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 a certified copy of JP 2019-129224 filed July 11, 2019 as required by 37 CFR 1.55. Receipt is also acknowledged of a copy of WO 2021/006280, the WIPO publication of PCT/JP 2020/026599 filed July 7, 2020.
Claim Status
This Office Action is in response to Applicant’s Remarks and Claim Amendments filed October 29, 2025.
Filing Date
October 29, 2025
Amended
1
New
15-17
Cancelled
2, 6, 9-10, 13
Pending
1, 3-5, 7-8, 11-12, 14-17
Withdrawn
3-5, 7-8, 11-12, 14
Under Examination
1, 15-17
The applicant argues support for the claim amendments of magnetic flux density, ΔB50, and fatigue strength in applicant’s specification at [0035]-[0037], [0051]-[0052], [0057], [0058], and Tables 2-1, 2-2, and 3 (Remarks p. 10 para. 1)
Withdrawn Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following 112(b) rejection is withdrawn due to claim amendment:
Claim 1 line 4 “component composition”.
Response to Remarks filed October 29, 2025
Kohno in view of Park and either one of Hayakawa ‘334 or Watanabe
Kohno in view of Kim and either one of Hayakawa ‘334 or Watanabe
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks pp. 11-13, filed October 29, 2025, with respect to Kohno have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections of Kohno in view of Park and either one of Hayakawa ‘334 or Watanabe and of Kohno in view of Kim and either one of Hayakawa ‘334 or Watanabe have been withdrawn.
The applicant persuasively argues the claimed invention has high fatigue strength and excellent magnetic properties (applicant’s specification [0009]) achieved by adding Zn in combination with a controlled heating rate in the 500 to 700°C range during cold-rolled annealing (applicant’s specification [0048]), which enables a fatigue limit of 450 MPa or higher (Remarks p. 12 para. 2), as evidenced by Fig. A based on Tables 2-1 and 3 of the present application, which shows the effect of fatigue limit of Zn content and heating rate, where a fatigue limit of 450 MPa or higher is only achieved with Zn within the claimed range and a heating rate of 10°C/s or higher (Table 3, Exs. 2-10 and Exs. 1, 11-15) (Remarks p. 13 para. 1).
The applicant persuasively argues Kohno, Hayakawa ‘334, and Watanabe are silent to Zn (Remarks p. 11 para. 5).
Further, both Park and Kim, which disclose the presence Zn (Park [0037]-[0038]; Kim [0047]-[0048]), are silent to the heating rate.
Kim in view of Park and either one of Hayakawa ‘334 or Watanabe
Applicant's arguments filed October 29, 2025 with respect to Kim and either one of Hayakawa ‘334 or Watanabe have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues Kim teaches adding Y of 0.0005% or more with Zn to improve magnetic properties (Table 1 Ex. Nos. 8, 10), but the claim 1 composition excludes Y (Remarks p. 11 para. 2).
A reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art, including nonpreferred embodiments. MPEP 2123(I). Disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or nonpreferred embodiments. MPEP 2123(II).
Kim discloses in [0013] “A non-oriented electrical steel sheet according to an embodiment of the present invention comprises: Si: 2.0 to 3.5%, Al: 0.3 to 3.5%, Mn: 0.2 to 4.5%, Zn: 0.0005 to 0.02% in wt % and Fe and inevitable impurities as a balance amount.” This embodiment does not recite the presence of Y. Similarly, in Kim [0040] and [0072] the recited compositions do not require Y and neither does the composition of claims 1 and 10. Therefore, it is within the scope of the composition of Kim to not include Y.
While Kim discloses the steel “may further comprise Y” ([0013], [0020]), “In case of adding Y additionally” ([0077]), and the steel is “further comprising Y” (claim 2), Y is an optional element that can be, but is not required to be, added to the steel. Therefore, it is within the scope of the invention of Kim to not include Y, which reads on the claimed composition.
Further, with respect to magnetic properties, Kim [0040] discloses improvement by optimizing the range of Si, Al, and Mn, and by limiting the addition of Zn, where the respective amounts disclosed by Kim ([0041]-[0048]) overlap with that claimed such that a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I).
The applicant argues Kim improves magnetic flux density and ΔB50 before and after heat treatment, but Kim fails to control heating as disclosed in the present application, which the evidence of record indicates that it is necessary to perform the recited heat treatment to obtain the claimed difference ΔB50 of the magnetic flux density (Remarks p. 11 para. 3).
