Patent Application 17757776 - GRAIN-ORIENTED ELECTRICAL STEEL SHEET AND METHOD - Rejection
Patent Application 17757776 - GRAIN-ORIENTED ELECTRICAL STEEL SHEET AND METHOD
Title: GRAIN-ORIENTED ELECTRICAL STEEL SHEET AND METHOD OF MANUFACTURING SAME
Application Information
- Invention Title: GRAIN-ORIENTED ELECTRICAL STEEL SHEET AND METHOD OF MANUFACTURING SAME
- Application Number: 17757776
- Submission Date: 2025-04-10T00:00:00.000Z
- Effective Filing Date: 2022-06-21T00:00:00.000Z
- Filing Date: 2022-06-21T00:00:00.000Z
- National Class: 148
- National Sub-Class: 112000
- Examiner Employee Number: 82980
- Art Unit: 1759
- Tech Center: 1700
Rejection Summary
- 102 Rejections: 1
- 103 Rejections: 2
Cited Patents
The following patents were cited in the rejection:
Office Action Text
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 of group I, claims 7-14 in the reply filed on 14 March 2025 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 15-23 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 21 June 2022. These drawings are accepted.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by US 2015/0013849 A1 (hereinafter “Okabe”).
Regarding claim 7. Okabe teaches a grain oriented electrical steel sheet (see title, claim 1, EXAMPLES). Okabe teaches that strain regions are applied to the grain oriented electrical steel using irradiation to create rapid heating (see [0023]-[0030] and Example 1). Okabe teaches that this creates regions with plastic strain adjacent regions of elastic strain, in the rolling direction (see Figs 3-4 and [0023]-[0030]). Okabe teaches that a compressive residual stress and an elastic (tensile) stress is generated in the steel (see [0027]-[0028]).
Regarding claim 8, Okabe teaches that the steel is irradiated by an energy beam to generate the stresses (see [0023]-[0030]). Okabe envisions that the beam is irradiated in a pulse-sequence, of a “dot-sequence” to generate the stresses (see SUMMARY). Okabe teaches that a distance of a width w and a length of the strain regions are arranged such that the value of d/w is 0.2-0.6 (SUMMARY), and clearly envisions in Fig 3-4 a sequence matching the claimed length to width.
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.
Claim(s) 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okabe.
Regarding claims 11-12, Okabe is applied to the claims as stated in the rejections under 35 USC 102. Okabe teaches that a flux density of the grain oriented electrical steel sheet is preferably 1.92 T or more (see [0044]). The range of flux density in the prior art overlaps the range as claimed, establishing a prima facie case of obviousness for that range. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at time of filing to have selected a flux density in the range as claimed because Okabe teaches the same utility over an overlapping range. Applicant is further directed to MPEP 2144.05.
Claim(s) 9, 10, 13, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okabe in view of US 2015/0187474 A1 (hereinafter “Takajo”).
Okabe is applied to the claims as stated above.
Regarding claims 9-10, Okabe teaches that a compressive residual stress and an elastic (tensile) stress is generated in the steel (see [0027]-[0028]). Okabe does not specify a value of the stress, and therefore does not teach the claimed value of stresses.
Takajo teaches a grain oriented electrical steel sheet (see title, SUMMARY OF INVENTION). Takajo teaches that irradiation is applied to a steel sheet in order to prevent iron loss ([0038]-[0049] and [0075]-[0082]). Takajo teaches that in the stress region generated stress should be 150 MPa or more (see [0075]-[0082]). Takajo teaches that the stress generated in a rolling direction should be 30 MPa or more (see [0079]). The stress described by Takajo overlaps the claimed stress amount, establishing a prima facie case of obviousness for that range. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at time of filing to have selected a residual stress in the range as claimed because Takajo teaches the same utility over an overlapping range. Applicant is further directed to MPEP 2144.05.
It would have been an obvious matter to the skilled artisan practicing the invention of Okabe to have limited the stress generated as taught by Takajo, because Takajo teaches that this prevents problems associated with iron loss (See [0075]-[0086]).
Regarding claims 13-14, Okabe in view of Takajo is applied to the claims as stated in the rejections above. Okabe teaches that a flux density of the grain oriented electrical steel sheet is preferably 1.92 T or more (see [0044]). The range of flux density in the prior art overlaps the range as claimed, establishing a prima facie case of obviousness for that range. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at time of filing to have selected a flux density in the range as claimed because Okabe teaches the same utility over an overlapping range. Applicant is further directed to MPEP 2144.05.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 7-14 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-4 of U.S. Patent No. 11,866,796 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because applicant’s patented claim 1 describes a grain oriented electrical steel sheet having a linear strain portion with a compressive stress region and a tensile stress region, with stress of 30 MPa or more to yield stress in compression and 20 MPa to yield stress s in tension. Applicant’s claimed ranges overlap the instantly claimed ranges, establishing a prima facie case of obviousness. Instant dependent claims are considered met by the disclosure of the patent claims. Instant claims 9-14 all include overlapping ranges to those claimed in the patent claim 1.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER S KESSLER whose telephone number is (571)272-6510. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5:30.
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, Curt Mayes can be reached on 571-272-1234. 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.
CHRISTOPHER S. KESSLER
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1734
/CHRISTOPHER S KESSLER/Examiner, Art Unit 1759
