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 1/species 1, claims 1-2 and figures 1-2) in the reply filed on 04/02/26 is acknowledged.
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.
1 Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burkhardt et al.(US 3,309,641) in view of Song et al. (KR 20180072107)(English translation).
Regarding claim 1, Burkhardt et al.(figures 2 and Col 5, lines 50-75-Col 6, lines 1-75) discloses a wound shape including a rectangular hollow portion in a center (see figure 2) and a portion in which grain-oriented electrical steel sheets (Col 5, lines 50-75), in which planar portions and bent portions are alternately continuous in a longitudinal direction (see figure 2) are stacked in a sheet thickness direction(see figure 2), which is a wound core formed by stacking the grain-oriented electrical steel sheets that have been individually bent in layers and assembled into a wound shape and in which the plurality of grain-oriented electrical steel sheets(see figure 2) are connected to each other via at least one joining part (see figure 2 and Col 6, lines 55-62) for each roll (see figure 2).
Burkhardt et al. (see figure 2) discloses wherein the bent portion of the laminated grain-oriented electrical steel sheet has a L cross section in the longitudinal direction which is a cross section of the grain-oriented electrical steel sheet in a thickness direction but is silent has to having an average Vickers hardness of 190 to 250 HV.
Song et al (page 7, para 0003) discloses an average Vickers hardness of 190 to 250 HV.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant claimed invention to design an average Vickers hardness of 190 to 250 HV as taught by Song et al to the inductive of Burkhardt et al so as to allow the inductive device to have for the hardness level to have precise slitting and punching without excessive tool wear, while enabling low-loss, high-permeability performance in inductive devices. Also, grain-oriented electrical steel is well known to exhibits a Vickers hardness (HV) in the range of 170–200 HV. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to design grain-oriented electrical steel sheet having an average Vickers hardness of 190 to 250 HV in an L cross section in, the longitudinal direction which is a cross section of the grain-oriented electrical steel sheet in a thickness direction, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Such as to prevent excessive brittleness but high enough to handle mechanical and vibrational stresses (magnetic force) during operation and allowing for easier stamping and cutting for producing laminations for transformer cores without excessive, costly tool wear.
2. Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mizumura et al.(JP 2018148036) in view of Song et al. (KR 20180072107)(English translation).
Regarding claim 1, Mizumura et al.(figures 1-8 para 0010-0098) discloses a wound shape including a rectangular hollow portion in a center (see figures 1-8) and a portion in which grain-oriented electrical steel sheets (see para 0012), in which planar portions and bent portions are alternately continuous in a longitudinal direction (see figures 1-8) are stacked in a sheet thickness direction(see figures 1-8), which is a wound core formed by stacking the grain-oriented electrical steel sheets that have been individually bent in layers and assembled into a wound shape and in which the plurality of grain-oriented electrical steel sheets(see figures 1-8) are connected to each other via at least one joining part (see figures 4-6 and para 0019-0026) for each roll (see figures 1-2).
Mizumura et al.(see figure 8 and para 0023) discloses wherein the bent portion of the laminated grain-oriented electrical steel sheet has a L cross section in the longitudinal direction which is a cross section of the grain-oriented electrical steel sheet in a thickness direction but is silent has to having an average Vickers hardness of 190 to 250 HV.
Song et al (page 7, para 0003) discloses an average Vickers hardness of 190 to 250 HV.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant claimed invention to design an average Vickers hardness of 190 to 250 HV as taught by Song et al to the inductive of Mizumura et al so as to allow the inductive device to have for the hardness level to have precise slitting and punching without excessive tool wear, while enabling low-loss, high-permeability performance in inductive devices. Also, grain-oriented electrical steel is well known to exhibits a Vickers hardness (HV) in the range of 170–200 HV. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to design grain-oriented electrical steel sheet having an average Vickers hardness of 190 to 250 HV in an L cross section in, the longitudinal direction which is a cross section of the grain-oriented electrical steel sheet in a thickness direction, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Such as to prevent excessive brittleness but high enough to handle mechanical and vibrational stresses (magnetic force) during operation and allowing for easier stamping and cutting for producing laminations for transformer cores without excessive, costly tool wear. Note: Mizumura et al.in view of Song et al has the materials/machinery capable of producing a similar final product.
3. Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mizumura et al.(JP 2018148036)
Regarding claim 3, Mizumura et al.(figures 1-14 and para 0010-0098) discloses a bending unit that individually bends grain-oriented electrical steel sheets (see figure 10 and para 0044); and an assembly unit that stacks the grain-oriented electrical steel sheets (see figures 1-8) that have been individually bent in layers by the bending unit (see figures 1-8) and assembles them into a wound shape to form a wound core having a wound shape including a rectangular hollow portion in a center in which the plurality of grain-oriented electrical steel sheets are connected to each other via at least one joining part for each roll (see figures 1-8) and which includes a portion in which grain-oriented electrical steel sheets in which planar portions and bent portions are alternately continuous in a longitudinal direction are stacked in a sheet thickness direction (see figures 1-8),
Mizumura et al.(figures 1-14 and para 0010-0045) discloses wherein the bending unit bends the grain-oriented electrical steel sheet but is silent as to the bending unit applying a tensile stress in a range of 0.8 MPa or more and 6.8 MPa or less to the grain-oriented electrical steel sheet in the longitudinal direction and bends the grain-oriented electrical steel sheet by setting a dynamic friction coefficient between a bending tool that bends the grain-oriented electrical steel sheet and the grain-oriented electrical steel sheet to 0.10 or more and 0.74 or less, and thereby forms the bent portion of the laminated grain-oriented electrical steel sheets.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to design the bending unit applying a tensile stress in a range of 0.8 MPa or more and 6.8 MPa or less to the grain-oriented electrical steel sheet in the longitudinal direction and bends the grain-oriented electrical steel sheet by setting a dynamic friction coefficient between a bending tool that bends the grain-oriented electrical steel sheet and the grain-oriented electrical steel sheet to 0.10 or more and 0.74 or less, and thereby forms the bent portion of the laminated grain-oriented electrical steel sheets, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Such as to help in reducing the iron loss of the electrical steel sheet, which is critical for lowering energy consumption and to suppress wrinkles and warped deformation during bending, particularly at high temperatures. Also, the limitations “the bending unit applying a tensile stress in a range of 0.8 MPa or more and 6.8 MPa or less to the grain-oriented electrical steel sheet in the longitudinal direction and bends the grain-oriented electrical steel sheet by setting a dynamic friction coefficient between a bending tool that bends the grain-oriented electrical steel sheet and the grain-oriented electrical steel sheet to 0.10 or more and 0.74 or less, and thereby forms the bent portion of the laminated grain-oriented electrical steel sheets” has been given little patentable weight. Please note that even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product, does not depend on its method of production, In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Federal Circuit 1985). As clearly see from the drawings and specifications, Mizumura et al.(figures 1-14 and para 0010-0098) has the materials/machinery capable of producing a similar final product.
4. Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Segal et al.(US 6,473,961)
Regarding claim 3, Segal et al.(figures 1-13a and Col 6, lines 1-65) discloses a bending unit that individually bends grain-oriented electrical steel sheets (see figures 1/5/13a-13b); and an assembly unit that stacks the grain-oriented electrical steel sheets (see figure 2 and Col 1, lines 1-15) that have been individually bent in layers by the bending unit (see figure 2) and assembles them into a wound shape to form a wound core having a wound shape including a rectangular hollow portion in a center in which the plurality of grain-oriented electrical steel sheets are connected to each other via at least one joining part for each roll (see Col 6, lines 40-60) and which includes a portion in which grain-oriented electrical steel sheets in which planar portions and bent portions are alternately continuous in a longitudinal direction are stacked in a sheet thickness direction (see figure 2).
Segal et al.(figures 1/5/13a-13b) discloses wherein the bending unit bends the grain-oriented electrical steel sheet but is silent as to the bending unit applying a tensile stress in a range of 0.8 MPa or more and 6.8 MPa or less to the grain-oriented electrical steel sheet in the longitudinal direction and bends the grain-oriented electrical steel sheet by setting a dynamic friction coefficient between a bending tool that bends the grain-oriented electrical steel sheet and the grain-oriented electrical steel sheet to 0.10 or more and 0.74 or less, and thereby forms the bent portion of the laminated grain-oriented electrical steel sheets.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to design the bending unit applying a tensile stress in a range of 0.8 MPa or more and 6.8 MPa or less to the grain-oriented electrical steel sheet in the longitudinal direction and bends the grain-oriented electrical steel sheet by setting a dynamic friction coefficient between a bending tool that bends the grain-oriented electrical steel sheet and the grain-oriented electrical steel sheet to 0.10 or more and 0.74 or less, and thereby forms the bent portion of the laminated grain-oriented electrical steel sheets, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Such as to help in reducing the iron loss of the electrical steel sheet, which is critical for lowering energy consumption and to suppress wrinkles and warped deformation during bending, particularly at high temperatures. Also, the limitations “the bending unit applying a tensile stress in a range of 0.8 MPa or more and 6.8 MPa or less to the grain-oriented electrical steel sheet in the longitudinal direction and bends the grain-oriented electrical steel sheet by setting a dynamic friction coefficient between a bending tool that bends the grain-oriented electrical steel sheet and the grain-oriented electrical steel sheet to 0.10 or more and 0.74 or less, and thereby forms the bent portion of the laminated grain-oriented electrical steel sheets” has been given little patentable weight. Please note that even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product, does not depend on its method of production, In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Federal Circuit 1985). As clearly see from the drawings and specifications, Segal et al.(figures 1-13a and Col 6, lines 1-65) has the materials/machinery capable of producing a similar final product.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RONALD HINSON whose telephone number is (571)270-7915. The examiner can normally be reached M to F; 8 -5.
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, Shawki Ismail can be reached at 571-272-3985. 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.
/RONALD HINSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2837
Prosecution Insights