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 KR 10-2019-0170890 filed December 19, 2019 as required by 37 CFR 1.55. Receipt is also acknowledged of a copy of WO 2021/125685, the WIPO publication of PCT/KR2020/017978 filed December 9, 2020.
Status of Claims
This Office Action is in response to Applicant’s Remarks and Claim Amendments filed July 7, 2026.
Claims Filing Date
July 7, 2026
Amended
1
Cancelled
5, 6
Pending
1-4, 7-11
Withdrawn
10, 11
Under Examination
1-4, 7-9
Withdrawn Claim Objection
The following objection is withdrawn due to claim 1 amendment:
Line 2 “As: 0.002 to 0.01” not having a %.
Withdrawn Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following 112(b) rejection is withdrawn due to claim amendment:
Claim 1 line 2 “P: 0.002 to 0.015 %, and As: 0.002 to 0.01” and lines 6-8 “[Formula 1] 0.005≤([P]+[As])≤0.015 in Formula 1, [P] and [As] represent a content (wt%) of P and As, respectively”.
The applicant persuasively argues amended claim 1 recites P of 0.002 to 0.0148 along with the claimed As is consistent with claimed Formula 1, [P]+[As] of 0.005 to 0.015 (p. 5 para. 6).
The following 112(b) rejection is withdrawn due to argument:
Claim 1 line 3 “wherein an average grain size ([GS]) thereof is 90 to 200 um” and lines 12-14 “in Formula 2, [GS] is an average grain size (um) measured when 10,000 or more grains having a grain size of 5 to 500 um are observed on a surface of the steel sheet”.
The applicant persuasively argues the average grain size, [GS], of 90 to 200 um is when 10,000 or more grains having grain size of 5 to 500 um are observed on a surface of the steel sheet, consistent with the measurement definition set forth in Formula 2, eliminating the ambiguity (para. spanning pp. 5-6).
Response to Remarks filed July 7, 2026
Applicant's arguments filed July 7, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues applicant’s Tables 1-3 demonstrate advantageous magnetic properties obtained by employing the claimed steel composition, and Tables 4-6 demonstrate controlling the grain size and standard deviation produce superior magnetic properties (para. spanning pp. 6-7, p. 9 paras. 4-5), where the claimed size depends on the manufacturing conditions, such as final annealing, including strip tensions at the inlet and outlet sides of the annealing furnace and the cooling rate, which directly influence recrystallization and grain growth and determine average grain size and grain size distribution represented by the standard deviation (p. 7 para. 3).
Claim 1 recites [GS] and [STD] and claims 8 and 9 recite magnetic properties. [GS] and [STD] are presented in Table 2 and magnetic properties in Table 3.
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)(II).
With respect to [GS] and [STD], two comparative examples (A6, A9) have [GS] values outside of the claimed range, but the remaining comparative examples have [GS] within the claimed range. All of the [STD] of the comparative examples are within the claimed range. Claim 9 lines 2-8 recite Formula 3 to Formula 5, where as presented in the following table, both the inventive and comparative examples satisfy Formulas 3, 4, and 5. “Expected beneficial results are evidence of obviousness of a claimed invention.” MPEP 716.02(c)(II).
Claim Feature
Claims 1, 8, 9
Tables 2, 3
Inventive
Tables 2, 3
Comparative
[GS]
90 to 200 um
101 to 162 um
82 to 144 um
[STD]
60 to 100 um
63 to 89 um
63 to 88 um
W15/50
2.0 W/Kg or less
1.84 to 1.95
2.12 to 2.36
[Formula 3] (W5/50) / (W15/50)
≤ 0.15
0.12-0.15
0.12-0.15
[Formula 4] (W10/50) / (W15/50)
≤ 0.45
0.39-0.43
0.41-0.44
[Formula 5] (B1) / (B50)
≥ 0.65
0.66-0.68
0.65-0.66
Claim 8 line 2 recites an iron loss (W15/50) of 2.0 W/Kg or less. Applicant’s Table 3 presents (W15/50) with the highest inventive example at 1.93 W/Kg (A8) and the lowest comparative example at 2.12 W/Kg (A11). This data is insufficient to establish the criticality of the iron loss (W15/50).
