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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/30/2026 have been fully considered as follows:
Applicant’s arguments, see page 6, lines 12-20, filed 4/30/2026, with respect to drawings have been fully considered. In view of the replacement drawing sheets and the amendment to ¶ [0074] of the specification, the objection of drawings has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 6, lines 21-25, filed 4/30/2026, with respect to specification have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection of specification has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments filed 4/30/2026, with respect to claims 9-13, 15, 17-21, 22-25 have been considered but are not persuasive. The rejections set forth below no longer rely on Nakamura et al. (US 20150013853), and applicant’s arguments directed to Nakamura are therefore moot.
Regarding applicant’s argument that Numata’s teachings are limited to plate thickness of 6-19 mm, see pages 7-8, applicant argues that Numata’s assist gas with an oxygen content of 52.6 volume % is applicable only to plate thickness within a range of 6-19 mm, and that there would be no motivation to use an electromagnetic steel sheet with a thickness of about 0.2-0.5 mm as recited in amended claim 9 considering the large differences in plate thickness.
This argument is not persuasive. One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejection is based on a combination of references. See MPEP 2145 (IV). Numata is relied upon for the oxygen concentration of the assist gas. The recited sheet thickness is taught by Zaizen, which discloses that the final sheet thickness in the cold rolling preferably falls within the range of 0.1-0.3 mm, more preferably 0.15-0.27 mm (Zaizen, ¶ [0079]), and which discloses worked examples having sheet thickness of 0.20 mm, 0.23 mm, 0.25 mm, and 0.30 mm (Zaizen, Table 2).
Further, the argument is directed to Numata’s working examples rather than to Numata’s teachings as a whole. The rest for obviousness is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2145 (III). Numata teaches that oxygen and nitrogen of predetermined amounts are mixed with each other to produce an assist gas with a predetermined oxygen content (Numata, ¶ [0265]), and that the oxygen content is controlled in order to suppress excessive oxidation and burning of the workpiece (Numata, ¶ [0022]). These teachings are not limited to the plate thicknesses recited in Numata’s examples.
Additionally, the passage applicant cites supports the motivation to combine. Applicant cites Numata, ¶ [0053], which states that the oxygen content of the assist gas injected from the nozzle is determined on the basis of the thickness of the processing portion of the workpiece. A reference that expressly teaches determining the assist gas oxygen content according to workpiece thickness would have suggested to a person having ordinary skill in the art that the oxygen content is to be selected for the thickness of the workpiece being cut, rather than teaching away from doing so.
Finally, claim 9 recites an assist gas “comprising an oxygen concentration of at least 50 volume percent.” The claim recites no upper limit on the oxygen concentration and does not correlate the recited oxygen concentration to the recited sheet thickness.
Regarding applicant’s argument regarding Zaizen, see page 8, applicant argues that Zaizen’s Table 2 merely shows that the decrease in magnetic flux density after stress-relief annealing is small, and does not specifically suggest that magnetic properties degraded by irradiation of the fiber laser are restored.
This argument is not persuasive. The rejection does not rely solely on Table 2 of Zaizen. Zaizen teaches that the motor core, particularly the stator core, is subjected to stress-relief annealing for improvement of the magnetic properties. Zaizen, ¶ [0006]. Zaizen further teaches that in the production of the motor core, the stress-relief annealing is usually conducted after the assembling into the core form (Zaizen, ¶ [0075]), and that the steel sheet is worked into a core form through punching or the like and laminated and then subjected to the stress-relief annealing. Zaizen, ¶ [0083]. Zaizen also teaches that when the annealing temperature is lower than 750 °C and/or the annealing time is less than 0.1 hour, the grain growth is insufficient and the effect of improving the iron loss after the stress-relief annealing cannot be obtained. Zaizen, ¶ [0085].
Further, the recited limitation is a single annealing step. The phrase “degraded by irradiation of the fiber laser” identifies the origin of the degradation in the electromagnetic steel components being annealed; it does not recite any step in addition to the annealing treatment itself. Where the prior art teaches performing the same stress-relief annealing on an assembled core formed from electrical steel sheet components, the recited restoration of magnetic properties would follow from that treatment. See MPEP 2112 (V).