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Kim in view of Hayakawa ‘334 discloses annealing to control the crystal grain diameter (Kim [0082]) by heating at a rate of 10 to 15°C/s from 500 to 700°C to control the annealing texture, retard recrystallization, and improve magnetic properties (Hayakawa ‘334 [0010], [0019], [0034], [0040]-[0041], [0046], [0054], [0085], Table 1).
Alternatively, Kim in view of Watanabe discloses annealing to control the crystal grain diameter (Kim [0082]) by heating at a rate of not less than 80°C/s in a temperature range of 500 to 700°C for secondary recrystallization so that side distortion defect due to creep deformation is significantly reduced (Watanabe [0075]).
Therefore, the prior art discloses an overlapping Zn content (Kim [0047]-[0048]) and heating rate (Hayakawa ‘334 [0010], [0019], [0034], [0040]-[0041], [0046], [0054], [0085], Table 1; Watanabe [0075]), such that the claimed properties, including magnetic flux density B50(T), ΔB50, and fatigue strength naturally flow from the disclosure of the prior art.
The applicant argues the non-oriented electrical steel sheet requires the presence of “Zn: not less than 0.003 mass % and not more than 0.0050 mass %” as recited in claim 1 in combination with a heating rate of 10°C/s or higher to achieve the claimed properties of improved ΔB50 before and after heat treatment (applicant’s specification [0009], [0058]) (Remarks p. 10 para. 2) and fatigue limit of 450 MPa or higher (applicant’s specification [0009], [0048]) (Remarks p. 12 para. 2, p. 13 para. 2) as evidenced by applicant’s steels A and M (containing the claimed amount of Zn) and N (containing less than the claimed amount of Zn), where heating A and M at less than 10°C/s do not achieve the claimed ΔB50 nor fatigue strength and heating N at 10°C/s or more does not achieve the claimed ΔB50 nor fatigue strength (applicant’s Tables 1-1, 2-1, and 3) (Remarks p. 10 para. 3, p. 13 para. 1).
With respect to the argued heating rate, the prior art disclosure falls within the scope of that required by applicant’s invention. Hayakawa ‘334 heats at 10 to 15°C/s (Hayakawa ‘334 [0034]) and Watanabe heats at not less than 80°C/s (Watanabe [0075]), such that both disclosures satisfy the requirement of being at 10°C/s, which, as argued by applicant, is necessary to achieve the claimed properties of ΔB50 and fatigue strength limit.
With respect to the Zn content, Kim discloses 0.0005 to 0.02% Zn ([0047]-[0048]), which overlaps with the claimed ranges from 0.0005 to 0.0050 such that a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I).
To establish unexpected results over a claimed range, applicants should compare a sufficient number of tests both inside and outside the claimed range to show the criticality of the claimed range. MPEP 716.02(d). Further, the “objective evidence of nonobviousness must be commensurate ins cope with the claimed which the evidence is offered to support.” In other words, the showing of unexpected results must be reviewed to see if the results occur over the entire claimed range. MPEP 716.02(d).
Applicant’s data includes one example composition, N, outside of the claimed range with 0.0001 % Zn, which is also outside of the scope of Kim. This is insufficient to establish the criticality of the claimed Zn content. The next Zn content is Steel AA with 0.0008%, which is within the scope of both applicant’s invention and the disclosure of Kim and, as seen in applicant’s Table 2, achieves the claimed ΔB50. Applicant does not present fatigue strength limit data for this example. Further, applicant’s Steel N with 0.0001 % Zn, is outside of the scope of the Zn content of the prior art, such that it does not provide evidence of nonobviousness of the Zn content of Kim.
Therefore, for the above cited reasons, applicant’s data does not overcome the pending rejection of Kim in view of Park and either one of Hayakawa ‘334 and Watanabe.
Hayakawa ‘606 in view of either one of Park or Kim
Applicant's arguments filed October 29, 2025 with respect to Hayakawa ‘606 and Park have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues Park teaches adding a combination of Zn and B to improve magnetic properties (Park Abstract, [0026]), such that B would also be added and claim 1 excludes B (Remarks para. spanning pp. 13-14).
Park discloses a non-grain oriented electrical steel sheet. While Park Abstract and [0026] recites the composition of Park includes both Zn and B, this paragraph cited by applicant does not support the allegation that “Park teaches that it is necessary to add a combination of Zn and B to improve magnetic properties.”