With respect to applicant’s arguments regarding tensions at the inlet and outlet sides of the annealing furnace and the cooling rate during final annealing, these are process. The pending claims are directed to a non-oriented electrical steel sheet product. Patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claimed is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a difference process,” MPEP 2113(I).
With respect to processing, applicant’s specification states grain growth during annealing of the hot rolled sheet (19:12-21) and during annealing of the cold rolled sheet, where the standard deviation is influenced by controlling the cooling rate (20:6-21:6). Therefore, the annealing cooling rate controls the grain size.
As presented in detail below, the prior art controls the annealing cooling rate, such that the claimed grain size standard deviation naturally flows.
Applicant’s specification states that the annealing tension is important to improve characteristics of the low magnetic field and that controlling the tension reduces residual stress and improves characteristics in the low magnetic field as well as the high magnetic field (21:7 to 22:3). Therefore, the annealing tension controls the magnetic properties.
As presented in detail below, the prior art controls the annealing tension, such that the claimed magnetic properties naturally flow.
Shin (WO 2019/132129 with citations from English language equivalent US 2021/0062281) in view of Fujimura (JP 2006-104557 machine translation)
The applicant argues Shin fails to disclose controlling the strip tension during final annealing or controlling the cooling conditions to produce the claimed grain size distribution (p. 7 para. 5,) Fujimura fails to disclose As and not controlling strip tension during annealing (p. 7 para. 6), and Jo does not disclose the claimed As-containing composition of cooling conditions (p. 8 para. 8), such that the cited prior art fails to teach process conditions for obtaining the claimed grain size distribution (p. 7 para. 6) and evidence to substantiate the natural flow of the claimed properties has not been presented (p. 8 para. 2).
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).
Shin in view of Fujimura discloses cooling at a rate of 1 to 50°C/s after annealing to control the transformation from austenite to ferrite, optimizing ferrite particle size, achieving good magnetic properties, and obtaining desired yield strength (Fujimura [0045]-[0046]), which contributes to obtaining the claimed grain size distribution.
Magnetic properties are recited in claims 8 and 9 and are further rejected over Jo to render obvious controlling the strip tension during annealing to improve iron loss (Jo [0001], [0007]-[0009], [0022]-[023]).
For the above cite reasons, the rejections of Shin in view of Fujimura and Shin in view of Fujimura and Jo are maintained.
Maeda (JP H11-310857 machine translation) in view of Kawamata (JP 2017-066469 machine translation)
The applicant argues Maeda discusses grain characteristics related to a different grain parameter and not the claimed relationship between average grain size and standard deviation and Maeda does not disclose As (p. 8 para. 4), that while Kawamata is relied upon for As, Kawamata does not disclose the claimed grain size distribution or relationship between average grain size and standard deviation nor controlling strip tensions during final annealing and cooling conditions to produce the claimed microstructure (p. 8 para. 5), Kim fails to disclose the claimed As containing composition, grain size distribution, or manufacturing conditions (p. 9 para. 1), and Senda and Lee fail to disclose the claimed As-containing composition, the claimed average grain size and standard deviation, or manufacturing conditions (p. 9 para. 2).
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).
The prior art also discloses a substantially similar composition (Maeda [0019, [0024]-[0031], claim 1) including As as an inevitable impurity that is limited in terms of excellent magnetic properties (Kawamata [0032]), average grain size (Maeda [0023], [0038], Table 4), and standard deviation (Maeda [0023], [0038], Table 4), such that a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Maeda renders obvious the iron loss of claim 8 ([0047], [0057]). MPEP 2144.05(I).
Magnetic properties are also recited in claim 9 of iron loss which are further rejected over Senda and Lee to advantageously improve energy use (Senda [0032], [0045]; Lee [0002]) by reducing iron loss (Senda [0032], [0045]) and resulting in a high magnetic flux density (Lee [0002]).
For the above cite reasons, the rejections of Maeda in view of Kawamata and Maeda in view of Kawata, Senda, and Lee are maintained.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 1 line 5 “wherein a standard deviation ([STD]) thereof is 60 to 100 um” is interpreted as being a standard deviation of the average grain size [GS]. [GS] and [STD] have the same units of um. Applicant’s specification at 16:1-6 states “the grain satisfies Formula 2 below.” [STD] is present in [Formula 2] (claim 1 lines 10-15).
