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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 5/22/2023 and 8/14/2025 have been considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: Reference number 12 in Fig. 8. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “10” has been used to designate both "electromagnetic steel component" in paragraphs 42, 45, 46 and 52, and "electromagnetic steel sheet" in paragraph 74. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
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 9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hara et al. (US 20200306892) hereinafter Hara, in view of Nakamura et al. (US 20150013853) hereinafter Nakamura, and further in view of Numata et al. (US 20090127239) hereinafter Numata.
Regarding Claim 9, Hara teaches a method for cutting a steel sheet (W, workpiece; Hara; Abstract teaches laser cutting on a plated steel sheet, and Paragraph 64 teaches a workpiece W is a sheet-like shape) comprising
cutting the steel sheet with a fiber laser (LB, laser light; Paragraph 65; Hara teaches the laser light is rendered out of the transmission fibers. Paragraph 59 also teaches laser cutting with a fiber laser) by irradiating the steel sheet while spraying an assist gas (Abstract; Hara teaches laser cutting is executed by cutting the plated steel sheet by irradiating the plated steel sheet covered with a plate metal with laser light; and emitting assist gas onto a cut surface of the plated steel sheet) with an oxygen (Hara; Paragraph 8 teaches oxygen is used as assist gas) to obtain an steel component (W; Hara) with a cut face (Abstract; Hara teaches cut surface is formed in the step of cutting) having a rust- preventive effect (Paragraph 8; Hara teaches the assist gas forms an oxide layer on the cut end surface, and the oxide layer suppresses reduction of the antirust ability of the cut surface).
Hara does not explicitly teach the steel sheet is electromagnetic.
However, Nakamura discloses an electromagnetic steel sheet (Paragraph 67; Nakamura teaches hot-rolled steel sheet is cut into a certain shape by laser cutting to be used as electromagnetic members).
Hara and Nakamura are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of laser cutting for steel sheets. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to substitute the plated steel sheet of Hara with the electromagnetic steel sheet taught by Nakamura, because the substitution of one known material for another would have yielded predictable results of cutting the steel sheet usable in the electromagnetic component. See Nakamura, Paragraph 67.
Regarding Claim 9, Hara and Nakamura does not explicitly teach oxygen concentration of at least 50 volume percent in the assist gas.
However, Numata discloses an oxygen concentration of at least 50 volume percent (Paragraph 309; Numata teaches the oxygen content of the assist gas is 52.6 volume %).
Hara, Nakamura and Numata are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of laser processing for steel sheets. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to substitute the assist gas taught by Hara and Nakamura with Numata’s assist gas, because the substitution of one known gas mixture for another would have yielded predictable results of cutting the workpiece in order to suppress the excessive oxidation and burning of the workpiece. See Numata, Paragraph 22. See Numata, Paragraph 22.
Regarding Claim 11, which is a dependent claim of Claim 9, Hara, Nakamura and Numata does not explicitly teach the oxygen concentration of the assist gas is at least 60 volume percent and the remainder nitrogen.
However, the courts have held that where a general condition of a claim is disclosed in the prior art (see Numara, Paragraph 309 and 265), it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable range. See MPEP 2144.05 (II)(A).
