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 in the reply filed on 21 October 2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 11-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 21 October 2025.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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 1-10 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 1, it is unclear what is meant by “comprising at least an α phase of the α phase and a γ phase”. It is unclear what is meant by “comprising at least” since comprising allows for more that what is required. It is unclear what is meant by “of the”. Should it read “or a”? Does the phrase mean “comprising an α phase or an α phase and a γ phase”? Since γ phase may not be present, should the proportion of an area requirement specify “γ phase, when present,” in the second line of the proportion definition? Or, does this mean that γ phase actually must be present? See Specification (paragraph 63).
Regarding Claim 3, it is unclear whether the claim requires the amount of Si, Ti, Al, and/or Mn to fall in specified range whenever any is present or only requires that at least one do so.
Regarding Claim 9, it is unclear what testing method is to be used to ascertain claimed Vickers hardness, such as load requirement, since testing method may affect ascertained value and thus definition of claim scope.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by M.R. Kamali, et al., "Influence of microstructure and texture evolution on magnetic properties attained by annealing of cold-rolled Fe-Co-10V semi-hard magnetic alloy," in Materials Characterization 169 (2020, August), 110591, pp. 1-15. (Year: 2020). Kamali teaches magnetic Fe(40)-Co(50)-10V alloys (Section 2.1) in the form of square wire (end of Section 2). Kamali teaches the claimed alpha phase relationship (beginning Section 3.1.2; Figures 2(d)). Figure 2 depicts phase distribution on a polished surface (“cross-section”) of alloy material. It is noted that claimed alpha phase corresponds to BCC or ferrite and that claimed gamma phase corresponds to FCC or austenite. See Specification (paragraph 15). As is evident in Figure 2, the alpha phase constitutes nearly all of the surface in Figures 2(d) with some residual gamma phase and thus meets the 90% threshold claimed. Figure 2(d) shows overlay of EBSD and HAGB map, demonstrating required HAGB of misorientation of 15o or more (See electronic figure online). The average grain size is below 2.5 microns for Figure 2(d) as shown in Figure 3 (800oC at 60 min). As seen in Figure 2(d) the proportion of length of HAGB relative to total length of grain boundaries approachese 100 % in the cross section. Figures 13 and 15 demonstrate magnetic properties for these examples. Regarding Claim 2, Kamali’s alloy, mentioned above, meets this claim requirement for composition.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-10 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding Claims 3-10, the reviewed prior art does not teach or suggest the subject matter of these claims. Particularly, the reviewed prior art does not expressly teach or suggest the claimed composition of Claim 3, the characteristics of Claims 4 and 5, and the wire structures of Claim 6-10, in the claimed context. Regarding Claims 4 and 5, there is provided no basis for presuming these features to be inherent in the reviewed art either. For example, M.R. Kamali, et al., "Influence of microstructure and texture evolution on magnetic properties attained by annealing of cold-rolled Fe-Co-10V semi-hard magnetic alloy," in Materials Characterization 169 (2020, August), 110591, pp. 1-15. (Year: 2020) teaches and suggests many claimed features of these claims for the reasons addressed above in the section 102 rejection based on Kamali, but fails to expressly teach or suggest or provide basis for establishing inherency of these claimed features of Claims 3-10 in the claimed context. See Kamali (entire document). For example, Chin USPN 4,075,437 may teach and suggest claimed alloy (Fe/Co alloy) as worked metal material, but fails to expressly provide basis for expressly teaching or suggesting or otherwise establishing balance of claimed features of Claims 1-10, in the claimed context. See Chin (entire document).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL E. LA VILLA whose telephone number is (571)272-1539. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. through Fri. from 9:00 a.m. ET to 5:30 p.m. ET.
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, Humera N. Sheikh, can be reached at (571) 272-0604. 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.
/MICHAEL E. LA VILLA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1784
12 June 2026
Prosecution Insights