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.
Claims 1-4 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shin (WO 2019/132129 A1 with citations from English language equivalent is US 2021/0062281 A1) in view of Fujimura (JP 2006-104557 machine translation).
Regarding claim 1, Shin discloses a non-oriented electrical steel sheet ([0001], [0010]), comprising an overlapping composition ([0012]-[0023], [0044]-[0074]), and satisfying Formula 1 and Formula 2,
wherein an average grain size ([GS]) thereof is 90 to 200 um (60 to 170 um) ([0020], [0075]):
[Formula 1]
0.005 ≤ ([P]+[As]) ≤ 0.015 in Formula 1 (0.002 to 0.11),
[P] and [As] represent a content (wt%) of P and As, respectively ([0060]-[0063]).
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 (wt%)
Shin Disclosure (mass%)
Shin Citation
Si
2.5 to 4.0
2.0 to 4.0
[0046]-[0047]
Mn
0.1 to 1.0
0.05 to 2.5
[0050]-[0051]
Al
0.5 to 1.5
0.05 to 1.5
[0048]-[0049]
P
0.002 to 0.0148
0.001 to 0.1
[0060]-[0061]
As
0.002 to 0.01
0.001 to 0.01
[0062]-[0063]
Fe
balance
remainder
[0044]
Shin is silent to a standard deviation ([STD]).
Shin discloses a production method (Shin [0080]-[0086]) that is substantially similar to that disclosed by applicant to make the claimed non-oriented electrical steel sheet (applicant’s specification 18:8 to 21:6).
Applicant’s Disclosure 18:8 to 21:6
Shin [0080]-[0086]
Hot Rolling a Slab
Heat 1200°C or less
Finish rolling 800 to 1000°C
Thickness 2 to 2.3 mm
Hot Rolling a Slab
Heat 1100 to 1250°C
Finish rolling 800 to 1000°C
Thickness 1.0 to 2.3 mm
Annealing (optional)
950 to 1150°C
Annealing (optional)
850 to 1150°C
Cold Rolling
Thickness 0.10 to 0.50 mm
50% to 95% reduction ratio
Cold Rolling
Thickness 0.2 to 0.65 mm
70 to 95% reduction ratio
Final Annealing
900 to 1100°C
Cool to 700°C at 30°C/s or less
Final Annealing
850 to 1150°C
-
Shin is silent to the final (finish) annealing cooling rate.
Fujimura discloses a non-oriented electrical steel sheet ([0001], [0007]) manufactured by finish annealing at 900 to 1150°C )[0042]-[0043]) then cooling to a temperature of 700°C or below in the range of 1 °C/s or more than 50°C/s or less ([0045]-[0046]).
In the finish annealing of Shin it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to cool to 700°C or below in the range of 1°C/s or more and 50°C/s or less to control the transformation temperature from austenite to ferrite, thereby optimizing the ferrite particle size and controlling the average cooling rate is important for achieving good magnetic properties and obtaining the desired yield strength (Fujimura [0046]).
Therefore, Shin in view of Fujimura discloses a process that is substantially similar to that disclosed by applicant to make the claimed non-oriented electrical steel sheet.
A standard deviation ([STD]) thereof being 60 to 100 um and [Formula 2] [STD] ≤ 0.7x[GS] in Formula 2, [GS] being an average grain size (um) measured when 10,000 or more grains having a grain size of 5 to 500 m are observed on a surface of the steel sheet, and STD being a standard deviation (um) at that time, have been considered and determined to recite properties of the claimed non-oriented electrical steel sheet that result from the claimed composition undergoing the disclosed processing. Shin in view of Fujimura discloses a non-oriented electrical steel sheet (Shin [0001], [0010]; Fujimura [0001], [0007]) with a substantially similar composition, including [Formula 1] (Shin [0012]-[0023], [0044]-[0074]), and average grain size (Shin [0020], [0075]) manufactured by a substantially similar process (Shin [0080]-[0086]; Fujimura [0042]-[0046]), such that the claimed standard deviation being 60 to 100 um and [Formula 2] [STD] ≤ 0.7x[GS] naturally flow from the disclosure of the prior art.