In this case, Hara in combination with Nakamura and Numata discloses the oxygen content of the assist gas is 52.6 volume % (Paragraph 309; Numata), and the oxygen and nitrogen of the predetermined amount are mixed with each other, producing an assist gas with a predetermined oxygen content (Paragraph 265; Numata). Hara, Nakamura and Numata recognizes the oxygen volume concentration in an assist gas as an adjustable parameter in laser cutting process in order to suppress excessive oxidation and burning (Numata, Paragraph 22). Also, it is well known, “Using a laser with an assist gas mixture of about 60% oxygen and 40% nitrogen can balance cutting speed and edge quality, offering faster cuts than pure nitrogen while reducing oxidation compared to pure oxygen. A mixture containing roughly 60% oxygen and 40% nitrogen combines the exothermic cutting benefits of oxygen with the inert protection of nitrogen.” (https://www.bing.com/search?q=laser%20with%20assist%20gas%20with%20oxygen%20and%20nitrogen%20mixture%20with%20about%2060%25%20oxygen&qs=n&form=QBRE&sp=-1&ghc=1&lq=0&pq=laser%20with%20assist%20gas%20with%20oxygen%20and%20nitrogen%20mixture%20with%20about%2060%25%20oxygen&sc=9-76&sk=&cvid=D0A3B04FE6BE4C6E9FAF0914FA1EDDE2, accessed 2/6/2026)
Varying the oxygen concentration in the assist gas in order to achieve balance cutting speed, cut quality and cost is recognized in the art to be a result-effective variable, which would have been achieved through routine experimentation.
Claims 13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hara et al. (US 20200306892) hereinafter Hara, in view of Nakamura et al. (US 20160013853) hereinafter Nakamura, Numata et al. (US 20090127239) hereinafter Numata, and further in view of Zaizen et al. (US 20200010918) hereinafter Zaizen.
Regarding Claim 13, which is a dependent claim of Claim 9, Hara, Nakamura and Numata does not explicitly teach an annealing treatment to restore magnetic properties of the electromagnetic steel component.
However, Zaizen discloses an annealing treatment to restore magnetic properties of the electromagnetic steel component (Paragraph 93; Zaizen discloses the measured results in Table 2 shows the electrical steel sheets have high strength after the finish annealing and excellent magnetic properties such as low iron loss and high magnetic flux density).
Hara, Nakamura, Numata and Zaizen are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of laser processing for steel workpieces. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the annealing treatment taught by Zaizen into the laser cutting method of Hara in combination with Nakamura and Numata. Such incorporation represents the predictable addition of known post-processing technique to a known laser cutting method, in order to improve the magnetic properties of the electromagnetic steel workpieces after laser cutting.
PNG
media_image1.png
542
815
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Table 2 of Zaizen
Regarding Claim 15, which is a dependent claim of Claim 13, Hara, Nakamura, Numata and Zaizen discloses the annealing treatment is performed at 750°C to 850°C for at least one hour (Table 2; Zaizen discloses the temperature range for stress relief annealing is 775-850 °C, and the time duration of annealing is 1-2 hours).
Claims 17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hara et al. (US 20200306892) hereinafter Hara, in view of Nakamura et al. (US 20150013853) hereinafter Nakamura, Numata et al. (US 20090127239) hereinafter Numata, Zaizen et al. (US 20200010918) hereinafter Zaizen, and further in view of Adar et al. (US 20140354386) hereinafter Adar.
Regarding Claim 17, which is a dependent claim of Claim 9, Hara, Nakamura and Numata does not explicitly teach an annealing treatment to restore magnetic properties of the electromagnetic steel component.
However, Zaizen discloses an annealing treatment to restore magnetic properties of the electromagnetic steel component (Paragraph 93; Zaizen discloses the measured results in Table 2 shows the electrical steel sheets have high strength after the finish annealing and excellent magnetic properties such as low iron loss and high magnetic flux density).
Hara, Nakamura, Numata and Zaizen are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of laser processing for steel workpieces. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the annealing treatment taught by Zaizen into the laser cutting method of Hara in combination with Nakamura and Numata. Such incorporation represents the predictable addition of known post-processing technique to a known laser cutting method, in order to improve the magnetic properties of the electromagnetic steel workpieces after laser cutting.
Regarding Claim 17, Hara, Nakamura, Numata and Zaizen does not explicitly teach
A method for fabricating a core, and methods for manufacturing them) comprising the steps of:
winding or stacking an electromagnetic steel component cut by the method according to claim 9 to obtain a core assembly;
soaking the core assembly in a varnish.
