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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 11/28/2025 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 3-6 and 9-10, 12-14 are pending and are presented for this examination. Claim 1 is amended. Claims 2, 7-8 and 11 are cancelled.
Status of Previous Rejection
All prior art rejections are maintained in view of amendment of claim 1.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) was submitted on 09/03/2024, 05/22/2023 and 10/13/2022 and is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim interpretation
Claim 1 “wherein the base metal has an average crystal grain size of 10 to 80 µm” does not exclude duplex grains which has a crystal structure meeting claimed average crystal grain size because open transitional term “has” is synonymous with “including”, “containing” which is open ended and does not (emphasis added) exclude additional unrecited elements according to MPEP 2111.03 I Comprising.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 3-6, 9-10 and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Fujimura (WO 2018164185A1 using US20200232059 as English Translation) in view of Natori (US20200040423A1).
As for claims 1, 3-6, 9-10 and 12-14, Fujimura discloses a non-oriented electrical steel sheet having a base metal. Table 1 (Col 1) Steel Type L has every elemental composition within presently claimed ranges except C, Al and O as illustrated in Table 1 below. Preferable broad range of C<=0.005% ([0060]) and Al 0.0001-0.7% (paragraph [0078]-[0079]) overlaps claimed Al ranges. Table 2 (Col 9) also illustrates Test No 1-18 using same Steel type L having average grain size, TS and magnetic flux density as required by instant claims 1,3, 10 and 12-14. The steel sheet has an insulating coating (paragraph [0175]) as required by instant claims 4 and 9 on the surface of the base metal.
Table 1
Element
Applicant
(weight %)
Fujimura et al.
(weight %)
Table 1 steel type L
Within/Overlap
(weight %)
C
0.0015-0.004
<=0.005
[0060]
0.0015-0.004
Si
4-5
4.8
4.8
Mn
<=0.19
0.1
0.1
Al
0.01-0.05
0.002
Broad:
0.0001-0.7
0.01-0.05
P
<=0.03
0.01
0.01
S
<=0.003
0.0011
0.0011
N
0.0005-0.003
0.0013
0.0013
O
0.01-0.04
Ca
<0.001
0
0
Ti
<0.005
0
0
Nb
<0.005
0
0
Zr
<0.005
0
0
V
<0.005
0
0
Cu
<0.2
0
0
Ni
<0.5
0
0
Sn
0-0.05
0
0
Sb
0-0.05
0
0
Average grain size (micron)
10-80
14
14
TS (MPa)
Claim 3
>=650
756
756
TS (MPa)
Claim 14
>=700
756
756
Flux density (T)
Claims 10,12-13
>=1.60
1.65
1.65
Fujimura does not expressly disclose instant claim 1 claimed O content and wherein clause.
Regarding claimed O content, Natori discloses a similar non oriented electrical steel sheet as Fujimura. Natori explicitly discloses O at 0.001-0.05% as unavoidably mixed element that increases the iron loss by forming an oxide.
That is, Natori evidences that O at 0.001-0.05% is a well known unavoidable impurity in the field of non-oriented electrical steel sheet.
Hence, it would have been obvious to one skill in the art, at the time the invention is made to include well known impurity element of oxygen content 0.001-0.05% as disclosed by Natori, in the non-oriented electrical steel sheet of Fujimura with expected success.
Regarding instant claim 1 wherein clause, it is a structure limitation due to combination of steel sheet composition and process of making.
Fujimura discloses in claim 3 hot rolling, annealing hot rolled sheet, cold rolling and final annealing. Hence, instant claim 5 required hot rolling, cold rolling and finish annealing sequentially performed is met. Fujimura discloses hot rolled sheet annealing is 750-850 degree C (claim 3) which is within instant claim 6 required <=950 degree C and is between the hot rolling and cold rolling.
Since the steel sheet product of Fujimura and Natori has compositions that meet the instant application composition and is made from a similar process steps as required by instant application , it is therefore reasonable to believe that the claimed structure limitations would have naturally flowed following the suggestion of Fujimura and Natori. See MPEP 2112.01 I.
When the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, the prior art products necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed product. See MPEP 2112.01.
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). "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Therefore, the prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed product. In re Best, 562 F.2d at 1255, 195 USPQ at 433. See also Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985)
Response to Argument
In response to argument filed on 11/28/2025 that steel type L in Table 1 of Fujimura, which has 0.0015% is the carbon content at the slab stage, not the carbon composition in the final non-oriented electrical steel sheet, argument is not persuasive because 0.0015% is still considered close to instant claim 5 required 0.002% of carbon content at the slab stage. Second, Fujimura’s broad range of C in the final non-oriented electrical steel sheet is <=0.005% which overlaps amended 0.002-0.006%. Hence, one skill in the art would have been obvious to select each elemental content include C of Fujimura’s electrical steel sheet to arrive at claimed composition.
Hence, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges overlap or are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. See MPEP 2144.05 I.
Applicant also argues that Fujimura’s crystal structure B does not represent the overall grain size, argument is incommensurate in scope of claimed invention which does not require an overall grain size. Second, because instant claim 1 second wherein clause does not exclude duplex grains which has a crystal structure meeting claimed average crystal grain size according to claim interpretation above, Fujimura’s crystal structure B grain size meets instant claim 1 “wherein the base metal has an average grain size of 10-80 microns”.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNY R WU whose telephone number is (571)270-5515. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:30 AM-5:00 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 on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JENNY R WU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1733