DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
Claims 1 and 3 are currently amended, Claims 2, 6, and 14 are canceled, Claims 4, 5, and 16-18 are as previously presented, Claims 7, 9-13, 15, 19, and 20 are withdrawn and as previously presented, Claim 8 is withdrawn as originally filed, and Claims 21 and 22 are new.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL - The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 2-5, 16-18, 21, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 1 recites “≤ 0.35 mm.”. The disclosure as originally filed provides support for less than (“<”) only and does not include (“=”) 0.35 mm based on the specification at [0008 and 0050].
Claims dependent on any of the rejected claims are likewise rejected under this statute.
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, 3-5, 16-18, 21, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murakami (US 2010/0158744 A1).
Murakami teaches a non-oriented electrical steel sheet with the following composition with respect to Claims 1 and 17:
wt %
Claim 1
Claim 17
Murakami
C
0.002-0.005
0-0.06
Si
2.6-2.9
0.2-6.5
Al
0.5-0.8
0-2.5
Mn
1.1-1.3
0.5-3.0
Cr
0.7-1.6
0-15.0
N
0.0001-0.0060
0-0.040
S
0.0001-0.0035
0-0.040
Ti
0.001-0.010
0-0.1
P
0.004-0.060
0-0.30
optional
0.001-0.15
taught in Murakawi
Fe, others
remainder
balance
thickness (mm)
≤ 0.35
not explicitly taught
final annealing
≥ 50 sec
5 min to 10 hr
magnetic polarization (A/m)
200
not explicitly taught
electromagnetic alternating field (Hz)
1000
not explicitly taught
([Mn] + [Cr])2 [Wingdings font/0xFB] ρspec
2.2-5.5
not explicitly taught
The composition in Murakami is from [0028-0052]. Utilization of solid solution Cu is optional, or “with need” [0038]. The annealing time is from [0087]. In the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists because the prior art discloses the utility of the composition over the entire disclosed range. See MPEP § 2144.05. Regarding the thickness, Murakami teaches the material can easily be made thinner [0090] as exemplified by the variety of thicknesses in TABLE 2, which includes less than 0.35 mm for a variety of compositions. Regarding the properties of magnetic polarization and electromagnetic alternating field, Murakami does not explicitly teach these properties but does teach a magnetic material with high magnetic flux density [0001] and superior electromagnetic properties [0003]. Cr is added to improve the magnetic properties in the high frequency range [0052]. Based on the information provided in the claims, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the non-oriented electrical steel sheet in Murakami would meet the properties of magnetic polarization and electromagnetic alternating field, since 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. See MPEP § 2112.01.
Regarding Claim 3, Murakami does not explicitly teach the remagnetization losses as claimed. As stated above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the non-oriented electrical steel sheet of Murakawi would meet the property of remagnetization losses, since 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. See MPEP § 2112.01.
Regarding Claims 4, 17, and 21, Murakami does not teach the specific electrical resistance as claimed. As stated above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the non-oriented electrical steel sheet of Murakami would meet the property of specific electrical resistance to meet the equation in Claim 4, 17, or 21, since 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. See MPEP § 2112.01. Mn and Cr at least overlap the claimed ranges. Further regarding Claim 17, the temperature range of 20-24 °C reads on room temperature.
Regarding Claim 5, Murakami does not teach the claimed boundary region depth and the ratio in kg/m3 of the sum of Mn and Cr to the sum of Al and Si as claimed. Murakami does teach a range of
M
n
+
[
C
r
]
A
l
+
[
S
i
]
is
0.5
t
o
18
0.2
t
o
9.0
or >0.055 to 90, which overlaps the claimed range if the volume is constant. Based on the information provided in the claims, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the non-oriented electrical steel sheet of Murakawi would meet the boundary region conditions in Claim 5, since 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. See MPEP § 2112.01.
Regarding Claims 16, 18, and 22, the thickness may be less than 0.35 mm as stated above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tima M. McGuthry-Banks whose telephone number is (571)272-2744. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 7:30 am to 4:00 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 D. 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.
Tima M. McGuthry-Banks
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1733
/TIMA M. MCGUTHRY-BANKS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1733
Prosecution Insights