Park discloses Zn of 0.001 to 0.01 in [0037]-[0038], which advantageously has a significant effect of magnetism without acting as an impurity and dislocating the magnetism. There is no mention of B being necessary to achieve this advantage of Zn. Park discusses B in [0039]-[0040] with no mention of Zn being necessary in association with the B. Therefore, the benefits of including Zn as disclosed by Park do not also require B as alleged by applicant.
Further, an alternative rejection is made over Kim disclosing 0.0005 to 0.02 wt% Zn to advantageously improve clarity in molten steel by reacting with impurity elements without forming fine precipitates (Kim [0047]-[0048]). The alloy of Kim does not include B (Kim [0013], [0017], [0040]-[0068]), supporting that the addition of Zn in a non-oriented electrical steel sheet is known to one of ordinary skill in the art to not also require B.
The applicant argues the non-oriented electrical steel sheet requires the presence of “Zn: not less than 0.003 mass % and not more than 0.0050 mass %” as recited in claim 1 in combination with a heating rate of 10°C/s or higher in order to achieve the claimed properties of improved ΔB50 before and after heat treatment (applicant’s specification [0009], [0058]) (Remarks p. 10 para. 2) and fatigue limit of 450 MPa or higher (applicant’s specification [0009], [0048]) (Remarks p. 12 para. 2, p. 13 para. 2) as evidenced by applicant’s steels A and M (containing claimed amount of Zn) and N (containing less than the claimed amount of Zn), where heating A and M at less than 10°C/s does not achieve the claimed ΔB50 nor fatigue strength and heating N at 10°C/s or more does not achieve the claimed ΔB50 nor fatigue strength (applicant’s Tables 1-1, 2-1, and 3) (Remarks p. 10 para. 3, p. 13 para. 1).
With respect to the argued heating rate, the prior art discloses a heating that that falls within the scope of that required by applicant’s invention. Hayakawa ‘606 heats at about 2°C/second or more from about 500 to about 700°C ([0114]) with inventive examples at 10, 20, and 40 °C/s (Table 3, C1-C4, C7-C10). Therefore, it is within the scope of the invention of Hayakawa ‘606 to heat at a rate of 10°C/s or more, which, as argued by applicant, is necessary to achieve the claimed properties of ΔB50 and fatigue strength limit.
Further, with respect to the Zn content, Park discloses 0.001 to 0.01 wt% Zn ([0037]-[0038]), and, alternatively, Kim discloses 0.0005 to 0.02% Zn ([0047]-[0048]), which both overlap with the claimed Zn range such that a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I).
To establish unexpected results over a claimed range, applicants should compare a sufficient number of tests both inside and outside the claimed range to show the criticality of the claimed range. MPEP 716.02(d). Further, the “objective evidence of nonobviousness must be commensurate ins cope with the claimed which the evidence is offered to support.” In other words, the showing of unexpected results must be reviewed to see if the results occur over the entire claimed range. MPEP 716.02(d).
Applicant’s data includes one example composition, N, outside of the claimed range with 0.0001 % Zn, which is also outside of the scope of Park and of Kim. This is insufficient to establish the criticality of the claimed Zn content. The lower limit of Park is within the scope of the claimed Zn range. The next Zn content is Steel AA with 0.0008%, which is within the scope of both applicant’s invention and the disclosure of Kim and, as seen in applicant’s Table 2, achieves the claimed ΔB50. Applicant does not present fatigue strength limit data for this example. Further, applicant’s Steel N with 0.0001 % Zn, is also outside of the scope of the Zn content of the prior art, such that it does not provide evidence of nonobviousness of the Zn content of Kim.
Therefore, for the above cited reasons, applicant’s data does not overcome the pending rejection of Hayakawa ‘606 in view of either one of Park and Kim.
New Claims 15-17
Applicant's arguments filed October 29, 2025 with respect to new claims 15-17 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues new claim 15 recites Si of not less than 2.7 mass% and not more than 5.0 mass% (Table 1-1, Steel Q), which is different from Kohno’s disclosure of SI and Al of 00.5% to 2.5% (Remarks p. 14 para. 6) and new claim 16 recites P of not less than 0.005 mass% and not more than 0.08 mass% (applicant’s specification [0024]), which is different from Kohno’s disclosure of 0.10% or more to 0.26% or less P (Remarks p. 14 para. 7).
