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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
[0055], “Gain-oriented” should read “Grain-oriented”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
The limitation “...to a temperature of 1300 or lower” in the second paragraph does not specify a temperature scale (i.e. OC, OF, or K). For the purpose of examination, the temperature range is interpreted as being in OC.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-6 and 9-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1, “subjecting the slab to hot rolling, optionally hot-band annealing, one cold rolling or two or more cold rolling with intermediate annealing between each rolling to obtain a cold- rolled sheet with a final sheet thickness” renders the claim indefinite. It isn’t clear what steps are modified by the “optionally” term. For instance, it is unclear if only the hot-band annealing step is optional or if all of the steps succeeding the “optionally” term are optional. Additionally, it is unclear if the one cold-rolling step is tied to the hot-band annealing step. If this is the case, then it is also unclear if one is choosing between a composite step comprising hot-band annealing and one cold-roll step and a composite step comprising two or more cold rolling steps with intermediate annealing steps in between.
Overall, the claim, as worded, fails to set the metes and bounds of the available options. For the purpose of examination, claim 1 is interpreted as selecting either:
An optional hot-band annealing step, followed by one cold-rolling step, or
two or more cold rolling steps, wherein an intermediate annealing step is included between each cold-rolling step. Hot-band annealing may or may not be included when selecting this step.
Claim 1 recites the limitation " the annealing step immediately preceding the cold rolling for achieving the final sheet thickness" in the last four lines of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if the annealing step in question is mapped to the previous optional hot-band annealing step or the previous optional intermediate annealing step. Additionally, if the hot-band annealing and intermediate annealing steps are optional, then it is unclear how this claimed annealing step fits into the claimed invention.
Claims 2 – 6 & 9 – 20 are also rejected on virtue of their dependency on claim 1.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 5 & 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Specifically, claims 5 and 11-15 (dependents of 1, 2, 3, 4, 9, and 10, respectively) claim that a steel sheet is cooled from 800OC to 400OC after either hot-band or intermediate annealing at a rate of 5 to 100OC/s. However, claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 9, and 10 claim, either directly or through their dependency on previous claims, a steel sheet being cooled from 800OC to 400OC after either hot-band or intermediate annealing at a rate of 15OC/s or more. Claims 5 and 11-15 include cooling rates between 5 and 15OC/s that are outside the claimed cooling rate range of 15OC/s or more found in claims 1 – 4 and 9 – 10. Therefore, claims 5 and 11-15 fails to further limit the claims on which they depend.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1, 4, 5, 6, 13, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takenata, US 2020/0040419 A1 (henceforth called ‘419) in view of Takenata, JP 6292147 B2 (henceforth called ‘147) and Yoshitomi (US 5039359 A).
Regarding claim 1, ‘419 teaches a method of producing a grain-oriented steel sheet with the composition shown in Table 1 below (Clm. 1).
Table 1
Element
Composition (wt%)
’419’s Composition
Claimed Composition
C
0.002-0.100
0.02-0.10
Si
2.00-8.00
2.5-5.5
Mn
0.005-1.000
0.01-0.30
Al
0-0.0100
0-0.010
N
0-0.0060
0-0.006
S
0-0.0100
0-0.010
Se
0-0.0100
0-0.010
Fe and impurities
Bal.
Bal.
The production of the grain-oriented steel sheet comprises:
Heating a slab with the above composition at a temperature between 1000OC – 1300OC [0112];
hot-rolling a slab into a sheet, wherein the start temperature is set and 900OC or more and the finishing temperature is set at 700OC – 1000OC [0117];
cold rolling the sheet to a final thickness (Clm. 1),
subjecting the cold-rolled steel sheet to primary recrystallization annealing, wherein the sheet is set to a soaking temperature between 800OC – 900OC for 30 – 300 s [0130];
application of an annealing separator in the form of MgO [0021], [0132]; and
subjecting the sheet to secondary recrystallization annealing, which may also serve as a purification annealing step wherein the sheet is set at a temperature of 800OC or more for 20 h or more [0135]. This step reads on the claimed finishing annealing step.
Additionally, ‘419 teaches that the production of the grain-oriented steel sheet comprises either
a hot-band annealing step after hot-rolling, followed by one cold-rolling step to reach a final sheet thickness (Clm. 1), wherein the soaking temperature is set to 950OC or more; or
two or more cold rolling steps after hot-rolling to reach a final sheet thickness, wherein an intermediate annealing step is included between each cold-rolling step and the soaking temperature is set to 950OC or more (Clm. 1).