However, Adar discloses
A method for fabricating a core (2, magnetic core frames; Fig. 1A; Adar discloses three-phase magnetic cores for magnetic induction devices (e.g., transformers, coils, chokes), and methods for manufacturing them) comprising the steps of:
winding or stacking an electromagnetic steel component cut (Paragraph 14; Adar discloses the magnetic core frames are constructed by successively winding magnetic material ribbons to form multilayered loops arranged one over the other using for successive multilayered loops magnetic material ribbons) by the method according to claim 9 to obtain a core assembly (2; Adar);
soaking the core assembly in a varnish (Paragraph 26; Adar discloses fabricating the multiphase magnetic induction device includes preparing the magnetic core frames, applying an annealing treatment, and impregnating the frames in an organic binding material, such as epoxy varnish).
Hara, Nakamura, Numata, Zaizen and Adar are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of laser processing and subsequent treatment of steel workpieces to obtain steel components with desired functional properties. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the magnetic core fabrication and varnish impregnation method taught by Adar into the laser cutting and post treatment method of Hara in combination with Nakamura, Numata and Zaizen. Such incorporation represents the predictable application of known manufacturing steps to electromagnetic steel sheets that have been laser-cut and annealed using known techniques, in order to obtain magnetic cores suitable for magnetic induction devices, with enhanced structural integrity and durability by the binding material treatment. Adar, Abstract and Paragraph 26.
PNG
media_image2.png
442
433
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Fig. 1A of Adar
Regarding Claim 19, which is a dependent claim of Claim 17, Hara in combination with Nakamura, Numata, Zaizen and Adar teaches the annealing treatment is performed at 750°C to 850°C for at least one hour (Table 2; Zaizen discloses the temperature range for stress relief annealing is 775-850 °C, and the time duration of annealing is 1-2 hours).
Claims 21 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hara et al. (US 20200306892) hereinafter Hara, in view of Nakamura et al. (US 20150013853) hereinafter Nakamura, Numata et al. (US 20090127239) hereinafter Numata, Zaizen et al. (US 20200010918) hereinafter Zaizen, Adar et al. (US 20140354386) hereinafter Adar, and further in view of Bernard et al. (US 20150274644) hereinafter Bernard.
Regarding Claim 21, which is a dependent claim of Claim 17, Hara in combination with Nakamura, Numata, Zaizen and Adar teaches the varnish is a material containing an epoxy resin (epoxy varnish; paragraph 23; Adar).
Hara in combination with Nakamura, Numata, Zaizen and Adar does not explicitly teach the varnish is a material containing an acrylic monomer and an epoxy resin.
However, Bernard discloses the varnish is a material containing an acrylic monomer and an epoxy resin (Paragraph 53; Bernard teaches a varnish binder composition that includes an epoxy resin together with a multifunctional acrylic monomer used as a reactive component or solvent).
Hara, Nakamura, Numata, Zaizen, Adar and Bernard are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of processing and treatment of steel workpieces for magnetic or electrical applications. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to substitute the epoxy varnish taught by Hara in combination with Nakamura, Numata, Zaizen and Adar with the varnish binder including acrylic monomer and epoxy resin as taught by Bernard, which would represent the predictable use of a known binder composition in a known varnish impregnation process, in order to obtain a varnish with an appropriate level of viscosity (Paragraph 55; Bernard), suitable for impregnating magnetic core assemblies with predictable structural integrity and durability.
Regarding Claim 23, which is a dependent claim of Claim 19, Hara in combination with Nakamura, Numata, Zaizen, Adar and Bernard teaches the varnish is a material containing an acrylic monomer and an epoxy resin (Paragraph 53; Bernard teaches a varnish binder composition that includes an epoxy resin together with a multifunctional acrylic monomer used as a reactive component or solvent).
Claims 10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hara et al. (US 20200306892) hereinafter Hara, in view of Nakamura et al. (US 20150013853) hereinafter Nakamura, Numata et al. (US 20090127239) hereinafter Numata, and further in view of Chouf et al. (US 20090218326) hereinafter Chouf.
