Prosecution Insights
Last updated: October 02, 2026
Application No. 18/850,388

SOFT MAGNETIC IRON ALLOY SHEET, METHOD OF MANUFACTURING SOFT MAGNETIC IRON ALLOY SHEET, AND IRON CORE AND ROTATING ELECTRIC MACHINE INCLUDING SOFT MAGNETIC IRON ALLOY SHEET

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Sep 24, 2024
Priority
Apr 06, 2022 — JP 2022-063322 +1 more
Examiner
KHAN, TAHSEEN
Art Unit
Tech Center
Assignee
Hitachi Ltd.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
62%
Grant Probability
Moderate
1-2
OA Rounds
1y 3m
Est. Remaining
82%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 62% of resolved cases
62%
Career Allowance Rate
584 granted / 947 resolved
+1.7% vs TC avg
Strong +20% interview lift
Without
With
+20.5%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 3m
Avg Prosecution
63 currently pending
Career history
997
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.3%
-39.7% vs TC avg
§103
71.1%
+31.1% vs TC avg
§102
13.6%
-26.4% vs TC avg
§112
6.4%
-33.6% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 947 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 . Election/Restrictions Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 8/4/26 is acknowledged. Claims 4-7, 11, and 12 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 8/4/26. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 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. Claim(s) 1, 2, 8, 13, 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Furukimi “Wear Resistance of Industrial Pure Iron Treated by Nitriding and Quenching Followed by Aging Process” in view of Inoue JPH06-267722A (see machine English translation). 1. Regarding claims 1, 2, 8, 13, Furukimi teaches a soft magnetic steel sheet containing a nitride surface layer formed by nitriding a pure iron sheet (Abstract; Page 1587, right column, 2nd paragraph; Page 1588, right column, last paragraph; Table 1; Fig. 5, Steel C), which meets the soft magnetic alloy sheet limitation recited in instant claim 1. Furukimi discloses that the steel sheet is made from pure iron (ferrite; primary phase) sheet containing no Co and V (Table 1), which meets the recited amount of V in instant claim 1. Furukimi further discloses that the nitride surface layer has a nitrogen content in the nitride surface layer is 0.1-1.7 mass% (Page 1588, right column, last paragraph), which converts to 2.735-6.453 at% and meets the surface layer nitrogen composition recited in claim 1. Furukimi further discloses that the nitrogen enriched surface layer contains iron nitride martensite (Page 1588, right column, last paragraph), which meets the limitation that the surface layer contains iron nitride tetragonal structure recited in claim 1. Thus, the two layers together correspond to the laminate of instant Claims 8 and 13. The total nitrogen content in the steel sheet can be estimated based on the nitrogen distribution in the depth direction from steel surface provided in Fig. 5 of Furukimi: Fig. 5 (Steel C) shows that the nitride layer has a thickness of ~90 µm and the nitrogen content in the nitride layer is 0.1-1.7 mass% (Page 1588, right column, last paragraph), which converts to 2.735-6.453 at%. There is two nitride surface layers perpendicular to the thickness direction of the steel sheet. Fig. 5 (Steel C) also shows that the average nitrogen concentration of the internal region at a depth greater than 90 µm from the surface of Steel C is close to 0 at %. Based on Fig. 5 (Steel C) and the fact that the steel sheet has a thickness of 1.2 mm (i.e. 1200 µm), the average nitrogen content in the steel sheet is estimated to be 0.41 at% to 0.97 at% (calculated by (2.735 at.% x 90 x 2) /1200 to (6.453 at% x 90 x 2) /1200), which meet the recited nitrogen amount in the alloy sheet in claim 1. The ratio of the nitride layer thickness to the steel sheet thickness is 90/1200=7.5%, which meets the recited thickness percentage in claim 1. 2. However, Furukimi does not disclose the claimed cobalt concentration. 3. Inoue teaches an alloy having composition of (Fe100-xCox)100-yNy (1≤x≤20, 0<y≤15), wherein the alloy is made by nitriding a Fe-Co alloy (Page 3 and 4). JP’722 discloses that compared to pure iron (ferrite), addition of Co in Fe increases the formation of Fe16N2 phase (Page 3-4). 4. Thus, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add Co to Fe as taught by JP’722 in the material of Furukimi in order to increase formation of Fe16N2 phase as disclosed by Furukimi. JP’722 discloses an example containing Fe90Co10 (Example 1 and 2), which meets the recited amount of Co in claim 1. 5. Although the claimed tensile strain, saturation magnetic flux density is not explicitly disclosed it would be expected for it to be inherently found given that Furukimi in view of Ionue teaches all of the claimed limitations. 6. Regarding Claims 9, 14, Furukimi in view of Ionue suggests making electronic devices (corresponds to claimed electric machines) (Inoue: paragraph 0001). Allowable Subject Matter Claims 3 and 10 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAHSEEN KHAN whose telephone number is (571)270-1140. The examiner can normally be reached Mondays-Saturdays 08:00AM-10:00PM. 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, Frank Vineis can be reached at 5712701547. 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. /TAHSEEN KHAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1781 August 13, 2026
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Sep 24, 2024
Application Filed
Aug 17, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12747327
POLYESTER FILM FOR WINDOW ATTACHMENT, AND POLYESTER FILM LAYERED BODY FOR WINDOW ATTACHMENT
4y 6m to grant Granted Sep 29, 2026
Patent 12747191
COMPOSITE CERAMIC SUBSTRATE HAVING MULTI-LAYER CONFIGURATION
3y 1m to grant Granted Sep 29, 2026
Patent 12747537
CELLULOSIC FIBER MATERIAL AND PROCESS
2y 8m to grant Granted Sep 29, 2026
Patent 12746741
GLASS PANE OF A VEHICLE GLAZING HAVING A PRINT
2y 7m to grant Granted Sep 29, 2026
Patent 12747625
DOUBLE-PANE GLASS PANEL
2y 4m to grant Granted Sep 29, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

Strategy Recommendation AI-generated — please review before filing

Get a prosecution strategy drawn from examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Typically takes 5-10 seconds — AI-generated, attorney review required before filing

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
62%
Grant Probability
82%
With Interview (+20.5%)
3y 3m (~1y 3m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 947 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allowance rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month