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: “are each set in
a range of 0.010 mm to 0.05 mm” should be --are each independently set in a
range of 0.010 mm to 0.05 mm-- to clarify that the recited range applies independently to both the horizontal distance and the vertical distance, and is not intended to be interpreted as a shared range. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
2. 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.
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.
3. Claim 3 is 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.
Regarding claim 3, the original disclosure does not describe that the vertical distance is set to 52% or less of the thickness of the one of the plurality amorphous alloy foils that is smallest among the respective thickness of the plurality of amorphous alloy foils. The specification does not disclose any relationship between the vertical distance between the second edge and the tip surface of the punch and the smallest foil thickness.
4. Claims 1-3 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, the limitation “the vertical distance is set to 52% or less of a thickness of one of the plurality of amorphous alloy foils” renders the claim indefinite. The phrase “one of the plurality of amorphous alloy foils” is ambiguous because it is unclear which foil is being referenced. For example, it is not clear whether the claimed thickness refers to any arbitrary one of the plurality of foils, the thickest foil, the thinnest foil, or some other specific foil within the plurality.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. 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.
6. Claims 1-3, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ABE et al. (JP 2006224151 A), hereinafter ABE, in view of Matsuno et al. (CN 106457348 B), hereinafter Matsuno, and Nojiri et al. (JP 2020192583 A), hereinafter Nojiri. It should be noted that both Matsuno and Nojiri have been also provided with the IDS filled on 07/24/2024. Regarding claim 1, as best understood, ABE teaches a method for shearing a high-strength steel sheet, comprising blanking a sheet metal workpiece with a shear tool having a punch 1 and a die 2 using one stroke of the punch through the sheet material (see Fig. 8A-8B and corresponding description), wherein the punch includes a cutting edge formed at a tip surface of the punch (cutting blade at the tip portion of punch 1), and a side surface adjacent the cutting edge region (see Fig. 8A-8B). ABE further teaches controlling a clearance between the punch and die (gap between punch 1 and die 2; see workpiece 3 and associated gap) to be ≤ 25% of a thickness (t) of the sheet material, thereby establishing a dimensional relationship between tool geometry and workpiece thickness for improving shearing performance and reducing residual stress (see Abstract and corresponding description).
ABE, however, does not explicitly disclose that the punch includes an inclined surface extending from a first edge on the flat tip surface to a second edge on a side surface of the punch as recited in claim 1. ABE further does not explicitly disclose that a horizontal distance between the first edge and the side surface of the punch and a vertical distance between the second edge and the tip surface of the punch are each set in a range of 0.010 mm to 0.050 mm. Additionally, ABE does not disclose that the vertical distance is set to 52% or less of a thickness of one of a plurality of amorphous alloy foils, nor that the workpiece comprises a plurality of layered amorphous alloy foils, since ABE is directed to a single steel sheet workpiece.
Matsuno teaches a cutting processing method and punch structure for shearing high-strength materials, wherein the punch 110 includes a flat tip surface (front end surface 111), a side surface (outer side surface 114), and an inclined surface (back surface/shoulder portion 112) extending between the tip surface and the side surface (see Fig. 7 and corresponding description). Matsuno further teaches that the inclined surface connects the tip region of the punch to the side surface region and functions to suppress crack initiation and propagation and to improve burr characteristics during shearing operations.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the punch of ABE to include an inclined surface extending between the tip surface cutting edge and the side surface of the punch, as taught by Matsuno, because both references are directed to improving shearing performance of high-strength materials using punch-and-die structures. Matsuno explicitly teaches that providing such an inclined surface improves crack control and cutting quality, which is consistent with ABE’s objective of reducing residual stress and improving punching performance. Therefore, it would have been obvious to incorporate Matsuno’s inclined surface geometry into ABE’s punch structure to obtain predictable improvements in shearing performance.
Matsuno further teaches that the geometric configuration of the punch, including the positional relationship between the tip surface, inclined surface, and side surface, directly affects burr formation, fracture behavior, and tool durability. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to optimize the horizontal distance between the first edge and the side surface of the punch and the vertical distance between the second edge and the tip surface of the punch within a range of 0.010 mm to 0.050 mm as a result-effective variable, since Matsuno teaches that relatively small dimensional variations in these regions significantly influence cutting performance, and it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Nojiri teaches a method for manufacturing a laminate member comprising a plurality of layered soft magnetic alloy ribbons, wherein the ribbons are amorphous alloy strips forming a multi-layered ribbon layer (see layered ribbon layer 3 including ribbons 1a, 1b, 2a–2d and corresponding description). Nojiri further teaches press punching the multi-layered ribbon layer to manufacture the laminate member. The soft magnetic alloy ribbons disclosed by Nojiri are thin strip materials (amorphous alloy strips) which constitute foil-like members. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to apply the shearing method of ABE, as modified by Matsuno, to a workpiece comprising a plurality of layered amorphous alloy foils as taught by Nojiri, because Nojiri teaches that laminated amorphous alloy ribbon stacks are processed by press punching, and ABE teaches a general punching method applicable to sheet-like metallic materials. Substituting Nojiri’s laminated amorphous alloy ribbons (foil-like layers) for the steel sheet of ABE would have been a predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions.
Further, since Nojiri teaches that the laminated structure comprises multiple individual ribbons each having a defined thickness, and ABE teaches selecting dimensional relationships of the punch relative to the thickness of the material, it would have been obvious to relate the vertical distance of the punch geometry to the thickness of one of the ribbons, including selecting the vertical distance to be 52% or less of the thickness of a ribbon, as an optimization of the relationship between tool geometry and material thickness to achieve improved shearing performance, consistent with ABE’s teaching of controlling dimensional relationships relative to material thickness and Matsuno’s teaching of sensitivity of cutting performance to punch geometry.
Regarding claim 2, ABE, as modified above, teaches everything noted above including that the thickness of each of the plurality of amorphous alloy foils is the same. Nojiri teaches that the laminated structure is formed from multiple amorphous alloy ribbons which are manufactured as strip-like thin films and are typically formed with uniform thickness to ensure consistent magnetic and mechanical properties across the laminated structure. It would have been obvious to utilize ribbons of uniform thickness as a matter of routine manufacturing practice to ensure consistent processing and predictable performance.
Regarding claim 3, as best understood, ABE, as modified above, teaches everything noted above including that the vertical distance is set to 52% or less of the thickness of the one of the plurality of amorphous alloy foils that is smallest among the respective thicknesses of the plurality of amorphous alloy foils. As discussed above, it would have been obvious to relate the vertical distance of the punch geometry to the thickness of an individual ribbon within the laminated structure, including the smallest thickness, as a conservative design choice to ensure proper shearing across all layers, since the smallest thickness would control the limiting shearing condition. Selecting the vertical distance to be 52% or less of the smallest ribbon thickness would have been an obvious optimization of a result-effective variable to ensure consistent cutting performance across all layers.
Response to Arguments
7. Applicant arguments that ABE does not teach an inclined surface extending from the first edge to the second edge of the punch, and the vertical distance is set to be 52% or less of a thickness of one of the plurality amorphous alloy foils are moot in view of the combination of ABE with Matsuno and Nojiri as set forth above.
Conclusion
8. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
9. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GHASSEM ALIE whose telephone number is (571) 272-4501. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:30 am-5:00 pm EST.
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, Boyer Ashley can be reached on (571) 272-5402. 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.
/GHASSEM ALIE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724
April 16, 2026
Prosecution Insights