Regarding Claim 10, which is a dependent claim of Claim 9, Hara, Nakamura and Numata teaches a fiber core diameter (Paragraph 58; Hara teaches condensed light diameter is 0.151 mm).
Hara, Nakamura and Numata does not explicitly teaches a fiber core diameter is 1 um to 25 um.
However, Chouf discloses the fiber laser is configured to irradiate the electromagnetic steel sheet under conditions wherein a fiber core diameter is 1 um to 25 um (Paragraph 16, 17 & 39; Chouf discloses fiber laser or ytterbium fiber laser having a wavelength between 1.04 and 5 um, generating monomode beam. In this case, the core diameter of this fiber laser with single mode is between 6-10 um: https://www.google.com/search?q=core+diameter+of+fiber+laser+having+1-4+um+wavelengths&sca_esv=c04783e6906b025b&source=hp&ei=QjGBaYGJDeLk5NoPyrXRmA8&iflsig=AFdpzrgAAAAAaYE_Uj3RtjDeUL1ihyVshducDlhtTuBr&ved=0ahUKEwiBsoKP-buSAxViMlkFHcpaFPMQ4dUDCBY&uact=5&oq=core+diameter+of+fiber+laser+having+1-4+um+wavelengths&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IjZjb3JlIGRpYW1ldGVyIG9mIGZpYmVyIGxhc2VyIGhhdmluZyAxLTQgdW0gd2F2ZWxlbmd0aHMyBRAhGKABSIUPUPUHWPUHcAF4AJABAJgBTaABTaoBATG4AQPIAQD4AQL4AQGYAgKgAl-oAgrCAgoQABgDGI8BGOoCmAMK8QUA6KM4UcI_UJIHATKgB5ICsgcBMbgHVMIHBzAuMS4wLjHIBwmACAE&sclient=gws-wiz, accessed 2/2/2026),
Hara, Nakamura, Numata and Chouf are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of laser processing for steel workpieces. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to substitute the fiber laser of Hara, Nakamura and Numata with the single-mode fiber laser having a fiber core diameter within the claimed range as taught by Chouf, which would represents the predictable use of a known laser source in a known later cutting method, in order to improve cutting quality and cutting speed, as well as to ensure the controlled transverse energy distribution in the beam. Chouf, Paragraph 6.
Regarding Claim 10, Hara, Nakamura, Numata and Chouf does not explicitly teach a laser output is 300W to 1000W.
However, Chouf discloses the laser beam has a power of between 0.5 and 15 kW (Paragraph 17). MPEP 2144.05 (I) states, “In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists.”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a laser beam with the output power between 300 W to 1000 W, in order to ensure beam quality and controlled transverse energy distribution suitable for stable laser cutting. Chouf, Paragraph 6.
Regarding Claim 10, Hara Nakamura, Numata and Chouf does not explicitly teach a cutting speed is 300mm/sec to 500mm/sec.
However, Chouf discloses the cutting speed is between 0.1 and 20 m/min (Paragraph 17), which is between 1.67 mm/sec to 333 mm/sec. MPEP 2144.05 (I) states, “In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists.”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a laser beam with the cutting speed between 300 mm/sec to 500 mm/sec, in order to achieve increased processing throughput by the desired cutting speed, while ensuring the acceptable cutting quality.
Regarding Claim 12, which is a dependent claim of Claim 10, Hara in combination with Nakamura, Numata and Chouf does not explicitly teach the oxygen concentration of the assist gas is at least 60 volume percent and the remainder nitrogen.
However, the courts have held that where a general condition of a claim is disclosed in the prior art (see Numara, Paragraph 309 and 265), it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable range. See MPEP 2144.05 (II)(A).
