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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (Claims 1-8) in the reply filed on 07/06/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 9-10 are withdrawn. Claims 1-8 are pending.
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 6-8 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.
Claims 6 and 7 recite viscosity coefficient of the iron-based alloy amorphous-nanocrystalline alloy. The iron-based alloy amorphous-nanocrystalline alloy is in solid state. Viscosity coefficient is a property of a liquid. One of ordinary skill in the art would not understand the meaning of viscosity coefficient of a solid material. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 8 recites “impurity” in the last two lines. The scope of “impurity” is unclear. It’s unclear whether “impurity” recited in claim 8 has the same meaning as the “impurity” recited in claim 5. Further, it’s unclear how the height of the impurity is determined. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-2, 4 and 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by CN’662 (CN 108856662, IDS dated 04/05/2025).
Regarding claims 1-2, 4 and 6-7, CN’662 teaches (Abstract; [0023]; Examples 3-5) an iron-based amorphous-nanocrystalline alloy having composition of
PNG
media_image1.png
18
168
media_image1.png
Greyscale
, wherein d+(b/c) =1.17, which meets the limitations recited in claims 1-2, 4 and 7.
CN’662 is silent on the viscosity coefficient. However, in view of the fact that CN’662 teaches an alloy that meets the recited composition in claim 1, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect that the alloy disclosed by CN’662 to meet the viscosity coefficient recited in claims 6 and 7. “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, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established.” In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP 2112.01 I.
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.
The factual inquiries 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.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN’662 (CN 108856662), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of CN’643 (CN 106756643, IDS dated 02/28/2024).
Regarding claim 3, CN’662 discloses (Abstract; [0023]; Examples 3-5) an iron-based amorphous-nanocrystalline alloy having composition of
PNG
media_image1.png
18
168
media_image1.png
Greyscale
, which meets the recited amount of B, P and Cu in claim 3. CN’662 does not teach the recited amount of Si and C. CN’643 teaches ([0019]) an Fe-B-Si-P-Cu-C alloy having composition overlapping the composition disclosed by CN’662. CN’643 discloses that the alloy containing 0-2 at% Si, 5-10.5 at. % B, 3-4 at.% P, 0.3-1 at% Cu and 0-1 at% C has high saturation magnetization and low coercivity (Abstract). Thus, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adjust the amount of Si within 0-2 at% and the amount of C within 0-1 at.% as taught by CN’643 in the alloy of CN’662 in order to make an alloy having high saturation magnetization and low coercivity as disclosed by CN’643. The amounts of Si and C disclosed by CN’643 overlap the recited Si and C amount in claim 3. 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); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2144.05 I. Thus, claim 3 is obvious over CN’662 in view of CN’643.
Claims 5 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN’662 (CN 108856662), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of JP’936 (JP2011-195936).
Regarding claims 5 and 8, CN’662 discloses (Abstract; [0023]; Examples 3-5) an iron-based amorphous-nanocrystalline alloy having composition of
PNG
media_image1.png
18
168
media_image1.png
Greyscale
. CN’662 does not teach the recited amount of Al, Mn and Ti. JP’936 teaches (Abstract) a Fe-B-Si-P-Cu-C alloy having composition overlapping the composition disclosed by CN’662. JP’936 discloses that when the Al amount is 0.1 mass% or less, the Ti amount is 0.05 mass% or less and the Mn amount is 0.5 mass% or less, the alloy has uniform structure and the ribbon made of the alloy has a smooth surface (Page 2-4). Thus, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make a Fe-B-Si-P-Cu-C alloy containing 0.1 mass% or less Al, 0.05 mass% or less Ti and 0.5 mass% or less Mn as taught by JP’936 in the process of making the alloy of CN’662 in order to make a ribbon having uniform structure and a smooth surface as disclosed by JP’936. The amounts of Al, Ti and Mn disclosed by JP’936 overlap the recited amounts of Al, Ti and Mn in claim 5. 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); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2144.05 I. Thus, claim 5 is obvious over CN’662 in view of JP’936.
JP’936 discloses that by controlling the alloy composition, the alloy strip having smooth surface can be stably produced by single roll method (Page 3 and Page 4). Having smooth surface disclosed by JP’936 means that the strip surface does not have slag lines and defects and meets the limitation that the alloy has N<100 and M<200.
CN’662 in view of JP’936 does not explicitly disclose that the alloy strip has a width of 80-122 mm as recited in claim 8. However, change in size is a prima facie case of obviousness over CN’662 in view of JP’936. See MPEP 2144.04 IV A.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Xiaowei Su whose telephone number is (571)272-3239. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-5:00.
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 Hendricks can be reached at 5712721401. 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.
/XIAOWEI SU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1733
Prosecution Insights