Regarding applicant’s argument regarding minimized varnish pools, see pages 7-8, applicant argues that the cited prior art references do not teach an electromagnetic core with minimized varnish pools, and that a minimized varnish pool size reduces the appearance and dimensional defects of the cores as described in ¶ [0028] of the specification.
This argument is not persuasive. The recitation “producing the electromagnetic core with minimized varnish pools” states a result of the soaking step already recited in claim 9 rather than an additional step. Under the principles of inherency, where the prior art teaches performing the same step on the same material, the recited result necessarily follows from that step. See MPEP 2112.02 (I). Adar teaches that 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. Adar, ¶ [0026]. Applicant’s specification attributes the reduced varnish pool size to the fine irregularities of the cut face and the resulting low wettability of the core assembly. ¶ [0028]. That cut face condition is produced by the fiber laser cutting taught by Hara, as set forth in the rejection below. Accordingly, soaking the laser-cut core assembly of the combination in a varnish would produce the recited minimized varnish pools, and it is applicant’s burden to establish otherwise.
Further, a process is not rendered nonobvious merely because known steps are applied to obtain a particular product or result. The obviousness inquiry requires consideration of the claimed subject matter as a whole in comparison to the prior art, and the recitation of a result obtained by otherwise obvious steps does not itself confer patentability. See MPEP 2116.01. Here, each recited step—laser cutting, stacking, annealing, and varnish soaking—is taught by the cited references, and the recited minimization of varnish pools is a consequence of performing those steps rather than a distinct step of the claimed method.
Regarding applicant’s arguments regarding claims 10-12, 15-16, 21-22, and 25, applicant argues that these claims are patentably by virtue of their dependency upon claim 9, and that there is nothing in Chouf, Zaizen, Adar, or Bernard to cure the asserted deficiencies of Hara, Nakamura, and Numata. As set forth above, claim 9 is not patentable over the cited prior art, and applicant has not separately argued the limitations of claims 10-12, 15-16, and 21-22 apart from their dependency.
Regarding applicant’s separate argument regarding new claim 25, see page 12, applicant argues that claim 25 is patentable because there is no mention in the cited prior art reference of varnish pools up to 0.05 mm in diameter. This argument is not persuasive for the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 25 below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 9-12, 15-16, 21-22, and 25 are 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.
Claim 9 recites “an electromagnetic steel sheet with a thickness of about 0.2-0.5 mm.” Applicant identifies ¶ [0032] of the specification as support for this limitation. ¶ [0032] discloses “[t]he thickness of the electromagnetic steel sheet is preferably 0.2 mm to 0.5 mm.” The specification discloses no other thickness value or range, and does not disclose or define any degree of variation encompassed by the term “about.” To the extent the term “about” encompasses thickness outside the range of 0.2 mm to 0.5 mm, the specification as filed does not reasonably convey to a person having ordinary skill in the art that the inventors had possession of those thickness at the time the application was filed. Claims 10-12, 15-16, 21-22, and 25 are rejected with the same reason as they depend from claim 9.
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 9-12, 15-16, 21-22, and 25 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 9, the term “varnish pool” is used in two different senses within the same limitation. The claim recites “soaking the electromagnetic core assembly in a varnish pool,” in which “a varnish pool” appears to refer to a body of liquid varnish into which the electromagnetic core assembly is immersed. The claim then recites “producing the electromagnetic core with minimized varnish pools,” in which “varnish pools” appears to refer to accumulations of cured varnish on the produced electromagnetic core. The specification describes these as distinct, disclosing “the core assembly is immersed in a liquid varnish” (¶ [0051]), and separately identifying a “varnish pool 14” as “[a] droplet appearing like a varnish pool 14 [] repelled on the cut face 11 and [having] a rounded shape” (¶ [0051]). It is unclear whether the two recitations in claim 9 refer to the same structure or to different structures, and the limitation “minimized varnish pools” lacks clear antecedent basis in “a varnish pool.”
