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 Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In reference to claim 1, in line 12 amend “the N atoms” to “N atoms” in order to ensure proper antecedent basis in the claim language. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 31 is 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 reference to claim 31, the new claim recites the limitation “the NH3 gas is introduced after a temperature reaches 450ºC or more” in lines 2-3. Claim 1, on which claim 31 ultimately depends, requires the nitrogen immersion heat treatment is performed at a temperature of 500ºC or more and 600ºC or less. It is unclear how the immersion gas can be at a temperature less than or more than the temperature at which the immersion heat treatment is performed. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the limitation will be interpreted as the gas is introduced after a temperature reaches 500ºC to 600ºC. However, clarification is requested.
Additionally, the limitation “the sub-zero treatment” is recited in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim. It is suggested to have claim 31 depend from claim 30, in order to ensure proper antecedent basis in the claim language.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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 (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 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.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4-7, 9-14, 16, 24-25, 27 and 29-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tabata et al. (WO 2022/195928) (Tabata).
It is noted that when utilizing WO 2022/195928, the disclosures of the reference are based on US 2024/0233993 which is an English language equivalent of the reference. Therefore, the paragraphs cited with respect to WO 2022/195928 are found in US 2024/0233993.
In reference to claims 1-2, 24 and 27, Tabata teaches a soft magnetic iron alloy sheet including, as a chemical composition, 0 at% or more and 30 at% or less of cobalt (Co), 0.1 at% or more and 11 at% or less of nitrogen (N), 0 at% or more and 1.2 at% or less of vanadium (V), and a remainder consisting of iron (Fe) and impurities ([0013]-[0014]) (corresponding to a soft magnetic iron alloy plate comprising a chemical composition containing Co by 1 atom% or more and 30 atom% or less, N by 0.2 atom% or more and 10 atom% or less, and an M component by 0.5 atom% or more and 5 atom% or less, with the balance being Fe and impurities; the M component is V). Impurities such as chromium (Cr) is allowed in the range of less than 2 at% ([0042]) (corresponding to the M component is one or more of Cr).
As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “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).
Given that Tabata teaches the inclusion of V and Cr in the chemical composition and the instant application’s Specification discloses V and Cr are suitable for the M component at paragraph [0033], it is clear the vanadium can form an MN-type nitride.
“Products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties.” In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties Applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. Id. (MPEP 2112.01).
Tabata further teaches an iron-nitride martensite (α’ phase and/or α” phase) is formed in the sheet ([0016]; [0049]) (corresponding to the soft magnetic iron alloy plate comprises an Fe-N-based martensite phase (α’ phase and/or α” phase)). A nitrogen penetration heat treatment step of heating and quenching the starting material in a predetermined ammonia (NH3) gas atmosphere to penetrate and diffuse nitrogen into the starting material forming surface layers and an internal region having the desired N concentration ([0037]; [0044]; [0048]) (corresponding to the N atoms are penetrated and diffused over an entirety of the soft magnetic iron alloy plate).
Tabata further teaches the nitrogen penetration process is performed at a temperature of 500ºC or higher and the gas atmosphere is a mix of NH3 gas and N2, H2 or Ar gas ([0044]) (corresponding to the soft magnetic plate is formed by a nitrogen immersion heat treatment performed at a temperature of 500ºC or more and 600ºC or less in which an atmosphere containing NH3 as and an atmosphere not containing NH3 gas).
Given that the soft magnetic iron alloy sheet of Tabata is substantially identical to the presently claimed soft magnetic iron alloy plate in composition, structure and made by a substantially identical process (i.e., starting material preparation, a nitrogen penetration heat treatment at 500ºC or higher, a subzero treatment step and a tempering step ([0039]-[0055])), it is clear the soft magnetic iron alloy sheet of Tabata would inherently have the N content of the plate and a matrix phase N concentration be the same, nitride particles deposited with an average particle size of 0.25 µm or less and a number density of 10 particles/100 µm2 or less in a cross section of the sheet and an occupancy of nitride particles is 2 area% or less when he cross section of the soft magnetic iron alloy plate is observed.
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).
Further, while Tabata does not explicitly teach the gas atmosphere is alternately switched when the nitrogen penetration heat treatment is performed, it is noted the present claims are drawn to a product and not drawn to a method of making. Thus, “[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. 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 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Further, “although produced by a different process, the burden shifts to applicant to come forward with evidence establishing an unobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product”, In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 798, 802, 218 USPQ 289, 292 (Fed. Cir.1983). See MPEP 2113.
Therefore, absent evidence of criticality regarding the presently claimed process and given that Tabata meets the requirements of the claimed product, Tabata clearly meets the requirements of the present claim.
