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. Election/Restrictions Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-6, 19 and 20 in the reply filed on 18 July 2025 is acknowledged. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis ( i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. 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. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2018-003049 A with a machine translation (submitted on 31 August 2023) (hereinafter “Satoshi”) being used as the English language equivalent translation . Regarding claim 1 Satoshi teaches a non-oriented electrical steel sheet comprising a silicon steel sheet as a base material, wherein the silicon steel sheet has a mechanical property depending on a direction with respect to a rolling direction (paragraphs [0009], [0010], [0016], [0018], [0023], [0033] and [0054]). Satoshi teaches a difference between a maximum value and a minimum value of diameters of circular holes after punching with a circular die having a diameter of 21 mm ranges from 4.0 to 15.0 µm (paragraph [0046], and Tables 7-8), and the difference is considered to be 0.00045% (0.0095/21), which falls within the claimed range, when an average difference between a maximum value and a minimum value of diameters of 9.5 µm is used. Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Satoshi as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of JP 2010-284063 A with a machine translation (submitted on 31 August 2023) (hereinafter “Yamada”) being used as the English language equivalent translation . Regarding claim 2 The limitations for claim 1 have been set forth above. In addition, Satoshi does not explicitly teach a predetermined property satisfies Formula (1), as defined in claim 2. Yamada teaches a stack of magnetic steel sheets, where higher elastic modulus direction of the magnetic steel sheets is made to match the maximum deformation direction of a stator (abstract). Yamada teaches the electromagnetic steel sheets forming a stator are formed by rolling , and a relationship between the rolling direction and the elastic modulus (Young’s modulus) of the electrical steel sheet is the largest at a direction 45° to the rolling direction (paragraph [0027]). Yamada teaches w hen the Young's modulus in the direction of 45 ° with respect to the rolling direction is 100 (E45 = 100) , the Young's modulus in the direction of 0 ° with respect to the rolling direction is 85 (E0 = 85) , for example, and the Young's modulus in the direction of 90 ° with respect to the rolling direction is a bout 90 (E90 = 90) . In this embodiment, the direction (indicated by the arrow 3045) that forms an angle of 45 ° with respect to the rolling direction is the direction in which the Young's modulus of the electromagnetic steel sheet is the largest, and thus the maximum deformation point 3500 is indicated by the arrow 3045. The electromagnetic steel plates of the stator 2210 are arranged so that the directions intersect. As a result, even when a large load in the direction indicated by the arrow 3045 is applied to the stator 2210, deformation of the maximum deformation location 3500 can be suppressed ( Id ) . Yamada’s teachings result in claimed Formula (1) corresponding to: (E0+E90)/(2xE45) = (85+90)/(2x100) = 0.875, which satisfies 0.8100 < 0.875 < 1.0000. Satoshi and Yamada are analogous inventions in the field of magnetic steel sheets . It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of the invention to modify the elastic modulus (Young’s modulus) of the electrical steel sheet of Satoshi with the relationship between the rolling direction and the elastic modulus (Young’s modulus) of the electrical steel sheet of Yamada to suppress the deformation of a maximum deformation location and /or permit the magnetic steel sheet to be useful in a stator application. Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Satoshi as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of JP 2004-225132 A with a machine translation (submitted on 31 August 2023) (hereinafter “Kimura”) being used as the English language equivalent translation . Regarding claim 3 The limitations for claim 1 have been set forth above. In addition, Satoshi does not explicitly teach a predetermined property satisfies Formula (2), as defined in claim 3. Kimura teaches a steel sheet having excellent deep drawability having a mean r value of > 1.1 (abstract). Kimura teaches a steel sheet excellent in deep drawability and having an excellent toughness satisfies rC > rL includes r values represented by rC (r90), r value in the direction perpendicular to the rolling direction, rL (r0), r value in the direction parallel to the rolling direction (page 6, lines 73-77), and rD (r45), r value in the direction 45° of the rolling direction (page 9, lines 180-182). Kimura teaches an embodiment where rC (r90)= 1.48, rL (r0)= 1.35, and rD (r45)= 1.20 (sample H-1 in Table 3). Kimura’s teachings result in claimed Formula (2) corresponding to: (r0+r90)/(2xr45) = (1.35+1.48)/(2x1.2) = 1.18, which satisfies 1.0000 < 1 . 