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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 5/19/2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection over Park (US 2022/0056550) have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Applicant argues the following: A) the claimed Sn content achieves unexpected results or is otherwise critical for achieving the claimed area fraction ratio, and B) the claimed Sn content achieves unexpected results or is otherwise critical for achieving good coating adhesion.
To establish unexpected results over a claimed range, applicants should compare a sufficient number of tests both inside and outside the claimed range to show the criticality of the claimed range. See MPEP 716.02(d) II. The data presented in Applicant’s specification contains no examples above the upper limit of the claimed Sn content range and is therefore insufficient to demonstrate unexpected results or criticality as to the claimed Sn content. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive and the rejection is therefore maintained.
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 and 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (US 2022/0056550).
Regarding claim 1, Park teaches a non-oriented electrical steel sheet (¶ 1) having the following composition, as compared to the claimed composition:
Claim 1
Park, ¶ 4
C
≤ 0.005% (excl. 0%)
≤ 0.005% (excl. 0%)
Si
1.5%-3.0%
0.5%-2.4%
Mn
0.4%-1.5%
0.4%-1.0%
S
≤ 0.005% (excl. 0%)
≤ 0.005% (excl. 0%)
Al
0.0001%-0.7%
≤ 0.01% (excl. 0%)
N
≤ 0.005% (excl. 0%)
≤ 0.005% (excl. 0%)
Ti
≤ 0.005% (excl. 0%)
≤ 0.005% (excl. 0%)
Cu
0.001%-0.02%
0.001%-0.02%
Sb
0.01%-0.05%
≤ 0.1% (¶ 62)
Sn
0.001%-0.025%
≤ 0.1% (¶ 62)
P
0.005%-0.07%
≤ 0.1% (¶ 62)
Fe
Balance
Balance
The claimed composition has substantial overlap with the claimed composition, creating a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05 I. Regarding Expressions 1&2, the composition of Park will meet the requirements of the claimed Expressions for at least a range of the values of Mn, Si, Al, Sn, Sb, and P, thus creating a prima facie case of obviousness due to overlapping ranges. See MPEP 2144.05 I.
Park does not disclose the claimed (Mn,Cu)S precipitates. However, the process of making the non-oriented electrical steel sheet of Park is substantially identical to the process for making the claimed non-oriented electrical steel sheet. In the present invention, slab reheating is carried out such that MnSSRT/MnSMax ≥ 0.6 (Spec., ¶ 87), and that reheating at a temperature greater than 150°C greater than the A1 (austenite into ferrite complete transformation temperature) for at least one hour is required (Spec., ¶¶ 88-90). Hot rolling is performed at a temperature between A1-50°C and A1+40°C (Spec., ¶ 28), along with coiling at a temperature of 650-800°C (Spec., ¶ 30) and final annealing at a temperature of 850-1100°C (Spec., ¶ 35). In addition, hot roll annealing is omitted (Spec., ¶ 36).
Park teaches slab heating is carried out at a temperature greater than 150°C plus the A1 (austenite into ferrite complete transformation temperature) temperature for at least one hour (¶¶ 22-23) and such that MnSSRT/MnSMax≤0.6 (¶ 21). Hot rolling is then performed at a temperature at least the Ae1 point and at most (Ae1 + 2 × Ae3)/3 (austenite into ferrite start transformation temperature) (¶ 24). Winding is carried out such that the coiling temperature CT meets the relation 0.55 ≤ CT × [Si] / 1000 ≤ 1.75 (¶ 29), with examples ranging from 587-758°C (see Tables 16-17). Finally, annealing is performed at a temperature of 900-1100°C (¶ 136). In addition, hot roll annealing is omitted (¶ 3). These steps are substantially identical to the steps for making the claimed invention. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the non-oriented electrical steel sheet of Park to exhibit the same (Mn,Cu)S precipitate size, shape and distribution as that claimed, absent objective evidence to the contrary. See MPEP 2112.01.
Regarding claim 3, Park does not expressly teach the claimed number of concavo-convex defects. However, the present specification states the claimed concavo-convex defects are obtained by omitting a hot roll annealing and increasing the temperature of the hot rolling and coiling steps (Spec., ¶ 96). Since Park teaches a similar process of omitting a hot roll annealing (¶ 3), and parameters for hot rolling and coiling that are similar to the parameters used to make the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the non-oriented electrical steel sheet of Park to exhibit the same concavo-convex defects, absent objective evidence to the contrary. See MPEP 2112.
Regarding claim 4, since the process of Park is substantially identical to the process for making the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the prior art steel sheet to also exhibit the claimed difference in iron loss values between an edge and center portion of the sheet, absent objective evidence to the contrary. See MPEP 2112.
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 XIAOBEI WANG whose telephone number is (571)270-5705. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8AM-5PM EST.
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, Humera Sheikh can be reached at 571-272-0604. 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.
/XIAOBEI WANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1784
Prosecution Insights