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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 06/15/2026 has been entered.
EXAMINER’S NOTE
Applicant has added three new claims currently number 25, 26 and 27. The claims filed 03/26/2026 already introduced a new claim 25. Therefore, the numbering of claims is not in accordance with 37 CFR 1.126 which requires the original numbering of the claims to be preserved throughout the prosecution. When claims are canceled, the remaining claims must not be renumbered. When new claims are presented, they must be numbered consecutively beginning with the number next following the highest numbered claims previously presented (whether entered or not).
Misnumbered claims 25-27 on p. 5 of the response filed 06/15/2026 have been renumbered 26-28. Thus the claims are as follows:
Claim 26 The soft magnetic iron alloy plate according to claim 1, wherein the soft magnetic iron alloy plate is free of an Fe3N phase (ɛ phase).
Claim 27 The soft magnetic iron alloy plate according to claim 1, wherein the nitride particles of the M component are deposited with an average particle size of 0.25 µm or less and a number density of 10 particles/100 µm2 or less.
Claim 28 The soft magnetic iron alloy plate according to claim 1, wherein the soft magnetic iron alloy plate does not have a surface layer region having a higher average nitrogen concentration than an internal region.
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).
Claim Objections
Claims 1-2 and 27 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In reference to claim 1, it is suggested to (1) in line 9, amend “an N content” to “the N content” and (2) in lines 11-12, amend “a nitrogen concentration” to “the N content”, in order to ensure consistency and proper antecedent basis in the claim language. Appropriate correction is required.
In reference to claim 2, it is suggested to (1) in line 2, amend “a cross sectional view” to “the cross section”; (2) in line 5, amend “an occupancy” to “the occupancy” and (3) in line 6, after “sectional” and before “of the soft” delete “view”, in order to ensure consistency and proper antecedent basis in the claim language. Appropriate correction is required.
In reference to claim 27, it is suggested to (1) in line 2, amend “an average” to “the average” and (2) in lines 2-3, amend “a number density” to “the number density”, in order to ensure consistency and proper antecedent basis in the claim language. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-2, 4-7, 9-14, 16, 22-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
In reference to claim 1, the claim has been amended to recite “through an entirety of the soft magnetic iron alloy plater, a nitrogen concentration is uniform in a thickness direction of the soft magnetic iron alloy plate” in lines 11-12. While the originally filed disclosure provides support for the N content of the entire iron alloy plate and the matrix phase N concentration being the same. This indicating that generation and deposition of the MN-type nitride particles can be suppressed ([0069]; Table 1). There does not appear to be support for the nitrogen concentration throughout the thickness of the plate being uniform as now recited in the claim.
Regarding dependent claims 2, 4-7, 9-14, 16 and 22-28, these claims do not remedy the deficiencies of parent claim 1 noted above, and are rejected for the same rationale.
In reference to claim 26, the limitation “free of an Fe3N phase (ɛ phase)” is recited in line 2. While the originally filed disclosure provides support for an ɛ phase being suppressed when the N content is 10 atom% or less and the nitrogen immersion heat treatment is performed with NH3 gas at a temperature of 450ºC or more ([0036]; [0038]). There does not appear to be support for the soft magnetic iron alloy plate of claim 1 being free from an Fe3N, ɛ phase, as presently claimed.
Further, while Table 1 supports the working example iron alloy plates 1 and 2 not including an Fe3N, ɛ phase. These iron alloy plates have specific composition (i.e., Fe-18.5 atom% Co-2.2 atom% V-1.1 atom% Cr) and specific nitrogen immersion heat treatments, it is not clear that any soft magnetic iron alloy plate encompassed within the scope of claim 1 will be free of an Fe3N, ɛ phase.
In reference to claim 28, the limitation “the soft magnetic iron alloy plate does not have a surface layer region having a higher average nitrogen concentration than an internal region” is recited in lines 1-3. There is no support for the limitation in the originally filed disclosure. Further, the cited phraseology clearly signifies a “negative” or “exclusionary” limitation for which the Applicants have no support in the original disclosure. Negative limitations in a claim which do not appear in the specification as filed introduce new concepts and violate the description requirement of 35 USC 112, first paragraph, Ex Parte Grasselli, Suresh, and Miller, 231 USPQ 393, 394 (Bd. Pat. App. and Inter. 1983); 783 F. 2d 453.