18 < 1.3100. Satoshi and Kimura are analogous inventions in the field of steel sheets . It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of the invention to modify the r value of the steel sheet of Satoshi with the relationship between the rolling direction and the r value of the steel sheet of Kimura to yield a steel sheet that exhibits excellence in deep drawability and toughness. Claim s 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Satoshi as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of United States Patent Application Publication No. US 2018/0363082 (hereinafter “Krevel”) . Regarding claim 4 The limitations for claim 1 have been set forth above. In addition, Satoshi does not explicitly teach the predetermined mechanical property satisfies Formula (3), as defined in claim 4. Krevel teaches a high strength hot dip galvanized steel strip ( sheet ) having good surface finish and increased mechanical strength, in particular high overall strength and plasticity (abstract). Krevel teaches a need to provide steel strips (sheets) having improved proof of strength, ultimate tensile strength, total uniform elongation and strain- hardening coefficient (n-value) (paragraph [0010]) . Krevel teaches the n-value is closely related to uniform elongation. In most sheet forming processes, the limit of formability is determined by the resistance to local thinning or “necking”. In uniaxial tensile testing necking commences at the extent of uniform elongation, n-value and uniform elongation derived from the tensile test can be taken as a measure of the formability of sheet steels. When aiming to improve formability of strip steels n-value and uniform elongation represent the most suitable optimization parameters (paragraph [0141]). Krevel teaches an embodiment where an n-value in a 0° angle with the rolling direction (n0) = 0.15, an n-value in a 45° angle with the rolling direction (n45) = 0.15, and an n-value in a 90° angle with the rolling direction (n90) = 0.14 (Table 5). Krevel’s teachings result in claimed Formula (3) corresponding to: ( n 0+ n 90)/(2x n 45) = ( 0.15 + 0.14 )/(2x 0.15 ) = 0.97 , which satisfies 0 . 81 00 < 0 . 97 < 1. 00 00. Satoshi and Krevel are analogous inventions in the field of steel sheets . It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of the invention to modify the n value of the steel sheet of Satoshi with the relationship between the rolling direction and the n value of the steel sheet of Krevel to improve the formability of the steel sheet. Regarding claim 5 The limitations for claim 1 have been set forth above. In addition, Satoshi does not explicitly teach the predetermined mechanical property satisfies Formula (4), as defined in claim 5. Krevel teaches a high strength hot dip galvanized steel strip (sheet) having good surface finish and increased mechanical strength, in particular high overall strength and plasticity (abstract). Krevel teaches properties for the high strength steel strip (sheet) include tensile strength Rm (MPa) and yield strength Rp (MPa) (paragraphs [0143] – [0144]), where the ratio of Rp/Rm corresponds to the claimed yield ratio. Krevel teaches an embodiment where a yield ratio in a 0° angle with the rolling direction (YR0) = 506/817 = 0.619, a yield ratio in a 45° angle with the rolling direction (YR45) = 514/811 = 0.634, and a yield ratio in a 90° angle with the rolling direction (YR90) = 519/817 = 0.635 (Table 5). Krevel’s teachings result in claimed Formula (4) corresponding to: (YR0+YR90)/(2xYR45) = (0.619+0.635)/(2x0.634) = 0.989, which satisfies 0.8300 < 0 . 989 < 1.0300. Satoshi and Krevel are analogous inventions in the field of steel sheets . It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of the invention to modify the tensile strength Rm (MPa), the yield strength Rp (MPa), and the resulting yield ratio thereof of the steel sheet of Satoshi with the relationship between the rolling direction and the yield ratio of the steel sheet of Krevel to improve the mechanical properties of the steel sheet. Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Satoshi as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of United States Patent Application Publication No. US 2018/0202018 (hereinafter “Imamura”) . Regarding claim 6 The limitations for claim 1 have been set forth above. In addition, Satoshi teaches the electrical steel sheet has magnetic properties (abstract, and paragraphs [0003] and [0008]). Satoshi teaches the electrical steel sheet contains, in mass%: 2.0 to 4.0% of Si, which overlaps the claimed range; 0.1 to 2.0% of Mn, which falls within the claimed range; 0.1 to 2.0 of Al, which overlaps the claimed range; 0.03 to 0.2% of P, which overlaps the claimed range; < 0.0035% of S, which encompasses the claimed range; 0.01 to 1.4% of Cr, which overlaps the claimed range; 0.001 to 0.5% of Ni, which falls within the claimed range; and the balance Fe with inevitable impurities (abstract and paragraph [0011]). Satoshi does not explicitly teach, in mass%: 0.0010 to 0.10% of Mo; 0 to 0.50% of Cu; 0 to 0.10% of Bi; 0 to 0.20% of Sn; and 0 to 0.20% of Sb. Imamura teaches an electrical sheet comprising silicon steel sheet as a base material (abstract). Imamura teaches the iron matrix for the electrical sheet may contain one or more selected from Cu: 0.01-0.50 mass % , which falls within the claimed range , Bi: 0.005-0.50 mass % , which overlaps the claimed range , Sb: 0.010-0.200 mass % , which falls within the claimed range , Sn: 0.010-0.200 mass % , which falls within the claimed range , Mo: 0.010-0.200 mass %, which overlaps the claimed range, etc. for the purpose of increasing the magnetic properties in addition to the above chemical composition. When each amount of these ingredients is less than the lower limit in the above range, the effect of improving the magnetic properties is poor, while when each addition amount exceeds the upper limit, it is undesirable because the saturated magnetic flux density is decreased to counteract the effect of increasing the magnetic properties (paragraph [0053]) . Satoshi and Imamura are analogous inventions in the field of magnetic silicon steel sheet s . It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of the invention to modify the magnetic steel sheet of Satoshi with one or more of Cu, Bi, Sb, Sn, and Mo, as disclosed by Imamura, to improve the magnetic properties of the sheet . Any of the elements from the claim which were not explicitly addressed above include a lower limit of 0 mass%, which makes these elements optional and are not needed to meet the claim. Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Satoshi and Yamada as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Kimura . Regarding claim 19 The limitations for claim 2 have been set forth above. In addition, Satoshi does not explicitly teach a predetermined property satisfies Formula (2), as defined in claim 19. Kimura teaches a steel sheet having excellent deep drawability having a mean r value of > 1.1 (abstract). Kimura teaches a steel sheet excellent in deep drawability and having an excellent toughness satisfies rC > rL includes r values represented by rC (r90), r value in the direction perpendicular to the rolling direction, rL (r0), r value in the direction parallel to the rolling direction (page 6, lines 73-77), and rD (r45), r value in the direction 45° of the rolling direction (page 9, lines 180-182). Kimura teaches an embodiment where rC (r90)= 1.48, rL (r0)= 1.35, and rD (r45)= 1.20 (sample H-1 in Table 3). Kimura’s teachings result in claimed Formula (2) corresponding to: (r0+r90)/(2xr45) = (1.35+1.48)/(2x1.2) = 1.18, which satisfies 1.0000 < 1.18 < 1.3100. Satoshi and Kimura are analogous inventions in the field of steel sheets . It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of the invention to modify the r value of the steel sheet of Satoshi with the relationship between the rolling direction and the r value of the steel sheet of Kimura to yield a steel sheet that exhibits excellence in deep drawability and toughness. Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Satoshi and Yamada as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Krevel . Regarding claim 20 The limitations for claim 2 have been set forth above. In addition, Satoshi does not explicitly teach the predetermined mechanical property satisfies Formula (3), as defined in claim 20. Krevel teaches a high strength hot dip galvanized steel strip (sheet) having good surface finish and increased mechanical strength, in particular high overall strength and plasticity (abstract). Krevel teaches a need to provide steel strips (sheets) having improved proof of strength, ultimate tensile strength, total uniform elongation and strain-hardening coefficient (n-value) (paragraph [0010]) . Krevel teaches the n-value is closely related to uniform elongation. In most sheet forming processes, the limit of formability is determined by the resistance to local thinning or “necking”. In uniaxial tensile testing necking commences at the extent of uniform elongation, n-value and uniform elongation derived from the tensile test can be taken as a measure of the formability of sheet steels. When aiming to improve formability of strip steels n-value and uniform elongation represent the most suitable optimization parameters (paragraph [0141]). Krevel teaches an embodiment where an n-value in a 0° angle with the rolling direction (n0) = 0.15, an n-value in a 45° angle with the rolling direction (n45) = 0.15, and an n-value in a 90° angle with the rolling direction (n90) = 0.14 (Table 5). Krevel’s teachings result in claimed Formula (3) corresponding to: (n0+n90)/(2xn45) = (0.15+0.14)/(2x0.15) = 0.97, which satisfies 0.8100 < 0 . 97 < 1.0000. Satoshi and Krevel are analogous inventions in the field of steel sheets . It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of the invention to modify the n value of the steel sheet of Satoshi with the relationship between the rolling direction and the n value of the steel sheet of Krevel to improve the formability of the steel sheet. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT BRIAN HANDVILLE whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-5074 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday through Thursday, from 9 am to 4 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Veronica Ewald can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571) 272-8519 . 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. /BRIAN HANDVILLE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1783