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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/05/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 12/05/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-5 and 7-13 remain pending in the application. Claims 8-13 have been withdrawn due to a restriction requirement. Applicant's amendments to the abstract and specification have overcome the objections previously set forth in the Final Rejection mailed 09/05/2025.
Claim Interpretation
Regarding claim 1, the term “includes” is interpreted as inclusive. The transitional term “including” is synonymous with “comprising”, is inclusive or open-ended and does not exclude additional, unrecited elements or method steps. See MPEP 2111.03(I). Furthermore, dependent claims 2-5 recite additional elements to the chemical composition of the steel sheet recited in claim 1.
Regarding the chemical composition of claims 1-5, elements including zero in their compositional range or including the limitation “or less”, including the claimed C, Nb, V, Cr, Ni, Sn, Sb, P, B, Mg, and Zr, are interpreted as optional elements since the limitation “or less” includes a 0 wt% content. Since dependent claims 2-5 recite optional elements, a steel reading on the claimed composition of claim 1 will be interpreted as also reading on the composition of claims 2-5.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2018/221126 A1 of Masanori (as cited in prior Office action using its equivalent US 2021/0159002 A1 as English translation) in view of WO 2019/017426 A1 of Natori (as cited in IDS mailed 07/13/2023 and using its equivalent US 2020/0040423 A1 as English translation) and further in view of US 2016/0035469 A1 of Yamazaki.
Regarding claims 1-5 and 7, Masanori teaches a non-oriented electrical steel sheet (Abstract, reads on claimed non-oriented electrical steel sheet).
List 1
Instant claims (wt%)
Masanori (mass%)
Si
1.5 to 4.0
3.2-4.5
Al
0.5 to 1.5
0.4-2.0
Mn
0.05 to 0.55
0.1-2.0
C
0.005 or less
Not more than 0.005
Ti
0.004 or less (excluding 0%)
Not more than 0.003
N
0.005 or less (excluding 0%)
Not more than 0.005
S
0.005 or less (excluding 0%)
Not more than 0.005
Cu
0.01 or less (excluding 0%)
-
Claim 2: optionally one or more of
Nb: 0.004 or less
V: 0.004 or less
Claim 3: optionally one or more of
Cr: 0.05 or less
Ni: 0.05 or less
Claim 4: optionally one or more of
Sn: 0.1 or less
Sb: 0.1 or less
Claim 5: optionally one or more of
P: 0.02 or less
B: 0.002 or less
Mg: 0.005 or less
Zr: 0.005 or less
Sn+Sb: 0.005-0.1
P: Not more than 0.02
One or more of Ca, Mg, REM: 0.0005-0.02
As: Not more than 0.003
Mo+W: 0.002-0.1
O: Not more than 0.005
Fe
Balance of Fe and inevitable impurities
Remainder (“and inevitable impurities”)
Formula 1
[N] ≤ 0.005×([Al]+[Ti])
OK
Left-hand side: 0-0.005
Right-hand side: 0.002-0.01
Formula 2
[S] ≤ 0.01×([Mn]+[Cu])
OK
Left-hand side: 0-0.005
Right-hand side: 0.001-0.02
AlN
Diameter: ≤ 100 nm
≤ 0.1 pieces/mm2
Diameter: 50-500 nm
≤ 0.001/μm2 (equivalent to 1000 pieces/mm2)
Masanori teaches a steel with a chemical composition ([0037]-[0063]) overlapping with the claimed steel, as shown in List 1. While Masanori does not explicitly disclose Formula 1 and Formula 2, one can perform the calculation which results in values overlapping with the claimed ranges as shown in List 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); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997). See MPEP § 2144.05 I.
Masanori therefore reads on the limitation a non-oriented electrical steel sheet includes, in wt%, Si: 1.5 to 4.0 %, Al: 0.5 to 1.5 %, Mn: 0.05 to 0.55 %, C: 0.005 % or less, Ti: 0.004 % or less (excluding 0 %), N: 0.005 % or less (excluding 0 %),S: 0.005 % or less (excluding 0 %), and the balance of Fe and inevitable impurities; satisfies Formula 1 and Formula 2 below of claim 1, wherein one or more of Nb and V are further included in an amount of 0.004 wt% or less, respectively of claim 2, wherein one or more of Cr and Ni are further included in an amount of 0.05 wt% or less, respectively of claim 3, wherein one or more of Sn and Sb are further included in an amount of 0.1 wt% or less, respectively of claim 4, further comprising one or more of P: 0.02 wt% or less, B: 0.002 wt% or less, Mg: 0.005 wt% or less, and Zr: 0.005 wt% or less of claim 5.
Regarding the Cu content of claim 1, Masanori teaches the remainder of the steel’s chemical composition being Fe and inevitable impurities ([0024]).
Masanori does not explicitly disclose Cu: 0.001 to 0.0084%0.01% or less (excluding 0 %) of claim 1.
It would have been necessary and obvious to look to the prior art for exemplary types and amounts of impurities in non-oriented electrical steel sheets. Natori teaches a non-oriented electrical steel sheet with a similar chemical composition to Masanori (Abstract) and is considered analogous art since they are both non-oriented electrical steel sheets. Natori teaches copper and nickel are unavoidably incorporated and that there is no need to add Cu and Ni since their intentional addition increases manufacturing costs ([0084]). Natori further teaches the Cu content is set to be less than 0.10%, which is the maximum value that can be unavoidably incorporated in the manufacturing process and the Ni content is set to be less than 0.50% ([0085]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the non-oriented electrical steel sheet of Masanori, and adjusting and varying the impurity content including Cu and Ni content, such as within the claimed ranges, as taught by Natori, in order to form a conventional non-oriented electrical steel sheet using known and tested amounts of impurities predictably suitable for non-oriented electrical steel sheets while balancing manufacturing costs, as taught by Natori.