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 and 22-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (US 2021/0123126) (Wang) in view of Fohr et al. (US 2020/0340088) (Fohr).
In reference to claims 1-2, 22-24 and 27, Wang teaches a soft magnetic material including iron-based alloy ([0003]; [0005]) (corresponding toa soft magnetic iron alloy plate). The soft magnetic material includes a mixture of at least one of α”-Fe16N2 or α’-Fe8N and at least one of α”-Fe16Z2 or α’-Fe8Z, where Z includes at least one of C, B or O ([0005]) (corresponding to the soft magnetic iron alloy plate comprises an Fe-N-based martensite phase (α’-phase and/or α”-phase)).
Wang further teaches the soft magnetic material includes nitrogen and carbon between about 8 atomic percent (at. %) and about 14 at. % ([0094]; [0111]) (corresponding to N by 0.2 atom% or more and 10 atom% or less; the N content is 0.4 atom% or more and 3 atom% 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).
Wang further teaches nitriding iron-carbon ribbons by exposing the ribbons to a nitrogen source, such as ammonia, at a temperature between about 600ºC and about 1000ºC ([0090]; [0093]) (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).
Wang does not explicitly teach the soft magnetic material comprises a composition containing Co by 10 atom% or more and 50 atom% or less and an M component that can form an MN nitride by 0.5 atom% or more and 5 atom% or less, as presently claimed. However, Wang teaches dopants are added to the soft magnetic material, wherein the dopants include Co, V, Cr, Ti, Al, Nb and Mo ([0141]).
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 of Wang 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.
Given that the soft magnetic ribbon of Wang 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 ribbon of Wang 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).
In reference to claims 4-5, 9-14, 16 and 25, Wang in view of Fohr teaches the limitations of claims 1 and 2, as discussed above. Given that the soft magnetic ribbon of Wang 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 ribbon of Wang in view of Fohr would intrinsically have a saturation magnetic flux density of more than 2.20T, 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, Wang in view of Fohr teaches the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Wang in view of Fohr teaches the soft magnetic material for a laminated core used in rotor and stators in electric motors (Fohr, [0002]; [0037]; [0070]) (corresponding to an iron core including a laminate of a soft magnetic iron alloy plater, 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, wherein the iron core is the iron core according to claim 6).
In reference to claims 26 and 28, Wang in view of Fohr teaches the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Wang in view of Fohr teaches the material may include iron nitride, such as Fe3N, Fe16N2, austenite iron nitride, and alpha Fe (Wang, [0236]; [0238]; [0240]; [0242]).
Given Wang in view of Fohr teaches the soft material that overlaps the presently claimed soft magnetic iron alloy plate, including iron nitrides, it therefore would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the presently claimed invention, to use iron nitrides not including Fe3N, which is both taught by Wang in view of Fohr and encompassed within the scope of the present claims and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Wang in view of Fohr further teaches the material can include an oxidation formed of an iron oxide outer shell which may not be reduced (Wang, [0149]). Thus it is clear the outer shell (i.e., surface layer) does not have a higher average nitrogen concentration than an internal region.
Alternatively, given that the soft magnetic ribbon of Wang 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 ribbon of Wang in view of Fohr would intrinsically be free of an Fe3N phase and does not have a surface layer region having a higher average nitrogen concentration than an internal region.
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).
Response to Arguments
In response to amended claim 1, which now requires throughout an entirety of the soft magnetic iron alloy plate, a nitrogen concentration is uniform in a thickness direction of the soft magnetic iron alloy plate, it is noted that Tabata et al. (WO 2022/195928) (Tabata) no longer meets the presently claimed limitations. Therefore, the previous 35 USC 103 rejections over Tabata have been withdrawn from record.
In response to amended to claim 1 which requires the soft magnetic iron alloy plate comprising a chemical composition containing Co by 10 atom% or more and 20 atom% or less, it is noted that Iguchi (JP 63-7332) and Komuro et al. (WO 2020/166115) (Komuro), alone or in combination, no longer meet the presently claimed limitations. Therefore, the previous 35 USC 103 rejections over Iguchi in view of Komuro are withdrawn from record.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejections over Tabata and Iguchi in view of Komuro 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
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
Prosecution Insights