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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arita et al. (JP 2017036491 A, machine translation referred to herein as English equivalent) herein Arita.
Regarding claims 1-2 and 4, Arita discloses a non-oriented electromagnetic steel sheet [page 1, Arita] with a steel composition range shown below in Table 2. The examiner notes that the overlap of the steel compositions is prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2144.05(I). The examiner notes that Arita does not specify Mn/Cu or Cu/S, however the examiner notes that these equations merely further limit Mn, Cu, and S which still overlap with the composition of Arita.
Table 2
Instant claims, weight%
Arita, mass%
Si
1.5-4.0 (claim 1)
0.05-3.5 [page 3]
Al
0.7-2.5 (claim 1)
0.002-2.0 [page 3]
Mn
1-2 (claim 1)
0.01-2.0 [page 3]
Cu
0.003-0.02 (claim 1)
0.01-3.00 [page 4]
S
0<S≤0.005 (claim 1)
0.0010-0.05 [page 4]
C
≤0.005* (claim 2)
0.0001-0.01 [page 3]
N
≤0.005* (claim 2)
0.0005-0.02 [page 4]
Nb
≤0.004 (claim 1)
0.002-0.20 [page 5]
Ti
≤0.004 (claim 1)
0.002-0.10 [page 5]
V
≤0.004 (claim 1)
0.002-0.20 [page 4]
P
≤0.02† (claim 4)
0.001-0.20 [page 4]
B
≤0.002† (claim 4)
Mg
≤0.005† (claim 4)
Zr
≤0.005† (claim 4)
≤0.5 [page 5]
Fe+unavoidable impurities
Remainder (claim 1)
Mn/Cu
150-250 (claim 1)
Cu/S
3-7 (claim 1)
*at least one of these (claim 2)
†at least one of these (claim 4)
As discussed above controlling sulfide size is a recognized result effective variable by Arita and it would have been obvious to perform routine experimentation to determine sulfide sizes and Mn, S, and Cu for optimizing iron loss. The examiner notes that all of the examples of applicant’s that satisfy the instantly claimed sulfide ranges of claim 5 also satisfy the area ratio of sulfides containing both Mn and Cu [Table 2, instant spec], and so the examiner notes that experimentation for sulfide sizes and Mn, S, and Cu to optimize iron loss would further lead to an area fraction of sulfides containing both Mn and Cu and having a diameter of 150-300 nm that overlaps with the instantly claimed range. Alternatively, as discussed above applicant discloses that “the distribution of the sulfide is controlled by appropriately controlling the relationship between Mn, Cu, and S” and so the examiner submits that an overlapping area fraction of sulfides with a size of 150-300 nm and containing both Mn and Cu would naturally flow from the steel of Arita because Arita discloses overlapping steel compositions as discussed above. See MPEP 2144.05(I) and 2145.
Regarding claim 5, the examiner notes that Arita does not specify the number of sulfides having a diameter of 150-300 nm or the number of sulfides having a diameter of 20-100 nm, however the instant specification discloses that “the distribution of the sulfide is controlled by appropriately controlling the relationship between Mn, Cu, and S” [page 12 lines 6-8, instant spec] and so the examiner submits that an overlapping number of sulfides of 150-300 nm and 20-100 nm would naturally flow from the steel of Arita because Arita discloses overlapping steel compositions as discussed above. See MPEP 2144.05(I) and 2145. The examiner further notes that Arita discloses that fine sulfides, including copper sulfide and titanium sulfide, will adversely affect iron loss [page 10, Arita] wherein sulfide generation is dependent upon the Mn, S, and Cu contents [pages 3-4, Arita] and so the examiner submits that the amount of fine sulfides and contents of Mn, S, and Cu are result effective variables recognized by Arita and so it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to perform routine experimentation to determine a combination of Mn, S, and Cu that produce sulfide sizes that give optimized iron loss. See MPEP 2144.05(II). The examiner notes that applicant similarly controls Mn, Cu, and S to control sulfides for affecting iron loss [page 13 lines 16-19, instant spec].
Claim(s) 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arita as applied to claims 1-2 and 4-5 above, and further in view of Park et al. (US 2015/0000793 A1) herein Park.