In this case, Hara in combination with Nakamura and Numata discloses the oxygen content of the assist gas is 52.6 volume % (Paragraph 309; Numata), and the oxygen and nitrogen of the predetermined amount are mixed with each other, producing an assist gas with a predetermined oxygen content (Paragraph 265; Numata). Hara, Nakamura and Numata recognizes the oxygen volume concentration in an assist gas as an adjustable parameter in laser cutting process in order to suppress excessive oxidation and burning (Numata, Paragraph 22). Also, it is well known, “Using a laser with an assist gas mixture of about 60% oxygen and 40% nitrogen can balance cutting speed and edge quality, offering faster cuts than pure nitrogen while reducing oxidation compared to pure oxygen. A mixture containing roughly 60% oxygen and 40% nitrogen combines the exothermic cutting benefits of oxygen with the inert protection of nitrogen.” (https://www.bing.com/search?q=laser%20with%20assist%20gas%20with%20oxygen%20and%20nitrogen%20mixture%20with%20about%2060%25%20oxygen&qs=n&form=QBRE&sp=-1&ghc=1&lq=0&pq=laser%20with%20assist%20gas%20with%20oxygen%20and%20nitrogen%20mixture%20with%20about%2060%25%20oxygen&sc=9-76&sk=&cvid=D0A3B04FE6BE4C6E9FAF0914FA1EDDE2, accessed 2/6/2026)
Varying the oxygen concentration in the assist gas in order to achieve balance cutting speed, cut quality and cost is recognized in the art to be a result-effective variable, which would have been achieved through routine experimentation.
Claims 14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hara et al. (US 20200306892) hereinafter Hara, in view of Nakamura et al. (US 20150013853) hereinafter Nakamura, Numata et al. (US 20090127239) hereinafter Numata, Chouf et al. (US 20090218326) hereinafter Chouf, and further in view of Zaizen et al. (US 20200010918) hereinafter Zaizen.
Regarding Claim 14, which is a dependent claim of Claim 10, Hara, Nakamura, Numata and Chouf does not explicitly teach an annealing treatment to restore magnetic properties of the electromagnetic steel component.
However, Zaizen discloses an annealing treatment to restore magnetic properties of the electromagnetic steel component (Paragraph 93; Zaizen discloses the measured results in Table 2 shows the electrical steel sheets have high strength after the finish annealing and excellent magnetic properties such as low iron loss and high magnetic flux density).
Hara, Nakamura, Numata, Chouf and Zaizen are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of laser processing for steel workpieces. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the annealing treatment taught by Zaizen into the laser cutting method of Hara in combination with Nakamura, Numata and Chouf. Such incorporation represents the predictable addition of known post-processing technique to a known laser cutting method, in order to improve the magnetic properties of the electromagnetic steel workpieces after laser cutting.
Regarding Claim 16, which is a dependent claim of Claim 14, Hara, Nakamura, Numata, Chouf and Zaizen teaches the annealing treatment is performed at 750°C to 850°C for at least one hour (Table 2; Zaizen discloses the temperature range for stress relief annealing is 775-850 °C, and the time duration of annealing is 1-2 hours).
Claims 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hara et al. (US 20200306892) hereinafter Hara, in view of Nakamura et al. (US 20150013853) hereinafter Nakamura, Numata et al. (US 20090127239) hereinafter Numata, Chouf et al. (US 20090218326) hereinafter Chouf, Zaizen et al. (US 20200010918) hereinafter Zaizen, and further in view of Adar et al. (US 20140354386) hereinafter Adar.
Regarding Claim 18, which is a dependent claim of Claim 10, Hara in combination with Nakamura, Numata, Chouf and Zaizen teaches an annealing treatment to restore magnetic properties of the electromagnetic steel component (Paragraph 93; Zaizen).
Hara, Nakamura, Numata, Chouf and Zaizen does not explicitly teach
A method for fabricating a core, and methods for manufacturing them) comprising the steps of:
winding or stacking an electromagnetic steel component cut by the method according to claim 10 to obtain a core assembly;
soaking the core assembly in a varnish.