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 15 and 16 and the composition of Kohno have been considered but are moot because the rejection of new claims 15 and 16 does not rely on any reference (Kohno) applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
The applicant argues new claim 17 recites Al of not less than 0.31 mass% and not more than 3.0 mass% (Table 1-2, Steel Z), which is different from Hayakawa ‘606’s disclosure of 0.0010 to about 0.10 wt% of Al (Remarks p. 15 para. 1).
Applicant’s argument with respect to claim 17 and the composition of Hayakawa ‘606 has been considered but is moot because the rejection of new claim 17 does not rely on any reference (Hayakawa ‘606) applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 1 and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (WO 2018/117597 with citations from US 2020/0095659) in view of Park (WO 2018/117640 with citations from US 2019/0345576) and either one of Hayakawa ‘334 (JP 2000-017334 machine translation) or Watanabe (US 2014/0202599).
Regarding claims 1 and 15-17, Kim discloses a non-oriented electrical steel sheet ([0001], [0011]) with an overlapping composition ([0013], [0017], [0040]-[0068]), an average crystal grain size of not more than 80 um (50 to 100 um) ([0070], [0082]), and a magnetic flux density B50(T) of 1.464 or more (magnetic flux density at 50 Hz 100 A/m is 0.8 T or more) ([0071]). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Element
Claim 1
Claim 15
Claim 16
Claim 17
Kim Disclosure
Kim Citation
C
Not more than 0.005
Not more than 0.005
Not more than 0.005
Not more than 0.005
0.0040 or less
[0056]-[0057]
Si
2.0 to 5.0
2.7 to 5.0
2.0 to 5.0
2.0 to 5.0
2.0 to 3.5
[0041]-[0042]
Mn
0.05 to 5.0
0.05 to 5.0
0.05 to 5.0
0.05 to 5.0
0.2 to 4.5
[0045]-[0046]
P
Not more than 0.1
0.005 to 0.1
0.005 to 0.08
0.005 to 0.1
impurity
[0013]
S
Not more than 0.01
Not more than 0.01
Not more than 0.01
Not more than 0.01
0.0040 or less
[0058]-[0059]
Al
Not more than 3.0
Not more than 3.0
Not more than 3.0
0.31 to 3.0
0.3 to 3.5
[0043]-[0044]
N
Not more than 0.0050
Not more than 0.0050
Not more than 0.0050
Not more than 0.0050
0.0040 or less
[0054]-[0055]
Zn
0.0003 to 0.0050
0.0003 to 0.0050
0.0003 to 0.0050
0.0003 to 0.0050
0.0005 to 0.02
[0047]-[0048]
Fe
Residue
Residue
Residue
Residue
balance
[0013]
Optionally At Least One Of
Cr
0.1 to 5.0
0.1 to 5.0
0.1 to 5.0
0.1 to 5.0
-
-
Ca
0.001 to 0.01
0.001 to 0.01
0.001 to 0.01
0.001 to 0.01
-
-
Mg
0.001 to 0.01
0.001 to 0.01
0.001 to 0.01
0.001 to 0.01
-
-
REM
0.001 to 0.01
0.001 to 0.01
0.001 to 0.01
0.001 to 0.01
-
-
Sn
0.001 to 0.2
0.001 to 0.2
0.001 to 0.2
0.001 to 0.2
-
-
Sb
0.001 to 0.2
0.001 to 0.02
0.001 to 0.2
0.001 to 0.2
-
-
Ni
0.01 to 3.0
0.01 to 3.0
0.01 to 3.0
0.01 to 3.0
-
-
Cu
0.05 to 0.5
0.05 to 0.5
0.05 to 0.5
0.05 to 0.5
-
-
Nb
0.003 to 0.05
0.003 to 0.05
0.003 to 0.05
0.003 to 0.05
0.0040 or less
[0062]-[0063]
Ti
0.003 to 0.05
0.003 to 0.05
0.003 to 0.05
0.003 to 0.05
0.0040 or less
[0060]-[0061]
V
0.010 to 0.20
0.010 to 0.20
0.010 to 0.20
0.010 to 0.20
0.0040 or less
[0064]-[0065]
Kim is silent to the presence of P.