In reference to claims 4-5, 9-14, 16 and 25, Tabata teaches the limitations of claims 1 and 2, as discussed above. Tabata further teaches the soft magnetic iron alloy sheet has a saturation magnetic flux density if 2.2T or more, an iron loss is less than 50 W/kg and a Vickers harness of 218 Hv ([0022]; [0094]) (corresponding to saturation magnetic flux density is more than 2.20 T and iron loss is 60 W/kg or less; a Vickers hardness is 200 or more; a saturation magnetic flux density is 2.24T or more).
As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “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).
Further, Applicant is advised that should claims 4-5 and 9 be found allowable, claims 10-11 and 13 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
In reference to claims 6 and 7, Tabata teaches the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Tabata further teaches the soft magnetic iron alloy sheet has a higher saturation magnetic flux density than an electromagnetic pure iron sheet ([0001]). Electromagnetic pure iron sheets are a material used as an iron core of a rotating electric machine or a transformer by laminating a plurality of the sheets ([0002]) (corresponding to an iron core including a laminate; a rotating electric machine including an iron core, wherein the iron core is the iron core according to claim 6).
In light of the disclosure of Tabata, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the presently claimed invention to use the soft magnetic iron alloy sheet as the laminate in the iron core, in order to provide the iron core with a higher saturation magnetic flux density, and thereby arriving at the presently claimed invention.
In reference to claims 24 and 29, Tabata teaches the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Tabata teaches the soft magnetic alloy sheet comprises 0 at% or more and 1.2 at% or less of vanadium (V) and impurities ([0014]). The impurities includes chromium (Cr) and has a total concentration of less than 2 at% ([0042]) (corresponding to the M component comprises V and Cr; a total concentration of the impurities is within 2 atom%).
Given that Tabata teaches the sheet includes impurities, wherein the impurities includes Cr and that overlaps the presently claimed chemical composition of the plate, including V and Cr, it therefore would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to use Cr as the impurity, which is both disclosed by Tabata and encompassed within the scope of the present claims and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
In reference to claim 30, Tabata teaches the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Tabata further teaches a volume fraction of the residual γ phase is 5% or less ([0053]) (corresponding to a volume ratio of a residual γ phase is 5% or less). After the nitrogen penetration heat treatment step a subzero treatment step of cooling the starting material to 0ºC or lower is performed ([0054]; FIG. 1) (corresponding to the soft magnetic iron alloy plate is further subjected to a sub-zero treatment of cooling to 0ºC or less following the nitrogen immersion heat treatment).
The claim defines the product by how the product was made. Thus, claim 20 is a product-by-process claim. For purposes of examination, product-by-process claims are not limited to the manipulation of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps. See MPEP 2113. In the present case, the recited steps imply a structure having a volume fraction of the residual γ phase is 5% or less. Tabata suggests such a product.
In reference to claim 31, Tabata teaches the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Tabata further teaches the NH3 gas is introduced after the gas reaches 500ºC or more ([0046]) (corresponding to the nitrogen immersion heat treatment, the NH3 gas is introduced after a temperature reaches 450ºC or more). A tempering step is performed at 100ºC or higher and 210ºC or lower after the sub-zero treatment ([0055]) (corresponding to the soft magnetic iron alloy plate is further subjected to a tempering at 100ºC or more and 210ºC or less after the sub-zero treatment).
Claims 1-2, 6-7, 9-14, 22, 24-25, 27 and 29-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Komuro et al. (WO 2021/131162) (Komuro) in view of Fohr et al. (US 2020/0340088) (Fohr).
It is noted that when utilizing WO 2021/131162, the disclosures of the reference are based on US 2022/0328225 which is an English language equivalent of the reference. Therefore, the paragraphs cited with respect to WO 2021/131162 are found in US 2022/0328225.
In refence to claims 1-2, 22, 24 and 27, Komuro teaches a soft magnetic steel sheet including nitrogen and a balance of iron and inevitable impurities ([0010]) (corresponding to a soft magnetic iron alloy plate comprising a chemical composition containing N with a balance being Fe and impurities). The sheet is comprised of an α’ phase and an α” phase ([0040]; claim 1) (corresponding to the soft magnetic iron alloy plate comprises an Fe-N-based martensite phase (α’ phase and/or α” phase)). N atoms are introduced and diffused into the sheet until an intended N concentration is reached ([0017];[0062];[0109]) (corresponding to the N atoms are penetrated and diffused over an entirety of the soft magnetic iron alloy plate).