Regarding claim 9, the term “about” in the recitation “a thickness of about 0.2-0.5 mm” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term is not defined by the claim, and the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requite degree. A person having ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of what thickness outside the range of 0.2 mm to 0.5 mm are encompassed by the claim.
Regarding claim 25, the recitation “the varnish pools are up to 0.05 mm in diameter” is indefinite because “the varnish pools” is subject to the same ambiguity identified above with respect to claim 9. It is unclear whether the recited diameter applies to the varnish into which the electromagnetic core assembly is soaked or to accumulation of cured varnish on the produced electromagnetic core.
Claims 10-12, 15-16, 21-22, and 25 are rejected with the same reason as they depend from claim 9.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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, 11, 15, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zaizen et al. (US 20200010918) hereinafter Zaizen, in view of Hara et al. (US 20200306892) hereinafter Hara, Numata et al. (US 20090127239) hereinafter Numata, and further in view of Adar et al. (US 20140354386) hereinafter Adar.
Regarding claim 9, Zaizen teaches a method (¶ [0002]: “method”) for producing an electromagnetic core (¶ [0002]: “a method for producing a non-oriented electrical steel sheet, a method for producing a motor core as well as a motor core,” which the examiner interprets as corresponding to the recited method for producing an electromagnetic core), comprising:
an electromagnetic steel sheet with a thickness of about 0.2-0.5 mm (¶ [0079]: “the final sheet thickness in the cold rolling preferably falls within the range of 0.1-0.3 mm”; Table 2 discloses worked examples having sheet thickness of 0.20 mm, 0.23 mm, 0.25 mm, and 0.30 mm; the claimed range of about 0.2-0.5 mm overlaps the range of 0.1-0.3 mm disclosed by Zaizen. MPEP 2144.05(I) states that where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Additionally, applicant’s specification discloses that the thickness of the electromagnetic steel sheet is not limited to the range of 0.2 mm to 0.5 mm. Applicant’s specification. ¶ [0032]. Therefore, applicant has not established that the recited thickness range is critical. See MPEP 2144.05 (III)(A)),
winding or stacking the electromagnetic steel components to obtain an electromagnetic core assembly (¶ [0083]: “the steel sheet is preferable to be worked into a core form (stator core material) through punching or the like and laminated,” which the examiner interprets as corresponding to the recited stacking of the electromagnetic steel components to obtain a core assembly), and
subjecting the electromagnetic core assembly to an annealing treatment to restore magnetic properties of the electromagnetic steel components (¶ [0075]: “the stress-relief annealing is usually conducted after the assembling into the core form”; ¶ [0006]: “The motor core, particularly stator core is subjected to stress-relief annealing for improvement of the magnetic properties”).
PNG
media_image1.png
542
815
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Table 2 of Zaizen
Regarding claim 9, Zaizen does not explicitly teach irradiating an electromagnetic steel sheet using a fiber laser while spraying an assist gas, cutting the electromagnetic steel sheet by the fiber laser to obtain electromagnetic steel components, and the magnetic properties of the electromagnetic steel components degraded by irradiation of the fiber laser.
However, Hara teaches a laser cutting method (¶ [0001]: “a laser cutting method... for... cutting... steel sheets with using laser light”), comprising:
irradiating an electromagnetic steel sheet using a fiber laser while spraying an assist gas (¶ [0068]: “the laser processing head 5 is provided with a nozzle 23 that emits assist gas toward a laser processing position of the workpiece W”), and
cutting the electromagnetic steel sheet by the fiber laser (¶ [0065]: “the laser processing device 1 is provided with a laser 11 such as a fiber laser oscillator... which develops oscillation to radiate laser light”) to obtain electromagnetic steel components (W, “workpiece”; ¶ [0064]: “a workpiece W of a sheet-like shape”), and
the magnetic properties of the electromagnetic steel components degraded by irradiation of the fiber laser (the examiner interprets this recitation as identifying the origin of the degradation in the components subjected to annealing treatment rather than reciting an additional step. Zaizen and Hara discloses the electromagnetic steel components are cut by a fiber laser and the resulting core assembly is subjected to a stress-relief annealing. Where the prior art teaches performing the same annealing treatment on the same laser-cut electrical steel components, the recited restoration of magnetic properties would follow from that treatment. See MPEP 2112 (V)).