Modified Masanori therefore reads on the limitation Cu: 0.001 to 0.0084%0.01% or less (excluding 0 %) of claim 1 and, additionally or alternatively, further reads on the limitation wherein one or more of Cr and Ni are further included in an amount of 0.05 wt% or less, respectively of claim 3.
Regarding the AlN precipitates of claim 1, Masanori teaches Al precipitates of AlN and Al2O3 ([0049], Al precipitates read on claimed AlN precipitates). Masanori teaches the Al precipitates have a diameter ranging from 50 to 500 nm in a region below the surface of the steel sheet by not more than 2 μm ([0073], diameter overlaps with the claimed diameter; from a surface to a depth of 2 μm overlaps with the claimed range of from a surface to a depth of 20 μm). Masanori teaches the number density of AlN precipitates is not more than 0.010/μm2 and more preferably not more than 0.001/μm2 to ensure low degrees of nitriding and oxidation on the surface of the steel during finish annealing ([0073], 0.001 precipitates/μm2 is equivalent to 1000 pieces/mm2). 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); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997). See MPEP § 2144.05 I.
Modified Masanori therefore reads on the limitation wherein a number of AlN precipitates having a diameter of 100 nm or less in a cross-section from a surface to a depth of 20 μm is 0.1 pieces/mm2 or less of claim 1.
However, modified Masanori does not explicitly disclose an oxide layer in an inner direction from a surface thereof, wherein the oxide layer includes 50 wt% or more of Al; and a thickness of the oxide layer is 10 to 50 nm of claim 1.
Yamazaki teaches a non-oriented electrical steel sheet and a manufacturing method including a finish annealing step (Abstract). Yamazaki is considered analogous art since it is similarly concerned with a non-oriented electrical steel sheet and includes a finish annealing step in its manufacturing method.
Yamazaki teaches forming an oxide layer containing Al2O3 or (Al, Cr)2O3 and having a thickness of not less than 0.01 μm and not more than 0.5 μm on the surface of the cold-rolled steel strip (claim 1, thickness range is equivalent to 10-500 nm which overlaps with the claimed range; one of ordinary skill in the art understands Al2O3 has an Al content of 53 wt% and therefore overlaps with the claimed range). Yamazaki teaches finish annealing is performed to manufacture the base iron with oxide film on the surface ([0072], an oxide formed on the surface of the steel reads on the claimed oxide layer in an inner direction from a surface thereof). Yamazaki teaches the oxide layer contributes to the improvement of the adhesiveness between the base iron and the tension applying type insulating film, and the magnetic property in the rolling direction is significantly improved ([0012]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the steel of modified Masanori by adding the Al2O3 layer of Yamazaki and adjusting and varying the oxide thickness, such as within claimed ranges, to improve adhesiveness between the base iron and insulating film, and significantly improve the magnetic property of the steel sheet, as taught by Yamazaki.
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); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997). See MPEP § 2144.05 I.
Modified Masanori therefore reads on the limitation an oxide layer in an inner direction from a surface thereof, wherein the oxide layer includes 50 wt% or more of Al; and a thickness of the oxide layer is 10 to 50 nm of claim 1.
Modified Masanori therefore reads on all the limitations of claims 1-5.
Regarding the grain size of claim 7, Masanori teaches subjecting the cold-rolled sheet to finish annealing at 1000°C in a 30 vol% H2/ 70 vol% N2 with a dew point of -50°C ([0032]) to positively prevent oxidation and nitriding in the finish annealing to avoid adverse effects on the iron loss ([0034]).
However, Masanori does not explicitly disclose wherein an average grain size is 50 to 100 μm of claim 7.
Given the overlapping chemical composition, structure, and processing steps between modified Masanori and the instant invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect the steel of modified Masanori to necessarily possess the claimed average grain size despite not explicitly measuring or disclosing it.
Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP § 2112.01 I. “Products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties.” A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP § 2112.01 II. Therefore, it is expected that the steel of the prior art possesses the properties as claimed in the instant claims since a) the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in composition (see compositional analysis above), b) the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure (both are non-oriented electrical steel sheets with oxide layer and precipitates overlapping in composition, size and number as described above), and c) the claimed and prior art products are produced by identical or substantially identical processes (both perform a final annealing step with overlapping environments and temperatures). Since the Office does not have a laboratory to test the reference alloy, it is applicant’s burden to show that the reference alloy does not possess the properties as claimed in the instant claims. See In re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977); In re Marosi, 218 USPQ 289, 292-293 (Fed. Cir. 1983); In re Fitzgerald et al., 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980).
One of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect the steel of modified Masanori to necessarily possess the claimed average grain size given the overlapping chemical composition, structure, and processing between modified Masanori and the instant invention.
Modified Masanori therefore reads on the limitation wherein an average grain size is 50 to 100 μm of claim 7.
As further evidence that one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect overlapping grain sizes resulting from the final annealing step of Masanori, the instant specification recites when final annealing is in the range of 700 to 1050°C the average grain size may be 50 to 100 μm (page 19, lines 2-6).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-5 and 7 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
The 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection has been updated in this Office action to address amendments to claim 1 narrowing the claimed Cu range.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAYELA ALDAZ whose telephone number is (571)270-0309. The examiner can normally be reached Monday -Thursday: 10 am - 7 pm and alternate Friday: 10 am - 6 pm.
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 (571) 272-1401. 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.
/M.A./Examiner, Art Unit 1733
/REBECCA JANSSEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1733