Park discloses a non-oriented electrical steel sheet ([0001]), wherein the component composition comprises P: not less than 0.005 Mass% and not more than 0.1 mass% (0.001 to 0.1 wt%) (Park [0041]-[0042]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in the steel of Kim to include 0.001 to 0.1 wt% P to lower the iron loss by increasing the specific resistance and improves the texture of the aggregate by segregating int eh grain boundary without lowering the rolling property (Park [0041]-[0042]). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I).
The limitations of an area ratio of crystal grains having a grain size of not less than 1.5 times the average crystal grain size being not less than 10%, an area ratio of crystal grains having an aspect ratio of not more than 0.3 being not more than 20%, a difference ΔB50 after a heat treatment and the magnetic flux density B50 before the heat treatment is not less than -0.040T, the heat treatment comprising heating the non-oriented electrical steel sheet to an annealing temperature T2 not lower than 750 and not higher than 900°C, and holding the non-oriented electrical steel sheet at the annealing temperature, and a fatigue strength of 450 MPa or higher have been considered and determined to recite properties of the non-oriented electrical steel sheet that result from applicant’s disclosed manufacturing process.
Kim discloses manufacturing ([0072]-[0073]) by heating a slab, hot rolling, annealing, cold rolling, and final annealing ([0074]-[0083]), where final annealing is performed at 850 to 1050°C and results in an average particle diameter of a crystal grain of 50 to 95 um ([0082]).
The process of Kim ([0074]-[0083]) differs from that disclosed in applicant’s specification ([0041]-[0049]) to make the claimed non-oriented electrical steel sheet with respect to controlling the heating rate from 500 to 700°C during the final annealing.
Hayakawa ‘334 discloses manufacturing non-oriented electrical steel sheets ([0001]) including a heating rate at 500°C to the annealing temperature of 700 to 900°C ([0019], [0054], [0085]) of 10 to 15°C/s ([0034], Table 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in the final annealing of Kim to heat from 500°C to the annealing temperature at a rate of 10 to 15°C/s to control the texture during annealing (Hayakawa ‘334 [0010]) by retarding recovery and recrystallization (Hayakawa ‘334 [0046]) and improving the magnetic properties (Hayakawa ‘334 [0040]-[0041], [0085]).
As an alternative to Hayakawa ‘334, Watanabe discloses an electrical steel sheet ([0002]) that undergoes cold rolling then primary recrystallization annealing ([0074]) including rapid heating of not less than 80°C/sec in a temperature range of 500 to 700°C ([0075]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art during the final annealing in Kim to use an average heating rate of not less than 80°C/sec in a temperature range of 500 to 700°C to cause the secondary recrystallization in the final annealing at a lower temperature, so that the side distortion defect due to creep deformation can be significantly reduced (Watanabe [0075]).
Therefore, the composition (Kim [0013], [0017], [0040]-[0068]), structure (grain size Kim [0070], [0082]), and process (heating, hot rolling, annealing, pickling, cold rolling, and final annealing with controlled heating rate, Kim [0074]-[0083]; Hayakawa ‘334 [0019], [0034], [0054], [085]; Watanabe [0074]-[0075]) of the prior art is substantially similar to the composition claimed (claim 1) and the process disclosed by applicant ([0041]-[0049]) that forms the claimed properties. Therefore, the inventive properties naturally from the disclosure of Kim in view of either one of Hayakawa ‘334 or Watanabe, including an area ratio of crystal grains having a grain size of not less than 1.5 times the average crystal grain size being not less than 10%, an area ratio of crystal grains having an aspect ratio of not more than 0.3 being not more than 20%, a difference ΔB50 after a heat treatment and the magnetic flux density B50 before the heat treatment is not less than -0.040T, the heat treatment comprising heating the non-oriented electrical steel sheet to an annealing temperature T2 not lower than 750 and not higher than 900°C, and holding the non-oriented electrical steel sheet at the annealing temperature, and a fatigue strength of 450 MPa or higher.
Claims 1, 15, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayakawa ‘606 (US 2003/0024606) in view of either one of Park (WO 2018/117640 with citations from US 2019/0345576) or Kim (WO 2018/117597 with citations from US 2020/0095659).
