slit of the tapping nozzle has a length of 20 mm or more and less than 300 mm (Shibasaki: 100 mm to 300 mm; see [0066]).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Shibasaki, Sato, Zhu, and Li teaches wherein the Fe-Si-B-based molten alloy is ejected from the single slit at a tapping pressure of 5 kPa or more and less than 40 kPa (Shibasaki: 10 kPa to 30 kPa; see [0008] and [0075]). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP §2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Shibasaki, Sato, Zhu, and Li teaches wherein the cooling roll has a diameter of 1000 mm or more and less than 2500 mm (Sato: cooling roll 113 with a diameter in the range from 0.4 m to 2.0 m; see [0117]; In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP §2144.05(I). Furthermore, the diameter of the cooling roll is a result effective variable, see rejection for claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Shibasaki, Sato, Zhu, and Li teaches wherein the Fe-Si-B-based molten alloy has a composition formula represented by T100-x-y-z-nQxSiyMn wherein T represents a transition metal element including at least one element selected from the group consisting of Fe, Co, and Ni, the transition metal element necessarily including Fe, Q represents one or more elements selected from the group consisting of B and C, the one or more elements necessarily including B, M represents one or more elements selected from the group consisting of P, Al, Ti, V, Cr, Mn, Nb, Cu, Zn, Ga, Mo, Ag, Hf, Zr, Ta, W, Pt, Au, and Pb, and composition ratios x, y, and n satisfy 5≤×<20 atom %, 2≤y<15 atom %, and 0≤n<10 atom % (Shibasaki: see Table 1, alloy 1, wherein Fe is 83 atom%, Si is 2 atom%, B is 15 atom %, and n is 0).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Shibasaki, Sato, Zhu, and Li as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yoshida et al. (JPH05154616 A, hereinafter “Yoshida”; listed in the IDS filed 14 February 2024; using the attached English machine translation for citations).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Shibasaki, Sato, Zhu, and Li teaches wherein the cooling roll includes a material containing one of Cu, Mo, or W as a main component (Shibasaki: chill roll 30 includes Cu; see [0056]), has an arithmetic average roughness Ra of the surface of 10 nm or more and less than 20 μm (Shibasaki: 0.5 μm or less; [0058]) is formed to have a length longer than the length of the single slit by 50 mm or more and less than 400 mm (Shibasaki teaches length of chill roll just has to be longer than the width of the ribbon; [0054]).
The combination of Shibasaki, Sato, Zhu, and Li is silent to a thickness from the surface to a flow channel of the cooling water of 5 mm or more and less than 50 mm.
Yoshida teaches the roll (sleeve) is subjected to thermal stress during casting. If the wall thickness becomes extremely thin, the cooling capacity becomes too large, degrading the quality of the cast slab. On the other hand, if the wall thickness becomes too large, the effect of internal cooling is not sufficiently transmitted to the surface of the roll (sleeve) (see [0019]-[0020]). Therefore, the wall thickness of the sleeve from its surface to a flow channel is a result effective variable.
In view of Yoshida’s teachings, ti would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the itme the inveniotn was filed to modify the method of the combination of Shibasaki, Sato, Zhu, and Li to include a thickness from the surface to a flow channel of the cooling water of 5 mm or more and less than 50 mm, because the wall thickness from the surface to a flow channel is a result effective variable, and it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. See MPEP §2144.05(II).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN HA whose telephone number is (571)270-5934. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:00 EST.
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.
/S.S.H/Examiner, Art Unit 1735 25 July 2026
/KEITH WALKER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1735
Prosecution Insights