Zaizen and Hara are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of processing steel sheets to obtain components. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the fiber laser cutting method taught by Hara into Zaizen’s method to cut the electrical steel sheet, because Hara teaches that with a punch and a die “it is uneasy to carry out cutting along a complex curve” (Hara, ¶ [0007]), thereby enabling the formation of core components having complex shapes.
Regarding claim 9, Zaizen in view of Hara does not explicitly teach the assist gas comprising an oxygen concentration of at least 50 volume percent.
However, Numata discloses an assist gas comprising an oxygen concentration of at least 50 volume percent (¶ [0309]: “the oxygen content C of the assist gas G was adjusted to 52.6 (volume %)”; ¶ [0265]: “The oxygen and nitrogen of the predetermined amount... are mixed with each other... producing an assist gas G with a predetermined oxygen content”; ¶ [0053]: “the oxygen content of the assist gas injected from the nozzle is determined on the basis of the thickness of the processing portion of the workpiece”).
Zaizen, Hara and Numata are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of laser processing of steel workpiece. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to employ an assist gas having an oxygen concentration of at least 50 volume percent as taught by Numata in the fiber laser cutting method taught by Zaizen and Hara, in order to “suppress[] excessive oxidation and burning” of the workpiece (Numata, ¶ [0022]).
Regarding claim 9, Zaizen in view of Hara and Numata does not explicitly teach soaking the electromagnetic core assembly in a varnish pool to adhere the electromagnetic steel components with each other, producing the electromagnetic core with minimized varnish pools.
However, Adar teaches methods for manufacturing multiphase magnetic cores (abstract: “Three-phase magnetic cores for magnetic induction devices (e.g., transformers, coils, chokes), and methods for manufacturing them, are disclosed”), comprising:
soaking the electromagnetic core assembly (Fig. 1A: 2, “frames”; ¶ [0064]: “rectangular multilayered magnetic core frames 2a, 2b and 2c (collectively referred to herein as frames 2)”) in a varnish pool (¶ [0026]: “impregnating the frames in an organic binding material (e.g., organo-silicon lacquer or epoxy varnish)”) to adhere the electromagnetic steel components (Fig. 1A: 2a, 2b, 2c) with each other, producing the electromagnetic core with minimized varnish pools (the examiner interprets this recitation as stating a result of the socking step rather than an additional step. Under the principles of inherency, where the prior art performs the same step on the same material in its normal and usual operation, the recited result necessarily follows from that step. See MPEP 2112.02 (I). Further, a process is not rendered nonobvious merely because known steps are applied to obtain a particular result. See MPEP 2116.01).
Zaizen, Hara, Numata and Adar are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of producing magnetic cores from steel components. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the varnish impregnation method taught by Adar into the laser cutting and post-treatment method of Zaizen in combination with hara and Numata. 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 ¶ [0026].
PNG
media_image2.png
442
433
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Fig. 1A of Adar
Regarding claim 11, Zaizen in view of Hara, Numata and Adar teaches the method (Zaizen: “method”) according to claim 9, but does not explicitly teach wherein the oxygen concentration is at least 60 volume percent and the remainder nitrogen.
However, Numata discloses that the oxygen and nitrogen of a predetermined amount are mixed with each other, producing an assist gas with a predetermined oxygen content (¶ [0265]), and an oxygen content of 52.6 volume % (¶ [0309]). Numata further discloses that the oxygen content of the assist gas is controlled in order to suppress the excessive oxidation and burning of the workpiece (¶ [0022]), and that the oxygen content of the assist gas injected from the nozzle is determined on the basis of the thickness of the processing portion of the workpiece (¶ [0053]). Because Numata’s assist gas is produced by mixing oxygen and nitrogen, the remainder of the assist gas at the recited oxygen concentration is nitrogen.