Regarding claim 2, Shin discloses at least one of C: 0.005 wt% or less (equal to or less than 0.005 wt%) ([0052]-[0053]), S: 0.005 wt% or less (equal to or less than 0.005%) ([0074]), N: 0.005 wt% or less (equal to or less than 0.005%) ([0044]), and Ti: 0.005 wt% or less (0.0005 to 0.01%) ([0067]-[0069]). 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).
Regarding claim 3, Shin discloses at least one of Sn: 0.2 wt% or less (0.001 to 0.1%) ([0056]-[0057]) and Sb: 0.2 wt% or less (0.001 to 0.1%) ([0058]-[0059]). 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).
Regarding claim 4, Shin discloses at least one of Cu: 0.05 wt% or less (equal to or less than 0.005%) ([0074]), Ni: 0.05 wt% or less, Cr: 0.05 wt% or less, Zr:0.01 wt% or less (equal to or less than 0.005%) ([0074]), Mo: 0.01 wt% or less, and V: 0.01 wt% or less (0.0005 to 0.01%) ([0067]-[0069]). 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).
Regarding claim 7, a specific resistance (p) thereof being 60 uOhm∙cm or more at room temperature has been considered and determined to recite a property of the claimed non-oriented electrical steel sheet. Shin in view of Fujimura discloses a non-oriented electrical steel sheet (Shin [0001], [0010]; Fujimura [0001], [0007]) with a substantially similar composition, including [Formula 1] (Shin [0012]-[0023], [0044]-[0074]), and average grain size (Shin [0020], [0075]) manufactured by a substantially similar process (Shin [0080]-[0086]; Fujimura [0042]-[0046]), such that the claimed specific resistance (p) thereof being 60 uOhm∙cm or more at room temperature naturally flows from the disclosure of the prior art.
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shin (WO 2019/132129 A1 with citations from English language equivalent is US 2021/0062281 A1) in view of Fujimura (JP 2006-104557 machine translation) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Jo (KR 10-1739862 machine translation).
Regarding claim 8, iron loss (W15/50) thereof being 2.0 W/Kg or less has been considered and determined to recite a property of the claimed non-oriented electrical steel sheet that result from the claimed composition undergoing the disclosed processing (applicant’s specification 18:8 to 22:7).
Shin in in view of Fujimura is silent to the tension during annealing.
Jo discloses manufacture of non-oriented electrical steel sheets including controlling strip tension during annealing ([0001], [0007]-[0010]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in the final annealing process of Shin in view of Fujimura to control the strip tension during annealing to improve iron loss quality (Jo [0001], [0007]-[0009], [0022]-[0023]), where iron loss tends to be better as tension decreases such that it is necessary to operate under minimum tension conditions (Jo [0006]). Jo discloses in-side tension control and out-side tension control by adjusting the driving speed (Jo [0010]-[0013], [0016], [0019], [0032]-[0033], [0045]-[0046]) to prevent deterioration of iron loss (Jo [0044]).
Therefore, Shin in view of Fujimura and Jo discloses a process including controlling the in-let and out-let tension during annealing to improve iron loss (Jo [0001], [0006]-[0013], [0016], [0019], [0022]-[0023], [0032]-[0033], [0045]-[0046]). Generally, differences in concentration or temperature (or strip tension during annealing) will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
Shin in view of Fujimura and Jo discloses a non-oriented electrical steel sheet (Shin [0001], [0010]; Fujimura [0001], [0007]) with a substantially similar composition, including [Formula 1] (Shin [0012]-[0023], [0044]-[0074]), and average grain size (Shin [0020], [0075]) manufactured by a substantially similar process (Shin [0080]-[0086]; Fujimura [0042]-[0046]; Jo [0001], [0006]-[0013], [0016], [0019], [0022]-[0023], [0032]-[0033], [0044]-[0046]), such that the claimed iron loss (W15/50) thereof being 2.0 W/Kg or less naturally flows from the disclosure of the prior art.