Regarding claim 7, Arita does not limit the thickness range for the steel sheet, however the examiner submits it would have been obvious to use a thickness range of 0.10-0.70 mm in view of Park. Park discloses a method of producing a non-oriented electrical steel sheet [0001, Park] wherein the steel is used for motors and transformers [0002, Park] and wherein the sheet has a thickness of 0.10-0.70 mm [0085, Park]. Arita similarly discloses a non-oriented steel sheet that can be used for motors and transformers [page 2, Arita]. The examiner submits it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that a thickness range of 0.10-0.70 mm could be used for the steel sheet of Arita as a known thickness in the art for producing non-oriented electrical steel sheets for use in motors and transformers as taught by Park. The examiner notes that the overlap of the steel sheet thicknesses of the instant claim and Park is prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 8:
Arita does not specify a grain size however the examiner submits it would have been obvious to control the grain size to a range of 50-180 µm in view of Park. Park discloses controlling grain sizes of the electrical steel sheet to 50-180 µm because smaller sizes will increase hysteresis loss among iron loss and larger sizes increase eddy current loss among iron loss [0045, Park]. The examiner submits it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to control the method of Arita to produce grain sizes of 50-180 µm in order to reduce hysteresis loss and eddy current loss as taught by Park. The examiner notes that the overlap of the grain sizes of the instant claim and Park is prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Alternatively, the examiner submits that overlapping grain sizes would naturally flow from the steel of Arita modified by Park, because Arita modified by Park discloses a steel composition that overlaps with the instantly claimed steel as discussed above and further discloses an overlapping manufacturing method as shown below in Table 3. The examiner notes that grain sizes will depend upon the composition and manufacturing method of a steel and so a grain size range overlapping with that instantly claimed would naturally flow from the method of Arita modified by Park. See MPEP 2144.05(I) and 2145.
Table 3
Instant application manufacturing method
Arita modified by Park manufacturing method
Heat slab [page 14]
Temperature not limited but may be ≤1200°C
Heat slab [page 7, Arita]
Example temperature of 1150°C [page 10, Arita]
Hot roll [page 15]
Can roll to ≤2.5 mm thickness, Finish temperature can be ≥750°C, Can wind/wound/coil at ≤700°C
Hot roll [page 7, Arita]
Example finish temperature of 850°C, coiling temperature of 600°C, and hot rolled thickness of 2.0 mm [page 10, Arita]
May further anneal at 850-1150°C [page 15]
May pickle [page 16]
Hot rolled sheet annealed [page 7, Arita] with example temperatures of 1110-1200°C [page, 12, Table 5, Arita]
Cold roll to 0.1-0.3 mm [page 16]
If needed can use multiple passes with intermediate annealing at 850-1150°C
Cold roll [page 7, Arita] to a thickness of 0.10-0.70 mm [0085, Park]
Final annealing [page 16]
Use temperature generally applied to the sheet, for example 900-1100°C
Anneal at between T1 and T7 [pages 10-11, Arita] with temperatures ranging between 514-1284°C [Table 2, Arita]
Can form insulating film [page 16]
Can form an insulating film [page 7, Arita]
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-5, and 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyazaki et al. (US 2011/0094699) herein Miyazaki.
Regarding claims 1-2 and 4-5, Miyazaki discloses a non-oriented electrical steel sheet [0001, Miyazaki] comprising a composition shown below in Table 4. The examiner notes that the overlap of the steel compositions is prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2144.05(I). The examiner notes that Miyazaki does not specify Mn/Cu or Cu/S, however the examiner notes that these equations merely further limit Mn, Cu, and S which still overlap with the composition of Miyazaki.
