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 of Group 1- Claims 1-5 in the reply filed on 27 March 2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 6-10 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected method for manufacturing a non-oriented steel sheet, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 27 March 2026.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 4, and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP2019178373 of Hama in view of US20190189318 of Uesaka.
Claim 1 claims a non-oriented electrical steel sheet comprising: by wt%, 2.5 to 4.0% of Si, 0.1 to 1.5% of Al, 0.1 to 1.5% of Mn, and the remainder of Fe and inevitable
impurities, wherein an average grain size is 50 to 100 µm, and an area ratio of grains having a grain size of 20 µm or less is 0.5% or more.
Hama teaches a non-oriented electromagnetic steel sheet and manufacturing method therefor, and motor core and manufacturing method therefor in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Hama discloses a range for Si: 1.0 to 5.0 wt%, Al: 0 to 2.0%, Mn: 0.10 to 2.0%, with the balance containing Fe and impurities, Para[0011]. These ranges overlap with the claimed ranges. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists, see MPEP 2144.05. Hama also discloses that the area ratio occupied by crystal grains having an equivalent circle diameter of 30 μm or less on the surface of the steel sheet is SA, and SA ≧ 15%, Para[0016]. This overlaps with the claimed range of 20 µm or less and 0.5% or more. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists, see MPEP 2144.05. Hama does not teach a specific range for average grain size.
Uesaka teaches a non-oriented electrical steel sheet and method for manufacturing non-oriented electrical steel sheet in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Uesaka discloses that an average grain size of 40 μm to 120 μm, can reduce the iron loss both under sinusoidal excitation and under inverter excitation, Para[0121]. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to produce the non-oriented electrical steel sheet taught by Hama with the average grain size disclosed by Uesaka to reduce iron loss. Thus, Hama in view of Uesaka covers all limitations of claim 1.
Claim 3 further limits claim 1 by further comprising: 0.005 wt% or less of at least one of C, N, S, Ti, Nb, and V.
Hama teaches a range for carbon of C: 0.0005 to 0.0050%, and nitrogen of N: 0.0010 to 0.0050%, Para[0012]. This overlaps with the claimed range of 0.005% 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, see MPEP 2144.05. Thus, Hama in view of Uesaka covers all limitations of claim 3.
Claim 4 further limits claim 1 by further comprising: at least one of 0.05 wt% or less of P, 0.002 wt% or less of B, 0.01 wt% or less of Mo, 0.005 wt% or less of Mg, and 0.005 wt% or less of Zr.
Hama discloses a range for phosphorus of P: 0.0200% or less, and magnesium of Mg: 0 to 0.10%. These overlap with the claimed ranges for P and Mg. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists, see MPEP 2144.05. Thus, Hama in view of Uesaka covers all limitations of claim 4.
Claim 5 further limits 1 by claiming that yield strengths YS (- 40°C) and YS (210°C) obtained when tensile tests are performed at – 40°C and 210°C satisfy YS (210°C)/YS (- 40°C)? 0.71.
While Hama and Uesaka do not specifically teach yield strength, they disclose a non-oriented electrical steel sheet with overlapping ranges for all the claimed elemental ranges. 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. Yield strength is an intrinsic property of an alloy determined by the alloy composition. Thus, Hama in view of Uesaka covers all limitations of claim 5.
Claims 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP2019178373 of Hama in view of US20190189318 of Uesaka, as cited above, further in view of JP2017082276 of Fujimura.
Claim 2 further limits claim 1 by further comprising: 0.006 to 0.1 wt% of at least one of Sn and Sb.
Hama teaches Sn: 0 to 0.20 %, Para[0039]. This overlaps with the claimed range for Sn. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists, see MPEP 2144.05.
Fujimura teaches a non-oriented electromagnetic steel sheet and manufacturing method therefor in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Fujimura discloses ranges for Sn and Sb of 0.005 to 0.2%, Para[0009]. This overlaps with the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists, see MPEP 2144.05. Fujimura teaches that it is an object of the present invention to provide a method of producing Sb and Sn by adding Sb and Sn to a base steel sheet in order to reduce high frequency iron loss, Para[0008].
Therefore, based on the teachings of Hama and Fujimura, it would be obvious to include Sn and Sb in the claimed range to the non-oriented electrical steel sheet disclosed by Hama in view of Uesaka in order to reduce high frequency iron loss. Thus, Hama in view of Uesaka further in view of Fujimura covers all limitations of claim 2.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACOB BENJAMIN STILES whose telephone number is (571)272-0598. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30am - 5:00pm.
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.
/Keith D. Hendricks/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1733
/JACOB BENJAMIN STILES/Examiner, Art Unit 1733
Prosecution Insights