Regarding claim 9, the non-oriented electrical steel sheet satisfying the following Formula 3 to Formula 5:
[Formula 3]
Iron loss (W5/50)/lron loss (W15/50) ≤ 0.15
[Formula 4]
Iron loss (W10/50)/lron loss (W15/50) ≤ 0.45
[Formula 5]
Magnetic flux density (B1 )/Magnetic flux density (B50) ≥ 0.65
have been considered and determined to recite properties of the claimed non-oriented electrical steel sheet that result from the claimed composition undergoing the disclosed processing (applicant’s specification 18:8 to 22:7).
Shin in in view of Fujimura is silent to the tension during annealing.
Jo discloses manufacture of non-oriented electrical steel sheets including controlling strip tension during annealing ([0001], [0007]-[0010]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in the final annealing process of Shin in view of Fujimura to control the strip tension during annealing to improve iron loss quality (Jo [0001], [0007]-[0009], [0022]-[0023]), where iron loss tends to be better as tension decreases such that it is necessary to operate under minimum tension conditions (Jo [0006]). Jo discloses in-side tension control and out-side tension control by adjusting the driving speed (Jo [0010]-[0013], [0016], [0019], [0032]-[0033], [0045]-[0046]) to prevent deterioration of iron loss (Jo [0044]).
Therefore, Shin in view of Fujimura and Jo discloses a process including controlling the in-let and out-let tension during annealing to improve iron loss (Jo [0001], [0006]-[0013], [0016], [0019], [0022]-[0023], [0032]-[0033], [0045]-[0046]). Generally, differences in concentration or temperature (or strip tension during annealing) will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
Shin in view of Fujimura and Jo discloses a non-oriented electrical steel sheet (Shin [0001], [0010]; Fujimura [0001], [0007]) with a substantially similar composition, including [Formula 1] (Shin [0012]-[0023], [0044]-[0074]), and average grain size (Shin [0020], [0075]) manufactured by a substantially similar process (Shin [0080]-[0086]; Fujimura [0042]-[0046]; Jo [0001], [0006]-[0013], [0016], [0019], [0022]-[0023], [0032]-[0033], [0044]-[0046]), such that the claimed [Formula 3] Iron loss (W5/50)/lron loss (W15/50) ≤ 0.15; [Formula 4] Iron loss (W10/50)/lron loss (W15/50) ≤ 0.45; [Formula 5] Magnetic flux density (B1 )/Magnetic flux density (B50) ≥ 0.65 naturally flow from the disclosure of the prior art.
Claims 1-4, 7, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maeda (JP H11-310857 machine translation) in view of Kawamata (JP 2017-066469 machine translation).
Regarding claim 1, Maeda discloses a non-oriented electrical steel sheet ([0001]), comprising an overlapping composition ([0019], [0024]-[0031], claim 1),
wherein an average grain size ([GS]) thereof is 90 to 200 um (60 um or more, 600 um or less) ([0023], [0038], Table 4),
wherein a standard deviation ([STD]) thereof is 60 to 100 um (average crystal grain size of 60 um or more and 600 um or less with a grain size variation coefficient preferably of 70% or less has a STD of (42 to 420) um or less (0.7*60 to 0.7*600) ([0023], [0038], Table 4)
and satisfying Formula 2,
[Formula 2]
[STD] ≤ 0.7x[GS]
in Formula 2,
[GS] is an average grain size (um) measured when 10,000 or more grains having a grain size of 5 to 500 m are observed on a surface of the steel sheet, and STD is a standard deviation (um) at that time (grain size variation coefficient preferably of 70% or less) ([0023], [0038], Table 4).
Element
Claim 1 (wt%)
Maeda (wt%)
Maeda Citation
Si
2.5 to 4.0
4 or less
[0026]
Mn
0.1 to 1.0
0.05 to 4
[0027]
Al
0.5 to 1.5
4 or less
[0028]
P
0.002 to 0.0148
0.15 or less
Claim 1
As
0.002 to 0.01
-
-
Fe
balance
Balance
[0031]
Maeda is silent to the presence of As.
Kawamata discloses a non-oriented electrical steel sheet ([0001], [0012]) including 0.003% or less As ([0032]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in the steel of Maeda to include 0.003% or less As because it is an inevitable impurity and is limited in terms of excellent magnetic properties (Kawamata [0023]).
