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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 1/5/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 1/5/2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 112 rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive in view of Applicant’s amendments. The rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 1/5/2026 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: the inclusion of all of Sn, Sb, and P within the claimed amounts “may impart desirable magnetic and surface characteristics to the steel sheet” (see Remarks, p. 9). Applicant also points to data that demonstrates differences between steel sheets that contain all of Sn, Sb, and P, and those that do not.
However, it is not clear from the data presented that the claimed Sn, Sb, and P contents achieve unexpected results or are otherwise critical. For example, the data from Table 1 of the specification does not contain any examples of steels containing 0.05% Sn, which is the claimed upper limit. A showing of unexpected results must be reviewed to see if the results occur over the entire claimed range. See MPEP 716.02(d). Since this was not established, Applicant has not rebutted the prima facie case of obviousness.
Next, the prior art recognizes the effect of Sn, Sb, and P on desirable magnetic and surface characteristics of the steel sheet. Park states that P, Sn, and Sb are known elements that “improve texture” and may be added to further improve magnetism (¶ 62). The effect of adding these elements to achieve improved magnetic and surface characteristics is thus known in the art and expected. Further, it would have been obvious at the effective time of filing for the claimed invention for one of ordinary skill in the art to discovering the optimal amounts of these elements in a steel composition, through routine optimization, for a given application. See MPEP 2144.05 II. The rejection over Park is therefore maintained.
Applicant also argues Park does not disclose any examples containing all of Sb, Sn, and P. This argument is not persuasive. A reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art, including nonpreferred embodiments. See MPEP 2123. Applicant’s argument that there is low predictability in the field and a slight variation in composition may result in vastly different properties is not persuasive. The data in Applicant’s specification do not establish there is a significant difference between compositions containing, e.g., 0.4% and 0.6% Sn.
Finally, Applicant argues Park does not teach or suggest Equation 2. However, as explained in the prior art rejection, 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. 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. See MPEP 2112.01. Applicant has provided no evidence to the contrary.
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 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (US 2022/0056550).
Regarding claims 1-2, 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%-0.05%
≤ 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
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