Table 4
Instant claims, weight%
Miyazaki, mass%
Si
1.5-4.0 (claim 1)
0.1-7.0 [0095]
Al
0.7-2.5 (claim 1)
0.2-5.0 [00103]
Mn
1-2 (claim 1)
≥0.1 [0097], preferably 0.1-2.0
Cu
0.003-0.02 (claim 1)
≤1.0 [00117]
S
0<S≤0.005 (claim 1)
≤0.005 [00101]
C
≤0.005* (claim 2)
≤0.005 [0093]
N
≤0.005* (claim 2)
≤0.005 [00107]
Nb
≤0.004 (claim 1)
Ti
≤0.004 (claim 1)
≤0.02 [00115]
V
≤0.004 (claim 1)
≤0.01 [00127]
P
≤0.02† (claim 4)
≤0.2 [0099]
B
≤0.002† (claim 4)
≤0.005 [00129]
Mg
≤0.005† (claim 4)
≤0.05 [00119]
Zr
≤0.005† (claim 4)
≤0.01 [00125]
Fe+unavoidable impurities
Remainder (claim 1)
Balance [0053]
Mn/Cu
150-250 (claim 1)
Cu/S
3-7 (claim 1)
*at least one of these (claim 2)
†at least one of these (claim 4)
The examiner notes that Miyazaki does not specify the number of sulfides having a diameter of 150-300 nm, the number of sulfides having a diameter of 20-100 nm, or the area fraction of sulfides containing both Mn and Cu, however the instant specification discloses that “the distribution of the sulfide is controlled by appropriately controlling the relationship between Mn, Cu, and S” [page 12 lines 6-8, instant spec] and so the examiner submits that an overlapping number of sulfides of 150-300 nm and 20-100 nm and an overlapping area fraction of sulfides containing both Mn and Cu would naturally flow from the steel of Miyazaki because Miyazaki discloses overlapping steel compositions as discussed above. See MPEP 2144.05(I) and 2145.
Regarding claim 7, Miyazaki discloses example sheet thicknesses of 0.3 mm [0145, 0152, Miyazaki].
Regarding claim 8, Miyazaki discloses a grain size of 50-200µm [0080, Miyazaki]. The examiner notes that the overlap of the grain sizes of the instant claim and Miyazaki is prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Claim(s) 1-2 and 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kataoka et al. (US 2016/0273064 A1) herein Kataoka.
Regarding claims 1-2 and 4, Kataoka discloses a non-oriented electrical steel sheet [0002, Kataoka] comprising a composition shown below in Table 5. The examiner notes that the overlap of the steel compositions is prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2144.05(I). The examiner notes that Kataoka does not specify Mn/Cu, however the examiner notes that this equation merely further limits Mn and Cu which still overlap with the composition of Kataoka.
Table 5
Instant claims, weight%
Kataoka, mass% [0024]
Si
1.5-4.0 (claim 1)
0.05-7.0
Al
0.7-2.5 (claim 1)
0.0020-3.0
Mn
1-2 (claim 1)
0.01-3.0
Cu
0.003-0.02 (claim 1)
0.01-5.0
S
0<S≤0.005 (claim 1)
0.0001-0.1
C
≤0.005* (claim 2)
0.0001-0.01
N
≤0.005* (claim 2)
0.0010-0.01
Nb
≤0.004 (claim 1)
≤0.05 [0046]
Ti
≤0.004 (claim 1)
≤0.2 [0046]
V
≤0.004 (claim 1)
≤0.05 [0046]
P
≤0.02† (claim 4)
0.0010-0.15
B
≤0.002† (claim 4)
Mg
≤0.005† (claim 4)
≤0.2 [0046]
Zr
≤0.005† (claim 4)
≤0.05 [0046]
Fe+unavoidable impurities
Remainder (claim 1)
Remainder
Mn/Cu
150-250 (claim 1)
Cu/S
3-7 (claim 1)
≥2.5 [0025]
*at least one of these (claim 2)
†at least one of these (claim 4)
As discussed above controlling sulfide size is a recognized result effective variable by Kataoka and it would have been obvious to perform routine experimentation to determine sulfide sizes and Mn, S, and Cu for optimizing core loss. The examiner notes that all of the examples of applicant’s that satisfy the instantly claimed sulfide ranges of claim 5 also satisfy the area ratio of sulfides containing both Mn and Cu [Table 2, instant spec], and so the examiner notes that experimentation for sulfide sizes and Mn, S, and Cu for optimal core loss would further lead to an overlapping area fraction of sulfides containing both Mn and Cu and having a diameter of 150-300 nm. Alternatively, as discussed above applicant discloses that “the distribution of the sulfide is controlled by appropriately controlling the relationship between Mn, Cu, and S” and so the examiner submits that an overlapping area fraction of sulfides with a size of 150-300 nm and containing both Mn and Cu would naturally flow from the steel of Kataoka because Kataoka discloses overlapping steel compositions as discussed above. See MPEP 2144.05(I) and 2145.
