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, claims 19-30 in the reply filed on 5/26/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 31-36 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 5/26/2026.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because Figures 1, 2, 3, and 6 all include the reference character “D”, however, the specification and claims include Ds and DG-, it is unclear whether the “D” in the Figures refers to Ds or DG. 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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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.
Claim Objections
Claims 19-20 and 23-24 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 19, line 5: amend “Ks” to “Ks”
Claim 19, line 6: amend “exist.” to “exist” the period should be at the end of the claim
Claim 19, line 8: amend “Ks” to “Ks”
Claim 19, lines 8 and 9: amend “B8” to “B8”
Claim 19, line 8: amend “Ds” to “Ds”
Claim 19, line 10: amend “A/m.)” to “A/m.”
Claim 20, line 2: amend “Ks” to “Ks”
Claim 20, line 3: amend “below.” to “below” the period should be at the end of the claim
Claim 20, line 5: amend “Ks” to “Ks”
Claim 20, line 5: amend “4.3” to “4.3.”
Claim 23, line 5: amend “Ks” to “Ks”
Claim 23, line 8: amend “direction.” to “direction” the period should be at the end of the claim
Claim 23, line 10: amend “Ks” to “Ks”
Claim 23, lines 10 and 11: amend “B8” to “B8”
Claim 23, line 10: amend “Ds” to “Ds”
Claim 23, line 12: amend “A/m.)” to “A/m.”
Claim 24, line 2: amend “Ks” to “Ks”
Claim 24, line 3: amend “below.” to “below” the period should be at the end of the claim
Claim 24, line 5: amend “Ks” to “Ks”
Claim 24, line 5: amend “6.5” to “6.5.”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 19, 20, 23, and 24 are are objected to because of the following informalities: the use of parentheses in the claim language gives the appearance that the enclosed language is optional, i.e., the breakdown of the elements of the equations are in parentheses. It is advised that the parentheses are removed. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 19-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the elements. See MPEP § 2172.01. Specifically, the omitted elements are: in claims 19 and 23, in which there are no limits to the index of sensitivity. It is unclear whether it is necessary to measure the magnetic flux density or grain size in order to form the plurality of deformed parts. Clarification is required.
Regarding dependent claims 19-22 and 24-30, these claims do not remedy the deficiencies of parent claims 19 and 23 noted above, and are rejected for the same rationale.
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 19-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (KR 2020-0076508A, hereinafter “Park”).
Applicant provided a foreign copy of Park with the IDS and US 2022/0051837 A1, is an English language equivalent and all citations within this action refer to the US publication.
Regarding claims 19, 20, 23, and 24, Park teaches a grain-oriented electrical steel sheet having improved magnetism by adjusting an interval of a deformable portion to correspond to a grain size of grains of a steel sheet (Park, [0001]). Park further teaches the steel sheet may be divided into sections in a rolling direction of the steel sheet and intervals between the deformable portions are different in each section according to a grain size of grains included in each section in which the deformable portion is formed so that at least two regions in which intervals between the deformable portions are different may exist (Park, [0011] and [0015]).
Park teaches measuring the grain size of the grain of the steel sheet may include applying magnetism to a surface of the steel sheet to magnetize the steel sheet, detecting leakage magnetic flux formed by a grain boundary, and calculating the detected leakage magnetic flux to measure a grain size in which a magnetic sensor is located in a corresponding position to measure the change in the magnetic field at the grain boundary (Park, [0019] and [0071]). Additionally, Park teaches an interval D between the deformable portions is changed to correspond to a size of a grain over the entire length of the steel sheet, and there are at least two regions in which intervals D between the deformable portions are different (Park, [0043]). Park also teaches it is possible that a length direction of the linear deformable portion and the rolling direction form an angle of 75-88° (Park, [0064]).
Park further teaches the grain-oriented electrical steel sheet has an excellent iron loss when compared to other steel sheets, in which the iron loss is approximately 0.710-0.825 (Park, [0093-0097] and Table 2).
Regarding the composition based equations in the instant claims 19, 20, 23, and 24, the instantly claimed equations fully depends on the composition and method of the alloy. It is well settled that there is no invention in the discovery of a general formula if it covers a composition and method described in the prior art, In re Cooper and Foley 1943 C.D.357, 553 O.G.177; 57 USPQ 117, Taklatwalla v.Marburg. 620 O.G.685, 1949 C.D.77, and In re Pilling, 403 O.G.513, 44 F(2) 878, 1931 C.D.75. In the instant case, as the grain-oriented electrical steel sheet of Park is capable of falling within the boundaries of the instantly claimed composition formulas, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have selected any portion of the disclosed ranges of each element of magnetic flux density, grain size, index of sensitivity, interval, and angles including those which fall within the boundaries of the instantly claimed composition based formulas because Park discloses the same utility throughout the disclosed ranges.
Moreover, an object of the present invention is to increase the core loss, i.e., iron loss, by adjusting laser irradiation conditions for magnetic domain refinement according to a size of secondary recrystallization and orientation characteristics of the secondary recrystallized grain (Present specification, pg. 3, line 19 to pg. 4, line 2 and Tables 2 and 3). Given that the present invention and Park have the same objectives, i.e., improve iron loss, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to control the magnetic flux density and grain size to obtain desired iron loss values and thereby arrive at the present invention.
Therefore, the grain-oriented electrical steel sheet of Park corresponds to the grain oriented electrical steel of claims 19 and 23. The multiple deformable portions having different intervals of Park corresponds to a plurality of deformed parts formed on a surface of the electrical sheet along a rolling direction, wherein an interval between the deformed parts is changed over an entire length of the sheet in response to an index Ks of sensitivity and a plurality of deformed parts formed on a surface of the electrical sheet along a rolling direction, wherein an interval between the deformed parts is changed over an entire length of the sheet in response to an index Ks of sensitivity of claims 19 and 23. The angle of Park overlaps with at least two areas having different angles of the deformed part and the rolling vertical direction of claim 23 and Equation 3 of claim 24.
As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art,” a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fe. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claims 21, 22, 25, and 26, Park teaches the steel sheet may be divided into sections in a width/rolling direction of the steel sheet, and intervals between the deformable portions may be formed to be different in each section according to average grain sizes of the grains included in each section (Park, [0016-0017]), which corresponds to by dividing sections in a transverse direction of the sheet, the interval/angles between the deformed parts that are different for each section is formed according to the index Ks of sensitivity for each section of claims 20 and 25 and by dividing sections in a rolling direction of the sheet, the interval/angles between the deformed parts that are different for each section is formed according to the index Ks of sensitivity for each section of claims 21 and 26.
Regarding claims 27 and 29, Park teaches the linear deformable portion may include a temporary magnetic domain deformable portion, a permanent magnetic domain deformable portion, or a combination thereof (Park, [0013]), which corresponds to the deformed part includes a temporary magnetic domain deformed part, a permanent magnetic domain deformed part, or a combination thereof of claims 27 and 29.
Regarding claims 28 and 30, Park teaches the linear deformable portion may include a permanent magnetic domain deformable portion, and a depth of the permanent magnetic domain portion is 3-30µm (Park, [0014]). The permanent magnetic domain portion of Park overlaps with the deformed part includes the permanent magnetic domain deformed part, and a depth of the permanent magnetic domain deformed part is 10 to 30 µm of claims 28 and 30. As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art,” a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fe. Cir. 1990).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIELLE CARDA whose telephone number is (571)270-1240. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30-4:00 EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Sally Merkling can be reached at (571) 272-6297. 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.
/DANIELLE M. CARDA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1738
Prosecution Insights