However, Adar discloses
A method for fabricating a core (2, magnetic core frames; Fig. 1A; Adar discloses three-phase magnetic cores for magnetic induction devices (e.g., transformers, coils, chokes), and methods for manufacturing them) comprising the steps of:
winding or stacking an electromagnetic steel component cut (Paragraph 14; Adar discloses the magnetic core frames are constructed by successively winding magnetic material ribbons to form multilayered loops arranged one over the other using for successive multilayered loops magnetic material ribbons) by the method according to claim 10 to obtain a core assembly (2; Adar);
soaking the core assembly in a varnish (Paragraph 26; Adar discloses fabricating the multiphase magnetic induction device includes preparing the magnetic core frames, applying an annealing treatment, and impregnating the frames in an organic binding material, such as epoxy varnish).
Hara, Nakamura, Numata, Chouf, Zaizen and Adar are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of laser processing and subsequent treatment of steel workpieces to obtain steel components with desired functional properties. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the magnetic core fabrication and varnish impregnation method taught by Adar into the laser cutting and post treatment method of Hara in combination with Nakamura, Numata, Chouf and Zaizen. Such incorporation represents the predictable application of known manufacturing steps to electromagnetic steel sheets that have been laser-cut and annealed using known techniques, in order to obtain magnetic cores suitable for magnetic induction devices, with enhanced structural integrity and durability by the binding material treatment. Adar, Abstract and Paragraph 26.
Regarding Claim 20, which is a dependent claim of Claim 18, Hara in combination with Nakamura, Numata, Chouf, Zaizen and Adar teaches the annealing treatment is performed at 750°C to 850°C for at least one hour (Table 2; Zaizen discloses the temperature range for stress relief annealing is 775-850 °C, and the time duration of annealing is 1-2 hours).
Claims 22 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hara et al. (US 20200306892) hereinafter Hara, in view of Nakamura et al. (US 20150013853) hereinafter Nakamura, Numata et al. (US 20090127239) hereinafter Numata, Chouf et al. (US 20090218326) hereinafter Chouf, Zaizen et al. (US 20200010918) hereinafter Zaizen, Adar et al. (US 20140354386) hereinafter Adar, and further in view of Bernard et al. (US 20150274644) hereinafter Bernard.
Regarding Claim 22, which is a dependent claim of Claim 18, Hara in combination with Nakamura, Numata, Chouf, Zaizen and Adar teaches the varnish is a material containing an epoxy resin (epoxy varnish; paragraph 23; Adar).
Hara in combination with Nakamura, Numata, Chouf, Zaizen and Adar does not explicitly teach the varnish is a material containing an acrylic monomer and an epoxy resin.
However, Bernard discloses the varnish is a material containing an acrylic monomer and an epoxy resin (Paragraph 53; Bernard teaches a varnish binder composition that includes an epoxy resin together with a multifunctional acrylic monomer used as a reactive component or solvent).
Hara, Nakamura, Numata, Chouf, Zaizen, Adar and Bernard are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of processing and treatment of steel workpieces for magnetic or electrical applications. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to substitute the epoxy varnish taught by Hara in combination with Nakamura, Numata, Chouf, Zaizen and Adar with the varnish binder including acrylic monomer and epoxy resin as taught by Bernard, which would represent the predictable use of a known binder composition in a known varnish impregnation process, in order to obtain a varnish with an appropriate level of viscosity (Paragraph 55; Bernard), suitable for impregnating magnetic core assemblies with predictable structural integrity and durability.
Regarding Claim 24, which is a dependent claim of Claim 20, Hara in combination with Nakamura, Numata, Chouf, Zaizen, Adar and Bernard teaches the varnish is a material containing an acrylic monomer and an epoxy resin (Paragraph 53; Bernard teaches a varnish binder composition that includes an epoxy resin together with a multifunctional acrylic monomer used as a reactive component or solvent).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JE HWAN JOHN PARK whose telephone number is (571)272-6405. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9AM-5PM.
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, Helena Kosanovic can be reached at 571-272-9059. 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.
/J.J.P./Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/HELENA KOSANOVIC/Supervisory Patent Examiner,
Art Unit 3761