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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because a period should be added at the end. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: in [0018] “contet” should be “content.”
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.
Claims 1-8 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.
The variables defined in Claims 1 and 2 are unclear. The tables below are based on the examiner’s interpretation of the claims as presented. Applicant describes Ave(x) (x represents all of elements Fe, Co, and M+X) as a content ratio. A ratio is defined by at least two values; it is not clear what values are being compared. The volume ratio is assumed to be the quotients referenced for each R(x) above, but the values used in the ratio are based on “content ratios” and not volume. Therefore, the differences between “volume ratio” and “content ratio” are unclear. The specification at [0026] states these variables “are respectively a composition which is obtained by taking an average compositions of entire grids.” Is the content ratio the average of the number of respective atoms (Fe, Co, or M+X) in each grid? The specification in [0021-0025] discusses measuring the content ratio with three-dimensional atom probe method (3DAP). Are the instant claims limited to this process as the only way to determine the content ratios? The variables R(x1), R(x3), and R(x4) are assumed to be based on the same grids, otherwise it is not clear how one could determine the different combinations of ≥ Ave(x) and < Ave(x).
Claims 1 and 2
Fe, number of atoms
Co, number of atoms
M + X, number of atoms
Ave(Fe)
atoms Fe [in grid?]/[total Fe in all grids?]
content ratio of Fe
Ave(Co)
atoms Co [in grid?]/[total Co in all grids?]
content ratio of Co
Ave(M + X)
atoms M+X [in grid?]/[total M+X in all grids?]
content ratio of M and X
Claim 1
R(Fe4)
≥ Ave(Fe) / < Ave(M+X)
volume ratio
R(Co4)
≥ Ave(Co) / < Ave(M+X)
volume ratio
R(Co4)/R(Fe4)
≤ 0.90
Claim 2
R(Fe1)
≥ Ave(Fe) / ≥ Ave(M+X)
volume ratio
R(Co1)
≥ Ave(Co) / ≥ Ave(M+X)
volume ratio
R(Fe3)
< Ave(Fe) / < Ave(M+X)
volume ratio
R(Co3)
< Ave(Co) / < Ave(M+X)
volume ratio
[R(Co1)+R(Co3)]/[R(Fe1)+R(Fe3)]
≥ 1.53
Claims dependent on any of the rejected claims are likewise rejected under this statute.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-8 would be allowable if rewritten or amended 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Yoshidome et al (US 10,541,072 B2) teaches a soft magnetic alloy that includes a main component of Fe that includes a Fe composition network phase with regions where the Fe content is larger than an average composition (abstract). The measurement range is divided into a region whose Fe content is higher than a threshold value and a region whose Fe content is a threshold value or less (column 6, lines 1-4). Yoshidome et al (US 10,541,072 B2) does not suggest the alloy comprises Co or a volume ratio as recited in Claims 1 and 2.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Amano et al (US 2022/0351884 A1) teaches an iron-based soft magnetic alloy comprising X1 (Co) [0041], C [0040], M1 (one or more of Ta, V, Zr, Ti, Nb, Mo, and W) [0043], and Z3 (P, B, Si) [0044]. At a plurality of measurement sites in the soft magnetic alloy, atomic concentrations of two elements are measured [0074]. The status of microscopic segregation or dispersion of the respective elements are observed and measured by using 3DAP [0080]. M and Z may be coupled to each other to form a crystal of an M-Z compound [0092]. The concentration of a transition metal M and a concentration Z is set as a coefficient of determination [0100]. Using 3DAP, a grid in which a total concentration of Fe, Co, and Ni is 85 at% or more is a first region grid, and a grid in which a total concentration of Fe, Co, and Ni is 80 at% or less is a second region grid. Volume ratios of the first region are averaged to calculate a volume ratio of the first region. This is also true of a volume ratio of the second region [0150-0151]. It is possible to manufacture a soft magnetic alloy ribbon in which a local variation of M or Z exists in a specific range [0203].
Yoshidome et al (US 2019/0355498 A1) teaches a Fe-based soft magnetic powder comprising Co (abstract).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tima M. McGuthry-Banks whose telephone number is (571)272-2744. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 7:30 am to 4:00 pm.
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 D. Hendricks can be reached at (571) 272-1401. 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.
Tima M. McGuthry-Banks
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1733
/Tima M. McGuthry-Banks/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1733
Prosecution Insights