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 08/15/2024. These drawings are accepted.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the abstract has two paragraphs. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: in [0016], “one example of electrical steel sheet” should be “one example of an electrical steel sheet.”
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 1-3 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.
In Claim 1, the limitation “in which grain-oriented electrical steel sheet” is incomplete. Correction is required.
In Claim 3, variables dL and dC are limitless, rendering the options in formula (1) indefinite. The examiner notes that the specification recites the ranges for dL and dC in [0037].
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 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi et al (US 2020/0362431 A1).
Takahashi et al teaches a grain-oriented electrical steel sheet with a base steel sheet (“base material sheet”) having plural grooves on a surface and a glass film (“coating”) on the surface (abstract) as represented below in the annotated figure:
PNG
media_image1.png
524
634
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The angle θ is 0-40°C is [0019] and is formed by the groove with respect to the direction perpendicular to the rolling direction [0090]. The width W is 20-300 µm, the depth D is 10-40 µm, the interval d is 2-300 mm [0019]. The grooves are formed by a laser [0020]. The laser light focus spot diameter (“dL”) in the rolling direction of the laser light is 10-1000 µm (“dL”) and a light focus spot diameter (“dC”) in the sheet width direction of the laser light of 10-1000 µm [0044].
Takahashi et al does not state the size of the long axis of one or more fine grains at an inside of the glass coating is 1-20 µm. Claim 3 recites that the method of producing the grain-oriented electric steel sheet is by groove forming by lasering based on formula (1). Takahashi et al teaches the groove forming step and the claimed ratio of 0.010 ≤ dL/dC ≤ 1.000 with an overlapping range. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. See MPEP 2112.01. In this case, Takahashi et al teaches the claimed prior art product that is substantially identical to the claimed product in structure and property. 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.
Regarding Claim 2, Takahashi et al does not state the crystal orientation of the fine grains differs by 5° or more from a Goss orientation of the crystal orientation of the adjacent base material steel sheet. As stated above regarding Claim 3, Takahashi et al teaches the groove forming step and the claimed ratio. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. See MPEP 2112.01. In this case, Takahashi et al teaches the claimed prior art product that is substantially identical to the claimed product in structure and property.
Regarding Claim 3, Takahashi et al teaches the groove forming step and the claimed ratio of 0.010 ≤ dL/dC ≤ 1.000 with an overlapping range.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. JP H05-258935 A (JP ‘935) teaches a unidirectional electrical steel sheet [0001] and introducing fine crystal grains while maintaining surface flatness using a coating [0005]. The size of the crystal grains is 5-40 µm in a linear direction [0006]. An oxide film is on the surface of the grain-oriented electrical steel sheet [0008]. The grooves have a depth of 25 µm and a width of 20 µm [0013]. JP ‘935 teaches providing a low iron loss unidirectional electrical steel sheet with less deterioration of magnetic flux density [0003] and packing density, and excellent coating adhesion [0005] by finish annealing with the fine crystal grains around the roots of the oxide film [0008].
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, 7:30 am to 4:00 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