Therefore, the oxygen concentration of the assist gas is recognized in the art to be a result-effective variable, and it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to determine the optimum or workable oxygen concentration, including at least 60 volume percent, through routine experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05 (II)(B).
Regarding claim 15, Zaizen in view of Hara, Numata and Adar teaches the method (Zaizen: “method”) according to claim 9 wherein the annealing treatment is performed at 750°C to 850°C for at least one hour (Zaizen, ¶ [0085]: “the stress-relief annealing is preferably conducted in an inert gas atmosphere under such an condition at 750-950° C. for 0.1-10 hour, and more preferably under a condition at 800-900° C. for 0.5-2 hour”; The claimed temperature range of 750 °C to 850 °C overlaps the range of 750-950 °C disclosed by Zaizen, and the claimed duration of at least one hour lies inside the range of 0.1-10 hour disclosed by Zaizen. MPEP 2144.05(I) states that where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists.)
Regarding claim 25, Zaizen in view of Hara, Numata and Adar discloses the method (Zaizen: “method”) according to claim 9, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the varnish pools are up to 0.05 mm in diameter.
However, claim 25 recites dimensional characteristic of a varnish pool resulting from the soaking step recited in claim 9 rather than an additional step. Applicant’s specification attributes the reduced varnish pool size to the condition of the cut face, disclosing that the cut face of the electromagnetic steel component has fine irregularities and that the wettability of the core assembly is accordingly low. ¶ [0028]. In the combination of Zaizen, Hara, Numata and Adar established above, the electromagnetic steel components are cut by a fiber laser and the resulting core assembly is soaked in a varnish. Where the prior art teaches performing the same steps on the same material, the recited varnish pool dimension would follow from those steps, and the burden is properly shifted to applicant to show an unobvious difference. See MPEP 2112 (V).
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zaizen et al. (US 20200010918) hereinafter Zaizen, in view of Hara et al. (US 20200306892) hereinafter Hara, Numata et al. (US 20090127239) hereinafter Numata, Adar et al. (US 20140354386) hereinafter Adar, and further in view of Bernard et al. (US 20150274644) hereinafter Bernard.
Regarding claim 21, Zaizen in view of Hara, Numata and Adar discloses the method (Zaizen: “method”) according to claim 9 wherein the varnish is a material containing an epoxy resin (Adar, ¶ [0026]: “impregnating the frames in an organic binding material (e.g., organo-silicon lacquer or epoxy varnish)”), but does not explicitly disclose the varnish is a material containing an acrylic monomer.
However, Bernard discloses the varnish is a material containing an acrylic monomer and an epoxy resin (¶ [0053]: Bernard teaches a varnish binder composition that includes an epoxy resin together with a multifunctional acrylic monomer used as a reactive component or solvent).
Zaizen, Hara, Numata, 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 Zaizen in combination with Hara, Numata and Adar with the varnish binder including acrylic monomer and epoxy resin as taught by Bernard, in order to obtain a varnish with an appropriate level of viscosity (Bernard, ¶ [0055]), thereby impregnating the magnetic core assembly with predictable structural integrity and durability.
Claims 10, 12, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zaizen et al. (US 20200010918) hereinafter Zaizen, in view of Hara et al. (US 20200306892) hereinafter Hara, Numata et al. (US 20090127239) hereinafter Numata, Adar et al. (US 20140354386) hereinafter Adar, and further in view of Chouf et al. (US 20090218326) hereinafter Chouf, as evidenced by UMW (NPL).
Regarding claim 10, Zaizen in view of Hara, Numata and Adar discloses the method (Zaizen: “method”) according to claim 9, wherein a fiber core diameter (¶ [0058]: Hara discloses condensed light diameter is 0.151 mm), but does not explicitly disclose wherein the fiber laser is configured to irradiate the electromagnetic steel sheet under conditions wherein 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 (¶¶ [0016], [0017], [0039]: Chouf discloses fiber laser or ytterbium fiber laser having a wavelength between 1.04 and 5 um, generating monomode beam; UMW evidences that the core diameter of this fiber laser with single mode is between 6-15 um).