Komuro further teaches the concentration of nitrogen is 9 at% or less and a total concentration of impurities is 3 at% or less ([0014]; [0045]) (corresponding to N by 0.4 atom% or more and 3 atom% or less; a total concentration of the impurities is within 2 atom%). A nitriding heat treatment step of preforming a heat treatment of introducing and diffusing an N atom into the staring material, the nitriding heat treatment is performed in a temperature range of at least 500ºC and less than 592ºC ([0023]) (corresponding to the soft magnetic iron alloy plate is formed by a nitrogen immersion heat treatment performed at a temperature of 500ºC or more and 600ºC or less).
As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “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).
Komuro does not explicitly teach the sheet comprises a chemical composition containing Co by 10 atom% or more and 20 atom% or less, and an M component that can form an MN nitride by 0.5 atom% or more and 5 atom% or less, wherein the M component is one or more of V, Cr, Ti, Al, Nb and Mo, as presently claimed.
Fohr teaches a soft magnetic alloy and a laminated core ([0002]). The alloy consists essentially of 5 wt %≤Co≤25 wt %, 0.3 wt %≤V≤5.0 wt %, 0 wt %≤Cr≤3.0 wt %, 0 wt %≤Al≤3.0 wt %, 0 wt %≤Mo≤0.5 wt %, 0 wt %≤Nb≤0.25 wt %, up to 0.2 wt % impurities and residual iron (Abstract; [0006]) (corresponding to Co by 10 atom% or more and 20 atom% or less; an M component by 0.5 atom% or more and 5 atom% or less, with a balance being Fe and impurities; the M component is one or more of V, Cr, Ti, Al, Nb, and Mo; the M component content is 1.5 atom% or more and 3.5 atom% or less; the M component comprises V and Cr).
Given that Fohr teaches an alloy that overlaps the presently claimed chemical composition, including 5 wt %≤Co≤25 wt %, 0.3 wt %≤V≤5.0 wt %, 0 wt %≤Cr≤3.0 wt %, up to 0.2 wt % impurities and residual iron, it therefore would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the presently claimed invention, to have the alloy include V and Cr, which is both taught by Fohr and encompassed within the scope of the present claims.
Fohr further teaches owing to the lower Co content, the raw material costs of the alloy is less than those of an alloy based on 49 wt % Fe, 49 wt % Co, 2% V. The invention provides for an FeCo alloy with a maximum cobalt content of 25 per cent by weight that offers better soft magnetic properties, in particular appreciably higher permeability, than other FeCo alloys with a maximum cobalt content of 25 per cent by weight ([0066]). Further, as a result of the cobalt in the above range, there is a lack of an order-disorder transition in the alloy simplifies industrial-scale production ([0067]).
Fohr further teaches the alloy can be used in applications such as rotors and stators in electric motors in order to reduce the size of the rotor or stator and thus of the electric motor, and/or to increase output. For example, it is possible to generate higher torque at the same physical size and/or weight, a solution that would prove advantageous if used in electrically-powered or hybrid motor vehicles ([0070]).
In light of the motivation of Fohr, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the presently claimed invention to have the soft magnetic material steel sheet of Komuro include 5 wt %≤Co≤25 wt %, 0.3 wt %≤V≤5.0 wt %, 0 wt %≤Cr≤3.0 wt %, up to 0.2 wt % impurities and residual iron, in order to offer better soft magnetic properties, simplify industrial scale production, and allow the alloy to be used in application such as rotors and stators in electric motor in order to reduce the size of the rotor or stator and thus of the electric motor and increase output, and thereby arriving at the presently claimed invention.
As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “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).
Given that the soft magnetic steel sheet of Komuro in view of Fohr is substantially identical in composition, structure and produced by a substantially identical process to the present claimed soft magnetic iron alloy plate, the soft magnetic steel sheet of Komuro in view of Fohr would intrinsically include nitride particles of V and Cr being deposited with an average particle size of 0.25 µm or less and a number density of 10 particles/100 µm2, an N content of the soft magnetic material and a matrix phase N concentration being the same and an occupancy of nitride particles of V and Cr being 2 area% or less in the cross section of the soft magnetic ribbon.
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).
Further, while Komuro in view of Fohr does not explicitly teach the gas atmosphere is alternately switched when the nitrogen heat treatment is performed, it is noted the present claims are drawn to a product and not drawn to a method of making. Thus, “[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. 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 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Further, “although produced by a different process, the burden shifts to applicant to come forward with evidence establishing an unobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product”, In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 798, 802, 218 USPQ 289, 292 (Fed. Cir.1983). See MPEP 2113.
Therefore, absent evidence of criticality regarding the presently claimed process and given that Komuro in view of Fohr meets the requirements of the claimed product, Komuro in view of Fohr clearly meets the requirements of the present claim.
