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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takajo et al. (US 2020/0056256, hereafter “Takajo”) in view of Omura et al. (EP 2602339, “Omura”, see attached document)
Regarding claim 1, Takajo discloses a grain-oriented electrical steel sheet [0002-0003] comprising a chemical composition containing, in mass%, Si: 1 to 7% (meets 2.0 % to 8.0 %), Mn: 0.1% or less (meets 0.005 % to 1.000 %), and C: 0.003% (meets 0.0050 % or less) with the balance being Fe [0097]. The steel sheet includes a local area having a misorientation angle of 1.5 degrees or more and up to 4 degrees from surrounding crystals and extending linearly in a direction crossing a rolling direction on at least one of front and back surfaces of the steel sheet [0105, 0189, 0195]. Takajo discloses steel sheet surface having the local area with an average amount of roughness on a steel substrate being up to 0.3 µm [0095], which overlaps with less than 5 µm. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990), MPEP 2144.05
Concerning the local area volume fraction and residual stress, Takajo mentions electron or laser beam irradiation for magnetic domain refining [0181-0184, 0195], which results in the local treated area. Such refining technique is known in the art. Omura (also directed to grain oriented steel sheet) discloses magnetic domain refining treatment by electron beam irradiation to achieve excellent magnetic properties such as less iron loss and low-noise, as desirable for iron cores of transformers (see abstract, [0002]). Furthermore, Omura teaches electron beam irradiation conditions resulting in local/treated area fraction exhibiting properties of less iron loss and low noise [0045-0046, 0049, 0052]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to perform electron beam irradiation to have the recited local/treated area volume fraction & residual stress in the steel sheet of Takajo with a motivation to obtain desirable magnetic properties of less iron loss and low-noise, useful for iron cores of transformers, as suggested by Omura. Examiner notes that Applicant’s specification also discloses electron beam as an effective treatment to cause crystal misorientation angle to obtain magnetic domain refining effect and low iron loss & good noise properties [0064-0065]. It is further noted that present claim does not require any specific beam irradiation conditions.
As to claim 2, Takajo discloses that the grain-oriented electrical steel sheet further contains, in mass%, P: 0.1% or less [0097], which falls within recited range of 0.01 % to 0.20%.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/1/25, 7/1/24 complies with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEVANG R PATEL whose telephone number is (571) 270-3636. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8am-5pm, EST.
To schedule an interview, Applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/laws/interview-practice. Communications via Internet email are at the discretion of Applicant. If Applicant wishes to communicate via email, a written authorization form must be filed by Applicant: Form PTO/SB/439, available at www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The form may be filed via the Patent Center and can be found using the document description Internet Communications, see https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/forms. In limited circumstances, the Applicant may make an oral authorization for Internet communication. See MPEP § 502.03.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Keith Walker can be reached on 571-272-3458. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Center. For more information, see https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. For questions, technical issues or troubleshooting, please contact the Patent Electronic Business Center at ebc@uspto.gov or 1-866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/DEVANG R PATEL/
Primary Examiner, AU 1735
Prosecution Insights