With respect to satisfying Formula 1, Maeda in view of Kawamata discloses
[Formula 1]
0.005 ≤ ([P]+[As]) ≤ 0.015 in Formula 1 (0.153 or less),
[P] and [As] represent a content (wt%) of P and As, respectively (Maeda Claim 1; Kawamata [0032]).
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).
Regarding claim 2, Maeda discloses at least one of C: 0.005 wt% or less (0.003% or less) ([0025], S: 0.005 wt% or less (up to 0.035%) ([0030]), N: 0.005 wt% or less, and Ti: 0.005 wt% or less. 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).
Regarding claim 3, Maeda is silent to at least one of Sn: 0.2 wt% or less and Sb: 0.2 wt% or less.
Kawamata discloses at least one of Sn: 0.2 wt% or less (0.2% or less) ([0031]) and Sb: 0.2 wt% or less.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in the steel of Maeda to include 0.2% or less Sn to improve magnetic properties (Kawamata [0031]). 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).
Regarding claim 4, Maeda is silent to at least one of Cu: 0.05 wt% or less, Ni: 0.05 wt% or less, Cr: 0.05 wt% or less, Zr:0.01 wt% or less, Mo: 0.01 wt% or less, and V: 0.01 wt% or less.
Kawamata discloses at least one of Cu: 0.05 wt% or less, Ni: 0.05 wt% or less, Cr: 0.05 wt% or less (1.0% or less) ([0030]), Zr:0.01 wt% or less (0.003% or less) ([0032]), Mo: 0.01 wt% or less, and V: 0.01 wt% or less.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in the steel of Maeda to include 1.0% or less Cr to improve magnetic properties (Kawamata [0030]) and 0.003% or less Zr as an inevitable impurity and is limited in terms of excellent magnetic properties (Kawamata [0023]). 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).
Regarding claim 7, a specific resistance (p) thereof being 60 uOhm∙cm or more at room temperature has been considered and determined to recite a property of the claimed non-oriented electrical steel sheet. Maeda in view of Kawamata discloses a non-oriented electrical steel sheet (Maeda [0001]; Kawamata [0001], [0012]) with a substantially similar composition, including [Formula 1] (Maeda [0019], [0024]-[0031], claim 1; Kawamata [0032]), and average grain size and standard deviation (Maeda [23], [0038], Table 4), such that the claimed specific resistance (p) thereof being 60 uOhm∙cm or more at room temperature naturally flows from the disclosure of the prior art.
Regarding claim 8, Maeda discloses iron loss (W15/50) thereof being 2.0 W/Kg or less (1.52 W/kg, Ex. 6 Table 1 [0047]; 1.14 W/kg Ex. 36 Table 3 [0057], such that it is within the scope of Maeda to satisfy this 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. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maeda (JP H11-310857 machine translation) in view of Kawamata (JP 2017-066469 machine translation) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kim (KR 20180070949 with citations from English equivalent US 2020/0080175).
Regarding claim 7, Kim discloses a non-oriented electrical steel sheet ([0001]) having a specific resistance (p) thereof being 60 uOhm∙cm or more at room temperature (55 to 75 uOhm∙cm) ([0017], [0067]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to control the specific resistance of the non-oriented electrical steel sheet of Maeda in view of Kawamata to be 55 to 75 uOhm∙cm to prevent magnetic flux density from deteriorating, which causes the steel to become unsuitable for a motor (Kim [0067]). Further, Kim discloses specific resistance is enhanced by 2.0 to 3.5% Si ([0035]-[0037]), 0.3 to 2.5% Al ([0038]-[0039]), and 0.3 to 2.5% Mn ([0040]-[0041]), which are within the scope of the composition of Maeda ([0026]-[0028]). 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).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maeda (JP H11-310857 machine translation) in view of Kawamata (JP 2017-066469 machine translation) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Senda (JP 2003-256093 machine translation) and Lee (US 2018/0355450).
Regarding claim 9, Maeda discloses W15/50 between 1.52 and 7.21 W/kg (Table 1).
Maeda is silent to W5/50 and W10/50.