In reference to claims 4-5, 9-14, 16 and 25, Komuro in view of Fohr teaches the limitations of claims 1 and 2, as discussed above. Komuro further teaches a saturation magnetic flux density of the soft magnetic steel sheet is over 2.14T ([0015]) (corresponding to a saturation magnetic flux density is more than 2.20T; a saturation magnetic flux density is 2.24T or more).
As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “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).
Given that the soft magnetic steel sheet of Komuro in view of Fohr is substantially identical in composition, structure and produced by a substantially identical process to the present claimed soft magnetic iron alloy plate, the soft magnetic steel sheet of Komuro in view of Fohr would intrinsically have an iron loss of 60 W/kg or less and a Vickers hardness of 200 HV or more.
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).
In reference to claims 6 and 7, Komuro in view of Fohr teaches the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Komuro further teaches a stator of a dynamo-electric machine ([0050]). The stator includes a core and the core is formed from laminating the soft magnetic steel sheets ([0053]) (corresponding to an iron core including a laminate of a soft magnetic iron alloy plate, wherein the soft magnetic iron alloy plate is the soft magnetic iron alloy plate according to claim 1; a rotating electric machine including an iron core).
In reference to claim 29, Komuro in view of Fohr teaches the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Komuro in view of Fohr further teaches the soft magnetic alloy comprises up to 0.2 wt% (Fohr, [0006]; Komuro, [0045]) (corresponding to a total concentration of the impurities is within 2 atom%).
While Komuro in view of Fohr does not explicitly disclose the amount of impurities in atom%, however, given that Komuro in view of Fohr broadly teaches having up to 0.2 wt% of impurities, it is clear that it would necessarily include the presently claimed (i.e., impurities within 2 atom%). Further, it is noted “within” is being interpreted as up to 2 atom%.
As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “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).
In reference to claims 30 and 31, Komuro in view of Fohr teaches the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Komuro further teaches a volume ratio of the γ phase is 5% or less ([0010]) (corresponding to a volume ratio of a residual γ phase is 5% or less).
Komuro further teaches between the nitriding treatment step and an iron nitride phase generating step, a sub-zero treatment of cooling the starting material after being subjected to the nitriding treatment step to 0° or less is further performed ([0021]) (corresponding to the soft magnetic iron alloy plate is further subjected to a sub-zero treatment of cooling to 0ºC or less following the nitrogen immersion heat treatment). The iron nitride phase generating step includes performing a tempering heat treatment on the starting material after being subjected to the nitriding treatment step in a temperature range of at least 100° C and at most 210° C ([0023]) (corresponding to the soft magnetic iron alloy plate is further subjected to a tempering at 100ºC or more and 210ºC or less after the sub-zero treatment).
While Komuro in view of Fohr teaches a sub-zero treatment and tempering, as presently claimed. Komuro in view of Fohr does not explicitly teach the in the nitrogen heat treatment the NH3 gas is introduced at after a temperature reached 450ºC or more, it is noted the present claims are drawn to a product and not drawn to a method of making. Thus, “[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. 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 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Further, “although produced by a different process, the burden shifts to applicant to come forward with evidence establishing an unobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product”, In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 798, 802, 218 USPQ 289, 292 (Fed. Cir.1983). See MPEP 2113.
Therefore, absent evidence of criticality regarding the presently claimed process and given that Komuro in view of Fohr meets the requirements of the claimed product, Komuro in view of Fohr clearly meets the requirements of the present claim.
Response to Arguments
In response to amended claims 1-2 and 27, the previous Claim Objections of record are withdrawn. However, the amendments necessitate a new set of Claim Objections as discussed above.
In response to amended claim 1 and cancelled claims 26 and 28, the previous 35 USC 112(a) rejections are withdrawn from record.
In response to amended claim 1, which now requires the soft magnetic iron alloy pate comprises N by 0.4 atom% or more and 3 atom% or less, the N atoms penetrate and diffuse over and entirety of the soft magnetic iron alloy plate and an atmosphere containing NH3 gas and an atmosphere not containing NH3 gas are alternately switched, it is noted that Wang et al. (US 2021/0123126) (Wang) and Fohr et al. (US 2020/0340088) (Fohr) no longer meet all the claimed limitations. Therefore, the previous 35 USC 103 rejections over Wang in view of Fohr are withdrawn. However, the amendment necessitates a new set of rejections as discussed above.
Applicant’s arguments filed 08/14/2026 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Mary I Omori whose telephone number is (571)270-1203. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-4pm.
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 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.
/MARY I OMORI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1784