Regarding claims 1, 15, and 16, Hayakawa ‘606 discloses a non-oriented electrical steel sheet ([0002], [0009]), characterized that the non-oriented electrical steel sheet has
an overlapping composition ([0011], [0013], [0099]-[0101], [0107]-[0109])
Element
Claim 1
Claim 15
Claim 16
Claim 17
Hayakawa ‘606 Disclosure
Hayakawa ‘606 Citation
C
≤ 0.005
≤ 0.005
≤ 0.005
≤ 0.005
≤ about 0.005 (50 ppm)
[0101], [0108]
Si
2.0 to 5.0
2.7 to 5.0
2.0 to 5.0
2.0 to 5.0
About 1.5 to about 8.0
[0099], [0107]
Mn
0.05 to 5.0
0.05 to 5.0
0.05 to 5.0
0.05 to 5.0
About 0.005 to about 2.50
[0100]
P
0.005 to 0.1
0.005 to 0.1
0.005 to 0.08
0.005 to 0.1
About 0.005 to about 0.50
[0118]
S
≤ 0.01
≤ 0.01
≤ 0.01
≤ 0.01
≤ about 0.005 (50 ppm)
[0101], [0108]
Al
≤ 3.0
≤ 3.0
≤ 3.0
0.31 to 3.0
About 0.0010 to about 0.10
[0109]
N
≤ 0.0050
≤ 0.0050
≤ 0.0050
≤ 0.0050
≤ about 0.005 (50 ppm)
[0101], [0108]
Sb
0.001 to 0.2
0.001 to 0.2
0.001 to 0.2
0.001 to 0.2
About 0.01 to 0.50
[0112]
Ni
0.01 to 3.0
0.01 to 3.0
0.01 to 3.0
0.01 to 3.0
About 0.01 to about 1.50
[0117]
Sn
0.001 to 0.2
0.001 to 0.2
0.001 to 0.2
0.001 to 0.2
About 0.01 to about 1.50
[0118]
Cu
0.05 to 0.5
0.05 to 0.5
0.05 to 0.5
0.05 to 0.5
About 0.01 to about 1.50
[0118]
Cr
0.1 to 5.0
0.1 to 5.0
0.1 to 5.0
0.1 to 5.0
About 0.01 to about 1.50
[0118]
Fe
Residue
Residue
Residue
Residue
Balance
[0002]
an average crystal grain size of not more than 80 µm (about 50 to about 500 um) ([0013], [0103]), and
a magnetic flux density B50(T) of 1.464 or more (high magnetic flux density, [0009]-[0011], Tables 1-6, 8, Figs. 2B, 4-7, 10).
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Hayakawa ‘606 is silent to the non-oriented electrical steel sheet with Zn: not less than 0.0003 mass% and not more than 0.0050 mass%.
Park disclose a non-oriented electrical steel sheet ([0001]) with 0.001 to 0.01 wt% Zn ([0037]-[0038]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in the non-oriented electrical steel sheet of Kohno to include 0.001 to 0.01 wt% Zn to have a significant effect on magnetism without acting as an impurity and dislocating the magnetism (Park [0037]-[0038]). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I).
As an alternative to Park, Kim discloses a non-oriented electrical steel sheet ([0001]) with 0.0005 to 0.02 wt% Zn ([0047]-[0048]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in the non-oriented electrical steel sheet of Kohno to include 0.0005 to 0.02 wt% Zn to improve clarity in the molten steel by reacting with impurity elements without forming fine precipitates (Kim [0047]-[0048]). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I).
The limitations of an area ratio of crystal grains having a grain size of not less than 1.5 times the average crystal grain size being not less than 10%, an area ratio of crystal grains having an aspect ratio of not more than 0.3 being not more than 20%, a difference ΔB50 after a heat treatment and the magnetic flux density B50 before the heat treatment is not less than -0.040T, the heat treatment comprising heating the non-oriented electrical steel sheet to an annealing temperature T2 not lower than 750 and not higher than 900°C, and holding the non-oriented electrical steel sheet at the annealing temperature, and a fatigue strength of 450 MPa or higher have been considered and determined to recite properties of the non-oriented electrical steel sheet that result from applicant’s disclosed manufacturing process.
Hayakawa ‘606 discloses manufacturing by forming a slab, hot rolling the slab, annealing the hot-rolled steel sheet, cold rolling with an interim annealing step, then annealing the cold-rolled steel sheet for recrystallization, where in annealing the cold-rolled sheet the rate of increase in temperature is set to be about 2°C/second or more, such as 10, 20, or 40°C/second, in a range of from about 500 to about 700°C ([0110]-[0115], Table 3) ([0014]).