Regarding claim 5, the examiner notes that Kataoka does not specify the number of sulfides having a diameter of 150-300 nm or the number of sulfides having a diameter of 20-100 nm, however the instant specification discloses that “the distribution of the sulfide is controlled by appropriately controlling the relationship between Mn, Cu, and S” [page 12 lines 6-8, instant spec] and so the examiner submits that an overlapping number of sulfides of 150-300 nm and 20-100 nm would naturally flow from the steel of Kataoka because Kataoka discloses overlapping steel compositions as discussed above. See MPEP 2144.05(I) and 2145. The examiner further notes that Kataoka notes that fine precipitates, including copper sulfide and titanium sulfide, will deteriorate core loss [0004, Kataoka] wherein sulfide generation is dependent upon the Mn, S, and Cu contents [0040, 0042, 0045, Kataoka] and so the examiner submits that the amount of fine sulfides and contents of Mn, S, and Cu are result effective variables recognized by Kataoka and so it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to perform routine experimentation to determine a combination of Mn, S, and Cu that produce sulfide sizes that give optimized core loss. See MPEP 2144.05(II). The examiner notes that applicant similarly controls Mn, Cu, and S to control sulfides for affecting iron loss [page 13 lines 16-19, instant spec], the examiner notes that core loss and iron loss are synonymous in the art as evidenced by Kataoka specifically discussing W15/50 as core loss [0087, Kataoka] and the instant application discussing W15/50 as iron loss [page 2 line 10, instant spec].
Claim(s) 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kataoka as applied to claims 1-2 and 4-5 above, and further in view of Park et al. (US 2015/0000793 A1) herein Park.
Regarding claim 7, Kataoka does not limit the thickness range for the steel sheet, however the examiner submits it would have been obvious to use a thickness range of 0.10-0.70 mm in view of Park. Park discloses a method of producing a non-oriented electrical steel sheet [0001, Park] wherein the steel is used for motors and transformers [0002, Park] and wherein the sheet has a thickness of 0.10-0.70 mm [0085, Park]. Kataoka similarly discloses a non-oriented steel sheet that can be used for motors and transformers [0003, Kataoka]. The examiner submits it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that a thickness range of 0.10-0.70 mm could be used for the steel sheet of Kataoka as a known thickness in the art for producing non-oriented electrical steel sheets for use in motors and transformers as taught by Park. The examiner notes that the overlap of the steel sheet thicknesses of the instant claim and Park is prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 8, Kataoka does not specify a grain size however the examiner submits it would have been obvious to control the grain size to a range of 50-180 µm in view of Park. Park discloses controlling grain sizes of the electrical steel sheet to 50-180 µm because smaller sizes will increase hysteresis loss among iron loss and larger sizes increase eddy current loss among iron loss [0045, Park]. The examiner submits it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to control the method of Kataoka to produce grain sizes of 50-180 µm in order to reduce hysteresis loss and eddy current loss as taught by Park. The examiner notes that the overlap of the grain sizes of the instant claim and Park is prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/7/2025 have been fully considered.
The previous 35 U.S.C 102 rejection over Arita (JP 2017036491 A) is withdrawn in view of the current amendments to the claims. However, Applicant’s arguments pertaining to the 35 U.S.C 103 rejections are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the examples of Arita comprise content of V, Nb, and Ti that are higher than the upper limits recited in the claims, and provides experimental data based on example a16 of Arita, which shows that a high amount of these elements obtained undesired results. Applicant argues that Arita and the other cited references do not have examples that satisfy the claimed chemical composition including Formulas 1 and 2 at the same time, and do not disclose or fairly suggest a composition that satisfies all the limitations of claim 1. The examiner notes that examples of Arita do not teach away from the broader disclosure of Arita. “A reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill the art, including nonpreferred embodiments.” See MPEP §2123 (I). Furthermore, “disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or nonpreferred embodiments". See MPEP §2123 (II). Arita teaches overlapping ranges with respect to the V, Nb, and Ti content. Examiner further notes that the cited references all disclose chemical compositions with content ranges that overlap with the instantly claimed ranges and formulas. Furthermore, the cited references teach/render obvious all of the limitations recited, as set forth in the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections above. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP §2144.05.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANTHONY M LIANG whose telephone number is (571)272-0483. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00am-5:00pm.
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, Jonathan Johnson can be reached at (571)272-1177. 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.
/ANTHONY M LIANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1734