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 1-3 and 7, in the reply filed on 1 December 2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 4-6 and 8 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 1 December 2025.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 16 July 2024 and 2 May 2025 were considered by the examiner.
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 1-3 and 7 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.
Independent claim 1 sets forth the term “groove existence rate” in the second and ninth lines of the claim and dependent claim 2 sets forth the term in the second line of the claim, for a first region, a second region, and a third region, respectively, with a percentage associated with these groove existence rates. It is unclear how this rate is determined. For the purposes of examination the Office is interpreting this to be determined by the surface area of the sheet of the grain-oriented electrical region sheet within the particular regions and determining the amount of the surface area is in the form of a groove versus the total surface area.
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 1-3 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP H11-293340 (JP ‘340).
In regards to independent claim 1 and dependent claims 2-3 and 7, JP ‘340 is directed to a grain-oriented electrical steel sheet having a low iron loss and a high magnetic permeability, which is suitable for applications such as transformers. (¶1) In order to reduce the iron loss of a steel sheet having a high degree of orientation, a treatment of introducing linear grooves in the steel sheet surface in a direction substantially orthogonal to the rolling direction is used. (¶3) When a linear groove is introduced into the surface of the steel sheet to subdivide the magnetic domain, a demagnetizing field is generated in this groove portion, the magnetic permeability is reduced, and the exciting current of the transformer is increased. (¶4)
It was found that it was possible to reduce the iron loss while reducing the decrease in magnetic permeability caused by the magnetic domain refinement treatment. (¶5) The sheet of JP ‘340 has secondary continuous or discontinuous linear groove or local strain in a direction substantially orthogonal to the rolling direction on the grain-oriented electrical steel sheet surface on which secondary recrystallized grains are formed only in a region by the center of the crystal grain in the rolling direction. (¶6)
The magnetic domain width is wide, and the magnetic domain width is narrow at both ends in the rolling direction. (¶7) It is considered that the reason for this is that the end of the crystal grain in the rolling direction has a large angle (referred to as β) formed by the [001] axis with the steel plate surface. (¶7) Therefore, when flattening after finish annealing, β changes in the rolling direction depending on the curvature even in the same crystal grain. (¶7) At this time, β=0° in the vicinity of the center in the rolling direction on the average, and takes positive and negative symmetrical values in the rolling direction, and the larger the distance from the center, the larger the absolute value of β. (¶7) Therefore, by limiting the magnetic domain refining process only to the vicinity of the center of the crystal grain in which the magnetic domain width is wide because β is almost 0°, problems such as a decrease in magnetic permeability due to the magnetic domain refining are minimized. (¶7) It is possible to further reduce the iron loss while suppressing the iron loss. (¶7)
β at the position of distance A (mm) with respect to the center of the crystal grain is shifted by 360 A/2πR degrees when the radius of curvature of the steel sheet during finish annealing is R (mm). (¶8) Therefore, in a region where the distance A is larger than a predetermined numerical value determined by R, since β is large, the magnetic domain width has already decreased, and it can be said that the domain division is unnecessary. (¶8) JP ‘340 found that when the magnetic domain refining treatment is performed only in the range satisfying the inequality of 0.015 R≦A≦0.06 R, the iron loss is reduced to almost the same level as when the entire domain of the steel sheet is subdivided. (¶8) The range in which the groove or the local strain is formed or introduced is limited to the region within ±A (mm) in the rolling direction from the center of the rolling direction of the secondary recrystallized grains. (¶8) Accordingly, when the β is in the vicinity of 0° in regions in which the grooves are present and the upper limit where the grooves are present would overlap the claimed range for β. Therefore, a prima facie case of obviousness would be established.
The groove depth may be about 5 to 50 microns and the repeated interval in the rolling direction may be about 2 to 20 mm. (¶9) JP’340 teaches grooves with a width of about 150 microns and a depth of 20 microns. (¶14) The ranges and values of the depth, interval, and width overlap or fall within the claimed ranges.
This reference does not explicitly set forth the groove existence ratio as set forth in the instant claims. It is well settled that determination of optimum values of cause effective variables such as these process parameters is within the skill of one practicing in the art. In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 21 5 (CCPA 1980). See MPEP 2144.05, Sec. II. As discussed above, the amount of the groove existence ratio in the particular regions of the sheet are cause effective variables. In particular, in order to reduce the iron loss of a steel sheet having a high degree of orientation, a treatment of introducing linear grooves in the steel sheet surface in a direction substantially orthogonal to the rolling direction is used. (¶3) One of ordinary skill in the art would be able to provide the amount of grooves necessary in the respective regions of the electrical steel sheet to achieve the desired iron loss properties. Further, such groove formation would meet the depth, interval, and width values as set forth within JP ‘340 while also following the magnetic domain subdivide teaching of this reference. Therefore, determining the optimum values of the cause effective variables, including the groove existence ratio, is within the skill of one practicing in the art.
Citation of Pertinent Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
JP 2020-169373 (JP ‘373) is directed to grain-oriented electrical steel sheets. (Line 12) There is a need for reduction of magnetostriction for directional electromagnetic steel sheets. (Lines 63-67) JP ‘373 reduces magnetostriction in the medium magnetic field region while reducing magnetostriction in a high magnetic field. (Lines 63-67) If the magnetostriction in the medium magnetic field region can be reduced and the magnetostriction in the high magnetic field region can be reduced, it is considered possible to suppress the practical noise in the transformer at a high level. (Lines 69-71) In order to do this, it is important to control the magnetic domain structure of the grain-oriented electrical steel sheet. (Lines 71-73) The grain-oriented electrical steel sheet may be subjected to magnetic domain subdivision processing to form local microstrained regions or grooved by a known method such as laser, plasma, mechanical method, or etching. (Lines 714-716) This reference does not set forth the groove existence rate and groove properties as set forth in the instant claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Daniel Schleis whose telephone number is (571)270-5636. The examiner can normally be reached 10 AM to 4 PM Monday through Friday.
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, Humera Sheikh can be reached at (571) 272-0604. 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.
Daniel J. Schleis
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1784
/Daniel J. Schleis/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1784