The composition (Hayakawa ‘606 [0011], [0013], [0099]-[0101], [0107]-[0109]; Park [0037]-[0038]; Kim [0047]-[0048]) and process (heating, hot rolling, annealing, pickling, cold rolling, and final annealing with controlled heating rate, Hayakawa ‘606 [0014], [0110]-[0115]) of the prior art is substantially similar to the composition claimed (claim 1) and the process disclosed by applicant (applicant’s specification [0041]-[0049]) that forms the claimed properties. Therefore, the inventive properties naturally flow from the disclosure of Hayakawa ‘606 in view of either one of Park and Kim, including an area ratio of crystal grains having a grain size of not less than 1.5 times the average crystal grain size being not less than 10%, an area ratio of crystal grains having an aspect ratio of not more than 0.3 being not more than 20%, a difference ΔB50 after a heat treatment and the magnetic flux density B50 before the heat treatment is not less than -0.040T, the heat treatment comprising heating the non-oriented electrical steel sheet to an annealing temperature T2 not lower than 750 and not higher than 900°C, and holding the non-oriented electrical steel sheet at the annealing temperature, and a fatigue strength of 450 MPa or higher.
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 1 and 15-17 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-16 of U.S. Patent No. 11,732,319 (US ‘319) in view of either one of Hayakawa ‘334 (JP 2000-017334 machine translation) or Watanabe (US 2014/0202599).
US ‘319 discloses a composition that overlaps with that claimed (claims 1-16) with an average crystal grain size of not more than 80 um (not more than 40 um) (claim 1) and a fatigue strength of 450 MPa or higher (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. MPEP 2144.05(I).
The limitations of an area ratio of crystal grains having a grain size of not less than 1.5 times the average crystal grain size being not less than 10%, an area ratio of crystal grains having an aspect ratio of not more than 0.3 being not more than 20%, a magnetic flux density B50(T) of 1.464 or more, a difference ΔB50 after a heat treatment and the magnetic flux density B50 before the heat treatment is not less than -0.040T have been considered and determined to recite properties of the non-oriented electrical steel sheet that result from applicant’s heat treatment comprising heating the non-oriented electrical steel sheet to an annealing temperature T2 not lower than 750 and not higher than 900°C, and holding the non-oriented electrical steel sheet at the annealing temperature with a controlled heating rate of 10°C/sec or more.
Hayakawa ‘334 discloses manufacturing non-oriented electrical steel sheets ([0001]) including a heating rate at 500°C to the annealing temperature of 700 to 900°C ([0019], [0054], [0085]) of 10 to 15°C/s ([0034], Table 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in US ‘319 to heat from 500°C to the annealing temperature at a rate of 10 to 15°C/s to control the texture during annealing (Hayakawa ‘334 [0010]) by retarding recovery and recrystallization (Hayakawa ‘334 [0046]) and improving the magnetic properties (Hayakawa ‘334 [0040]-[0041], [0085]).
As an alternative to Hayakawa ‘334, Watanabe discloses an electrical steel sheet ([0002]) that undergoes cold rolling then primary recrystallization annealing ([0074]) including rapid heating of not less than 80°C/sec in a temperature range of 500 to 700°C ([0075]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in US ‘319 to use an average heating rate of not less than 80°C/sec in a temperature range of 500 to 700°C to cause the secondary recrystallization in the final annealing at a lower temperature, so that the side distortion defect due to creep deformation can be significantly reduced (Watanabe [0075]).
Therefore, the composition (US ‘319 claims 1-16), structure (US ‘319 claim 1), and process (annealing with controlled heating rate, Hayakawa ‘334 [0019], [0034], [0054], [085]; Watanabe [0074]-[0075]) of the prior art is substantially similar to the composition claimed (claim 1) and the process disclosed by applicant ([0041]-[0049]) that forms the claimed properties. Therefore, the inventive properties naturally from the disclosure of US ‘319 in view of either one of Hayakawa ‘334 or Watanabe, including an area ratio of crystal grains having a grain size of not less than 1.5 times the average crystal grain size being not less than 10%, an area ratio of crystal grains having an aspect ratio of not more than 0.3 being not more than 20%, a magnetic flux density B50(T) of 1.464 or more, a difference ΔB50 after a heat treatment and the magnetic flux density B50 before the heat treatment is not less than -0.040T.
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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHANI HILL whose telephone number is (571)272-2523. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7am-12pm.
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 WALKER can be reached on 571-272-3458. 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.
/STEPHANI HILL/Examiner, Art Unit 1735
/KEITH WALKER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1735