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 .
Status of Claims
Claim 1 is amended. Claims 3-7 are withdrawn. Claims 12 and 21 are cancelled. Claims 1-2, 8-11 and 13-20 are examined herein.
Status of Previous Rejections
The rejections of Claims 1-2, 8-11, 15 and 18-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US’475 (US 2023/0045475), and further in view of Tanaka (US 2021/0054489) have been withdrawn in view of the amendment.
The rejections of Claims 1, 8-11 and 13-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US’909 (US 2016/0196909), and further in view of Tanaka (US 2021/0054489) have been withdrawn in view of the amendment.
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.
Claims 1-2, 8-11, 15 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US’475 (US 2023/0045475) in view of Tanaka (US 2021/0054489), and further in view of JP’627 (JPH11-124627A).
Regarding claims 1, 8-11, 15 and 18-20, US’475 teaches (Abstract; Table 7, No. 15) a grain-oriented electrical steel sheet having composition as shown in Table 1 below:
Element
Claim 1
(mass %)
US’475
(mass %)
Overlap
(mass %)
C
≤0.01
0.0011
0.0011
Si
2-4
3.3
3.3
Mn
0.01 – 0.2
0.05
0.05
Al
≤0.04
0.0004
0.0004
N
≤0.008
0.0005
0.0005
S
≤0.008
0.0004
0.0004
Se
0.0001-0.008
0.0001
0.001
Cu
0.002-0.1
0.06
0.06
Ni
0.005-0.1
---
---
Cr
0.005-0.1
0.07
0.07
P
0.005 – 0.1
0.06
0.06
Sn
0.005-0.2
0.01
0.01
Mo
0.001-0.1
0.04
0.04
Pb
0.0001-0.1
---
---
Ge
0.0005-0.1
---
---
As
0.0005-0.1
---
---
Fe + Impurities
Balance
Balance
Balance
Steel No. 15 of US’475 meets the recited amount of C, Si, Mn, Al, N, S, Se, Cu, Cr, P, Sn, Sb and Mo in the instant claims. Steel No. 15 of US’475 does not contain Ni, however, US’475 discloses that adding 0.005-1.5% Ni improves the magnetic properties ([0191]; [0192]). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate 0.005-1.5% Ni to Steel No. 15 of US’475 in order to improve magnetic properties as disclosed by US’475. The amount of Ni disclosed by US’475 overlaps the recited amount of Ni in claims 1 and 18. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have chosen an amount of Ni based on the range disclosed by US’475 to make a steel that meets the recited Ni amount in Claims 1 and 18. See MPEP 2144.05 I.
Steel No. 15 of US’475 has B8 of 1.958T after final secondary recrystallization ([0392] to [0406]; Table 6, No. 15), which meets the recited magnetic flux density in claim 1.
US’475 does not teach that the steel contains 0.0001-0.1wt% Pb. Tanaka teaches a grain-oriented electrical steel sheet having major composition that overlaps the steel composition of US’475 (Abstract; [0109] to [0133]). Tanaka discloses that 0.0005 – 0.03 wt% Pb improves magnetic properties ([0131] to [0132]; Table 2 and Table 4). Thus, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add 0.0005 – 0.03 wt% Pb as taught by Tanaka in the steel of US’475 in order to improve the magnetic properties as disclosed by Tanaka. The amount of Pb disclosed by Tanaka meets the recited amount of Pb in claim 1.
Regarding the amended feature in claim 1, US’475 in view of Tanaka does not disclose that the steel contains 0.0005-0.1% Ge and 0.0005-0.1% As. JP’627 teaches a grain-oriented electrical steel sheet having major composition that overlaps the steel composition of US’909 (Page 6 to 8). JP’627 discloses that 0.005-0.2 wt% Ge is effective in reducing iron loss and 0.001-0.1 wt% As improves magnetic flux density (Page 7 to 8). Thus, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add 0.005-0.2 wt% Ge and 0.001-0.1 wt% As as taught by JP’627 in the steel of US’475 in view of Tanaka in order to reduce iron loss and improve magnetic flux density as disclosed by JP’627. The amount of Ge and As disclosed by JP’627 overlaps the recited ranges in claim 1. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2144.05 I. Thus, the recited composition in claim 1 is obvious over US’475 in view of Tanaka and JP’627.