Zaizen, Hara, Numata, Adar 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 Zaizen, Hara, Numata and Adar 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, ¶ [0006].
Regarding claim 10, Zaizen in view of hara, Numata, Adar and Chouf does not explicitly disclose a laser output is 300W to 1000W.
However, Chouf discloses the laser beam has a power of between 0.5 and 15 kW (¶ [0017]). 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, ¶ [0006].
Regarding claim 10, Zaizen in view of hara, Numata, Adar and Chouf does not explicitly disclose a cutting speed is 300mm/sec to 500mm/sec.
However, Chouf discloses the cutting speed is between 0.1 and 20 m/min (¶ [0017]), 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, Zaizen in view of Hara, Numata, Adar and Chouf discloses the method (Zaizen: “method”) according to claim 10 but does not explicitly disclose wherein the oxygen concentration is at least 60 volume percent and the remainder nitrogen.
However, Numata discloses that the oxygen and nitrogen of a predetermined amount are mixed with each other, producing an assist gas with a predetermined oxygen content (¶ [0265]), and an oxygen content of 52.6 volume % (¶ [0309]). Numata further discloses that the oxygen content of the assist gas is controlled in order to suppress the excessive oxidation and burning of the workpiece (¶ [0022]), and that the oxygen content of the assist gas injected from the nozzle is determined on the basis of the thickness of the processing portion of the workpiece (¶ [0053]). Because Numata’s assist gas is produced by mixing oxygen and nitrogen, the remainder of the assist gas at the recited oxygen concentration is nitrogen.
Therefore, the oxygen concentration of the assist gas is recognized in the art to be a result-effective variable, and it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to determine the optimum or workable oxygen concentration, including at least 60 volume percent, through routine experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05 (II)(B).
Regarding claim 16, Zaizen in view of Hara, Numata, Adar and Chouf teaches the method (Zaizen: “method”) according to claim 9 wherein the annealing treatment is performed at 750°C to 850°C for at least one hour (Zaizen, ¶ [0085]: “the stress-relief annealing is preferably conducted in an inert gas atmosphere under such an condition at 750-950° C. for 0.1-10 hour, and more preferably under a condition at 800-900° C. for 0.5-2 hour”; The claimed temperature range of 750 °C to 850 °C overlaps the range of 750-950 °C disclosed by Zaizen, and the claimed duration of at least one hour lies inside the range of 0.1-10 hour disclosed by Zaizen. MPEP 2144.05(I) states that where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists.)
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zaizen et al. (US 20200010918) hereinafter Zaizen, in view of Hara et al. (US 20200306892) hereinafter Hara, Numata et al. (US 20090127239) hereinafter Numata, Adar et al. (US 20140354386) hereinafter Adar, Chouf et al. (US 20090218326) hereinafter Chouf, and further in view of Bernard et al. (US 20150274644) hereinafter Bernard.
Regarding claim 22, Zaizen in view of Hara, Numata, Adar and Chouf discloses the method (Zaizen: “method”) according to claim 10, wherein the varnish is a material containing an epoxy resin (Adar, ¶ [0026]: “impregnating the frames in an organic binding material (e.g., organo-silicon lacquer or epoxy varnish)”), but does not explicitly disclose wherein 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 (¶ [0053]: Bernard teaches a varnish binder composition that includes an epoxy resin together with a multifunctional acrylic monomer used as a reactive component or solvent).
Zaizen, Hara, Numata, Adar, Chouf 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 Zaizen in combination with Hara, Numata, Adar and Chouf with the varnish binder including acrylic monomer and epoxy resin as taught by Bernard, in order to obtain a varnish with an appropriate level of viscosity (Bernard, ¶ [0055]), thereby impregnating the magnetic core assembly with predictable structural integrity and durability.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Fujimura et al. (US 20200232059), Malinowski et al. (US 20190262949), Nakamura et al. (US 20150013853), Fish et al. (US 5871593).
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
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, Edward F. Landrum can be reached at 571-272-5567. 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 /EDWARD F LANDRUM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights