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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 08/13/2024. These drawings are accepted.
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.
Claims 1-4 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.
The final paragraph in Claim 1 is unclear and recited below for emphasis:
local strain with an indentation amount from the steel sheet surface of 5 µm to 30 µm is applied to a linear region that, when coiled and the coil is charged into a final annealing furnace, is separated from the axial end of the coil that comes into contact with a coil receiving base of the final annealing furnace by 5 mm or more and 20 mm or less in the axial direction of the coil and that extends continuously or discontinuously in a direction that intersects the axial direction, in order to produce crystal grains having a misorientation angle of 15° or more from Goss orientation grains along 50% or more of the total length of the linear region.
The “local strain … is applied to a linear region” is clear. However, it is unclear what “is separated from the axial end of the coil.” It is also unclear to what “that” refers in “that extends continuously or discontinuously.”
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the axial end" in lines 9 and 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the axial direction" in line 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 3 and 4 recite “an average heating rate in a range from 500 °C or more to 800 °C or less in the final annealing is 25 °C/h or less.” It is not clear to what the temperature range refers for the average heating rate. Is the temperature range a target during or at the end of the heating rate change? Is the temperature range at the start of the heating rate?
Claims dependent on any of the rejected claims are likewise rejected under this statute.
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 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 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2001-323322, based on the machine translation.
JP 2001-323322 A (JP ‘322) teaches final finish annealing for a grain-oriented silicon steel strip. The strip is manufactured by hot rolling, cold rolling at least once with intermediate annealing in between, decarburizing annealing, winding, and finish annealing with a separation agent [0002]. Localized strain is applied to the widthwise end of the steel strip along the longitudinal direction using the roll before winding. The coil is placed up-end on the coil support of a finish annealing furnace. The strain is a local reduction along the length direction in several sections [0021]. The reduction width is 0.001-10 mm [0021], or 1 µm to 10 mm. The teaching of localized strain reads on the claim limitation “indentation” based on the instant specification at [0014]. JP ‘322 teaches an overlapping range of the claimed “indentation.” In the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists because the prior art discloses the utility of the composition over the entire disclosed range. See MPEP § 2144.05. Since JP ‘322 teaches the localized strain is applied before winding, or coiling, and before finish annealing, JP ‘322 teaches the limitation of “when coiled and the coil is charged into a final annealing furnace.” The limitation “separated from the axial end by 5 mm or more and 20 mm or less” is unclear as stated above. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the steel strip in JP ‘322 would have at least the same or overlapping properties of separation distance and misorientation angle as claimed, since JP ‘322 teaches growing secondary recrystallized grains [0021] and the claimed method steps.
Regarding Claim 2, the reduction may be linear [0011] and three strains are applied [0021].
Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP '322 as applied to claims 1 and 2 above, and further in view of Watanabe et al (US 2022/0042153 A1).
JP ‘322 discloses the invention substantially as claimed. However, JP ‘322 does not teach an average heating rate of 25 °C/h or less or a temperature of 500-800 °C for final annealing.
Han et al teaches a method for forming an oriented electrical steel sheet that contains silicon (abstract). High alignment in Goss orientation is attained by holding the steel sheet at a temperature of not lower than 800 °C [0004]. The steel sheet is hot rolled, cold rolled, hot-band annealed, intermediate annealed [0047], decarburization annealed, primary recrystallization annealed [0048], applied with annealing separator [0049], and finish annealed [0050] and wound [0102]. The finish annealing rate is preferably 8-30 °C/hr [0108] at 800-950 °C [0107], which overlaps the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists because the prior art discloses the utility of the composition over the entire disclosed range. See MPEP § 2144.05. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the process of Watanabe et al for finish annealing in the method of JP ‘322, since Watanabe et al teaches producing a grain-oriented electrical steel sheet excellent in properties of an underlaying coating, irrespectively of the position in a coil during a finish annealing that largely contributes to the improvement in product quality and increase in product yield [0045].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. MY 181594 (MY ‘594) teaches final annealing at a holding temperature of 400-600 °C [0048] at a range of 1-5 °C/min [0049] or 60-300 °C/hr.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tima M. McGuthry-Banks whose telephone number is (571)272-2744. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 7:00 am to 3:00 pm.
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, Keith D. Hendricks can be reached at (571) 272-1401. 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.
Tima M. McGuthry-Banks
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1733
/Tima M. McGuthry-Banks/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1733
Prosecution Insights