Regarding claim 2, Steel No. 15 of US’475 has (α2+β2)1/2 with an exact {110}<001> Goss texture for a secondary recrystallization grain after the final secondary recrystallization is 3.4 º ([0004]; [0054] to [0084]; [0237] to [0247]; Table 6, Steel 15), which meets the limitation recited in claim 2.
Claims 1, 8-11 and 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US’909 (US 2016/0196909) in view of Tanaka (US 2021/0054489), and further in view of JP’627 (JPH11-124627A).
Regarding claims 1, 8-11 and 13-20, US’909 teaches (Abstract; [0074] to [0082]; Table 1) a grain-oriented electrical steel sheet having composition as shown in Table 1 below:
Element
Claim 1
(mass %)
US’909
(mass %)
Overlap
(mass %)
C
≤0.01
0.0005-0.005
0.0005-0.005
Si
2-4
2-4.5
2-4
Mn
0.01 – 0.2
0.005-0.3
0.01-0.2
Al
≤0.04
0.01-0.04
0.01-0.04
N
≤0.008
≤0.005
≤0.005
S
≤0.008
0.002-0.033
0.002-0.008
Se
0.0001-0.008
0.001-0.012
0.001-0.008
Cu
0.002-0.1
0.005-1.5
0.005-0.1
Ni
0.005-0.1
0.005-1.5
0.005-0.1
Cr
0.005-0.1
0.005-0.1
0.005-0.1
P
0.005 – 0.1
0.005-0.5
0.005-0.1
Sn
0.005-0.2
0.005-0.5
0.005-0.2
Mo
0.001-0.1
0.005-0.5
0.005-0.1
Pb
0.0001-0.1
---
---
Ge
0.0005-0.1
---
---
As
0.0005-0.1
---
---
Fe + Impurities
Balance
Balance
Balance
The steel disclosed by US’909 overlap the recited amount of C, Si, Mn, Al, N, S, Se, Cu, Ni, Cr, P, Sn, Sb and Mo in the instant claims. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have chosen a steel composition based on the range disclosed by US’909 to make a steel that meets the recited composition in claims 1, 8-11 and 13-20. See MPEP 2144.05 I.
US’909 discloses that the steel has B8 of 1.92T or more after final secondary recrystallization ([0048]), which meets the recited magnetic flux density in claim 1.
US’909 does not teach that the steel contains 0.0001-0.1wt% Pb. Tanaka teaches a grain-oriented electrical steel sheet having major composition that overlaps the steel composition of US’909 (Abstract; [0109] to [0133]; Table 2 and Table 4). Tanaka discloses that 0.0005 – 0.03 wt% Pb improves magnetic properties ([0131] to [0132]). Thus, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add 0.0005 – 0.03 wt% Pb as taught by Tanaka in the steel of US’909 in order to improve the magnetic properties as disclosed by Tanaka. The amount of Pb disclosed by Tanaka meets the recited amount of Pb in claim 1.
Regarding the amended feature in claim 1, US’909 in view of Tanaka does not disclose that the steel contains 0.0005-0.1% Ge and 0.0005-0.1% As. JP’627 teaches a grain-oriented electrical steel sheet having major composition that overlaps the steel composition of US’909 (Page 6 to 8). JP’627 discloses that 0.005-0.2 wt% Ge is effective in reducing iron loss and 0.001-0.1 wt% As improves magnetic flux density (Page 7 to 8). Thus, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add 0.005-0.2 wt% Ge and 0.001-0.1 wt% As as taught by JP’627 in the steel of US’909 in view of Tanaka in order to reduce iron loss and improve magnetic flux density as disclosed by JP’627. The amount of Ge and As disclosed by JP’627 overlaps the recited ranges in claim 1. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2144.05 I. Thus, the recited composition in claim 1 is obvious over US’909 in view of Tanaka and JP’627.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/04/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicants argued that the cited arts do not disclose that the steel comprises 0.0005-0.1% Ge and 0.0005-0.1% As.
In response, as set forth in the art rejection above, JP’627 discloses that 0.005-0.2 wt% Ge is effective in reducing iron loss and 0.001-0.1 wt% As improves magnetic flux density (Page 7 to 8). Thus, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add 0.005-0.2 wt% Ge and 0.001-0.1 wt% As as taught by JP’627 in the steel of US’475 or US’909 in order to reduce iron loss and improve magnetic flux density as disclosed by JP’627.
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 Xiaowei Su whose telephone number is (571)272-3239. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-5:00.
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 Hendricks can be reached at 5712721401. 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.
/XIAOWEI SU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1733
Prosecution Insights