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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 01/21/2026 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claims 2 and 8 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In reference to claim 2, it is suggested to (1) in line 5, amend “a cross sectional” to “the cross sectional”, (2) in line 6, amend “an average particle” to “the average particle” and (3) in line 6 amend “a number” to “the number”, in order to ensure consistency and proper antecedent basis in the claim language. Appropriate correction is required.
In reference to claim 8, in line 2, amend “an occupancy” to “the occupancy”, 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 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 8 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
In reference to claim 8, the limitation “an occupancy of nitride particles of the M component is 10 area% or less” is recited in line 2. Claim 2, on which claim 8 depends, has been amended to recite “an occupancy of nitride particles of the M component is 2% area or less”. Therefore, claim 8 opens the range of claim 2 and does not further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends.
Regarding dependent claim 15, this claim does not remedy the deficiencies of parent claim 8 noted above, and are rejected for the same rationale.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iguchi (JP 63-7332) taken in view of evidence by Shinagawa et al. (WO 2022/070508) (Shinagawa), and further in view of Komuro et al. (WO 2020/166115) (Komuro).
The Applicant has provided a machine translation of JP 63-7332 with the IDS filed 06/06/2024. The citation of prior art in the rejection refers to the provided machine translation.
Further, it is noted that when utilizing WO 2022/070508, the disclosures of the reference are based on US 2023/0287546 which is an English language equivalent of the reference. When utilizing WO 2020/166115, the disclosures of the reference are based on US 2022/0042157 which is an English language equivalent of the reference. Therefore, the paragraphs cited with respect to WO 2022/070508 are found in US 2023/0287546 and the paragraphs cited with respect to WO 2020/166115 are found in US 2022/0042157.
In reference to claims 1-3, 8 and 19-20, Iguchi teaches a ribbon for an electromagnetic material having a high saturation magnetization (p. 2, Background of the invention). The ribbon is a thin strip formed of steel (p. 3) (corresponding to a magnetic iron alloy plate). The steel is made of the composition containing ≤0.02wt% C, ≤0.01% O, ≤10.0% (preferably not less than 0.1%) of at least one selected from Ti, V, Cr, Mn, Ni, Co, Cu, Al, Zr, Nb, and Mo, and consisting of the balance substantially Fe (p.1, Abstract; p.4, Claim 1; p.3) (corresponding to a chemical composition containing Co by 1 atom% or more and 30 atom% or less; and an M component that can from an MN nitride by 0.5 atom% or more and 5 atom% or less, with a balance being Fe and impurities).
- Given that Iguchi teaches the composition of the steel that overlaps the presently claimed composition, including Fe and at least one of Co, Ti, Cr, Al and Nb, 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 the Co and at least one of Ti, Cr, Al and Nb, which is both disclosed by Iguchi and encompassed within the scope of the present claims. As evidence by Shinagawa, Cr, Ti and Nb when bonded with N precipitate nitrides ([0039]).
When faced with a mixture, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated by common sense to select a 1:1 ratio (i.e., more than 0.05 wt% to 5 wt% of Co and more than 0.05 wt% to 5 wt% of Ti, Cr, Al or Nb), a ratio that falls within the presently claimed amount, absent evidence of unexpected or surprising results. Case law holds that “[h]aving established that this knowledge was in the art, the examiner could then properly rely... on a conclusion of obviousness, ‘from common knowledge and common sense of the person of ordinary skill in the art within any specific hint or suggestion in a particular reference.’” In re Bozek, 416 F.2d 1385, 1390, 163 USPQ 545, 549 (CCPA 1969).
Iguchi does not explicitly teach the ribbon includes N by 0.2 atom% or more and 10 atom% or less, as presently claimed. However, Iguchi teaches nitriding the steel in a temperature range of 300-700ºC in a nitridation atmosphere of NH3 and N2 gas and then rapidly cooling the nitride steel (p. 3) (corresponding to a nitrogen immersion heat treatment performed at a temperature of 450ºC or more and 700ºC or less).
Komuro teaches a soft magnetic material that is sheet-shaped and contains iron, carbon, nitrogen and a martensite containing nitrogen and iron (Abstract) (corresponding to the soft magnetic iron alloy plate comprises an Fe-N-based martensite phase). The soft magnetic material has an average nitrogen concentration of 0.4 mass% or more and 1.2 mass% or less ([0068]). The nitrogen concertation is controlled by the nitriding and diffusion time ([0089]).
Komuro teaches the soft magnetic material including nitrogen is thermally stable and has a saturation magnetic flux density higher than that of pure iron (Abstract; [0015]).
In light of the motivation of Komuro, 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 ribbon of Iguchi be a soft magnetic material including of 0.4 mass% or more and 1.2 mass% or less, in order to provide a ribbon that is thermally stable and has a saturation magnetic flux density higher than that of pure iron.
While Iguchi in view of Komuro does not explicitly teach the amount of the Co, N and at least one of Ti, Cr, Al and Nb in atom%, however, given that Iguchi in view of Komuro broadly disclose having more than 0.05 wt% to 5 wt% of Co, 0.4 wt% and 1.2 wt% of N and more than 0.05 wt% to 5 wt% of Ti, Cr, Al or Nb, it is clear that it would necessarily include the presently claimed (i.e., 1-30 atom% of Co, 0.2-10 atom% of N and 0.5-5 atom% of M).
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 ribbon of Iguchi in view of Komuro is substantially identical to the present claimed soft magnetic iron alloy plate in composition, structure and produced by a substantially identical process (i.e., forming an iron alloy sheet, nitriding and rapid cooling (p. 2-3), the soft magnetic ribbon of Iguchi in view of Komuro would intrinsically have nitride particles of Ti, Cr, Al or Nb deposited with an average particle size of 0.3 µm or less and a number density of 30 particles/100µm2 or less, an occupancy of the nitride particles being 2 area% or less and an N content of the soft magnetic ribbon and a matrix phase N concentrate are the same.
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 and 9-18, Iguchi in view of Komuro teaches the limitations of claims 1-3 and 8, as discussed above. Iguchi further teaches a saturation magnetic flux density is 21,500 to 23,600 Guass (i.e., 2.15-2.36 T) (Table 1) (corresponding to a saturation magnetic flux density is more than 2.20 T).
Given that the soft magnetic ribbon of Iguchi in view of Komuro is substantially identical to the present claimed soft magnetic iron alloy plate in composition, structure and produced by a substantially identical process (i.e., forming an iron alloy sheet, nitriding and rapid cooling (p. 2-3), the soft magnetic ribbon of Iguchi in view of Komuro 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, Iguchi in view of Komuro teaches the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Komuro teaches a laminate made of the soft magnetic material applied to an electric motor ([0026]; [0077]-[0078]). The core is the laminate of the soft magnetic material ([0078]) (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 the iron core).
In light of the disclosure by Komuro of using the soft magnetic material as a core in an electric motor, 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 material of Iguchi in view of Komuro as a core being a laminate of the soft magnetic material, in order to provide a laminate that is suitable for an electric motor and is thermally stabile and processable (Komuro, [0026]), and thereby arriving at the presently claimed invention.
Response to Arguments
In response to amended claim 1, which removed the limitations related to a surface layer region and internal region and now requires the M component is one of Cr, Ti, Al, Nb, or Mo and an N content of the soft magnetic iron alloy plate and a matrix phase N concentration are the same, 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 are withdrawn. However, the amendments necessitate a new set of rejections, as set forth above.
Applicant’s arguments filed 01/06/2026 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
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