Senda discloses electrical steel sheets ([0005]) having iron loss W5/50 values between 0.2 and 0.28 W/kg and iron loss W10/50 values between 0.85 and 1 (Fig. 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in the non-oriented electrical steel sheet of Maeda to control W5/50 between 0.2 and 0.28 W/kg and W10/50 values between 0.85 and 1 because reducing iron loss is important to reduce energy loss in the iron core of an electric motor (Senda [0032], [0045]).
Therefore, with respect to [Formula 3], Maeda in view of Senda discloses iron loss (W5/50)/iron loss (W15/50) between 0.028 and 1.84. With respect to [Formula 4], Maeda in view of Senda discloses iron loss (W10/50)/iron loss (W15/50) between 0.118 and 0.658. 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).
Maeda is silent to Magnetic flux density (B1)/Magnetic flux density (B50) ≥ 0.65.
Lee discloses a non-oriented electrical steel sheet ([0001]) having Magnetic flux density (B1)/Magnetic flux density (B50) ≥ 0.65 (0.69 to 0.70 with B1 between 1.17 and 1.19 T and B50 between 1.68 and 1.69 T) (Table 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in the non-oriented electrical steel sheet of Maeda to control B1/B50 to be 0.69 to 0.70 because a high magnetic flux density improves energy efficiency of a motor (Lee [0002]). 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).
Related Art
Zaizen (US 2015/0187475)
Zaizen discloses a non-oriented electrical steel sheet ([0001], [0011]), comprising an overlapping composition ([0008]-[0010], [0019], [0025], [0031], [0035]-[0051]), and satisfying Formula 1, wherein an average grain size ([GS]) thereof is 90 to 200 um (30 to 150 um) ([0009], [0033]-[0034]): [Formula 1] 0.005 ≤ ([P]+[As]) ≤ 0.015 in Formula 1 (0.0005 to not more than 0.205 with most the inventive examples ranging from 0.0065 to 0.1215, Nos. 20 and 27, respectively, with all but 3 of the inventive examples being between 0.009 and 0.0165), [P] and [As] represent a content (wt%) of P and As, respectively ([0044]-[0045], [0048]-[0049], Table 1).
Element
Claim 1 (wt%)
Zaizen Disclosure (mass%)
Zaizen Citation
Si
2.5 to 4.0
2 to 7
[0038]-[0039]
Mn
0.1 to 1.0
0.03 to 3
[0040]-[0041]
Al
0.5 to 1.5
Not more than 3
[0042]-[0043]
P
0.002 to 0.0148
Not more than 0.2
[0044]-[0045]
As
0.002 to 0.01
0.0005 to 0.005
[0048]-[0049]
Fe
balance
remainder
[0008]
Zaizen also discloses a production method (Zaizen [0052]-[0057], Table 1) that is substantially similar to that disclosed by applicant to make the claimed non-oriented electrical steel sheet (applicant’s specification 18:8 to 21:6).
Applicant’s Disclosure 18:8 to 21:6
Zaizen [0052]-[0057], Table 2
Hot Rolling a Slab
Heat 1200°C or less
Thickness 2 to 2.3 mm
Hot Roll a Slab
Heat 1100°C
Thickness 2.0 mm
Cold Rolling
Optional intermediate annealing
Thickness 0.10 to 0.50 mm
Cold Roll
Optional intermediate annealing
Thickness 0.15 to 0.35 mm
Final Annealing
900 to 1100°C
Cool to 700°C at 30°C/s or less
Finish Annealing
770 to 1050°C
-
Yashiki (JP 2018-066033 machine translation)
Kato discloses a non-oriented electrical steel sheet ([0008]) including greater than 0 to 0.0050% C, 3.0 to 4.0% Si, 2.0 to 3.3% Mn, greater than 0 to less than 0.030% P, greater than 0 to 0.0050% S, more than 0 to 0.0040% Al, greater than 0 to 0.0040% N, Si-0.5*Mn of 2.0% or more, at least one of 0.005 to 0.10% Sn and 0.005 to 0.10% Sb, and Fe ([0010], [0014]-[0016], [0020]-[0034]) and 0.0001 to 0.0050% As ([0035]) with an average grain size of 55 um to 200 um ([0038]). Kato discloses finish annealing from 750°C to 1050°C with a cooling rate more preferably of 5°C/second to 30°C/second ([0054]-[0057]).
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, Wednesday-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 at 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
Prosecution Insights