However, ‘419 is silent on a cooling step either happening before or during the hot-band and intermediate annealing steps. Additionally, ‘419 does not teach a low-temperature heat treatment occurring either immediately before or during cold-rolling to a final sheet thickness.
‘147 teaches a method for producing a grain-oriented steel sheet. The method includes subjected a hot rolled sheet to one or more cold roll passes with intermediate annealing steps in-between. Additionally, at the time of the final cold-rolling pass, the sheet is cooled from 800OC to 300OC at an average cooling rate of 40OC/s or more. ‘147 teaches that the cooling step prevents precipitation of carbides promotes twin formation in the sheet microstructure, which ultimately enables a desirable grain microstructure and higher magnetic flux density within the produced sheet. The cooling rate range reads on the claimed cooling rates of 15OC/s or more from 800OC to 400OC. 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(1).
Therefore, it would be obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effectively filed date of the claimed invention to incorporate the cooling step of ‘147 with the grain-oriented steel sheet production method of ‘419 because the cooling step of ‘147 can ultimately improve the sheet grain texture by preventing carbide precipitation during cooling.
Neither ‘419 nor ‘147 teach a low-temperature heat treatment occurring either immediately before or during cold-rolling to a final sheet thickness.
Yoshitomi teaches a process for producing a grain-oriented electrical steel sheet, wherein after hot-rolling and coiling, an inter-pass aging step is conducted between cold-rolling passes. In the aging step, the sheet is held at a temperature between 50 and 500OC for 1 minute or longer (Col. 2 Ln. 56-61). Yoshitomi found that, when incorporating an inter-pass aging treatment in a sheet production process, the produced grain-oriented steel sheet obtains a high magnetic flux density of above 1.88T.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to incorporate the inter-pass aging treatments of Yoshitomi into the sheet production method of ‘419 in view of ‘147 because it enables an advantageous result of a grain-oriented steel sheet with a magnetic flux density of 1.88T or higher.
Regarding claim 4, ‘147 teaches that the final rolling treatment starts within 72 hours of cooling, which reads on the claimed time limit of 300 hours. 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(1).
Regarding claims 5 and 13, the reader is directed to the list breaking down the method in ‘419 found above when discussing claim 1.
Regarding the slab heating step in claim 5, ‘419’s temperature range reads on the claimed range of 1300OC or lower. 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(1).
Regarding the hot-rolling step in claim 5, ‘419’s start and finishing temperatures read on the claimed rough-rolling and finishing-rolling temperatures ranges of 900 – 1200OC and 700 – 1000OC, respectively. 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(1).
Regarding the cold-rolling step in claim 5, ‘419 teaches a grain-oriented steel sheet produced with the above method with an initial sheet thickness of 2.2 mm after hot rolling and a final sheet thickness of 0.23 mm after cold-rolling, for a total rolling reduction of 89% [0154-0155], which reads on the claimed total rolling reduction of 80 – 92%. 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(1).
Regarding the primary recrystallization step in claim 5, ‘419 teaches grain-oriented steel sheets that were subjected to a primary recanalization annealing in an environment containing H2+N2 at temperatures of 820OC – 840OC and times of 100 – 150 s with dew points of 54 -55OC [0156, 0162, 0178], which read on the claimed primary recrystallization parameters. 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(1).
Regarding the secondary recrystallization step in claim 5, ‘419 teaches grain-oriented steel sheets that were subjected to a secondary recanalization annealing in an environment containing H2 at a temperature of 1200OC and time of 10 h [0157, 0163, 0177], which read on the claimed secondary recrystallization parameters. 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(1).
Additionally, ‘419 claims that the production of the grain-oriented steel sheet comprises either
a hot-band annealing step after hot-rolling, followed by one cold-rolling step to reach a final sheet thickness (Clm. 1), wherein the soaking temperature is set to 950OC or more; or
two or more cold rolling steps after hot-rolling to reach a final sheet thickness, wherein an intermediate annealing step is included between each cold-rolling step and the soaking temperature is set to 950OC or more (Clm. 1).
Regarding the hot-band annealing step in claim 5, ‘419 teaches grain-oriented steel sheets that were subjected to the hot-band annealing step at a soaking temperature of 1000OC for 60 seconds [0161, 0175], which reads on the claimed temperature range of 800 – 1250OC and the claimed time range of 5 s or longer. 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(1).
Regarding the intermediate annealing step in claim 5, ‘419 teaches a grain-oriented steel sheet that was subjected to the intermediate annealing step at a soaking temperature of 1000OC for 100 seconds [0154], which reads on the claimed temperature range of 800 – 1250OC and the claimed time range of 5 s or longer. 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(1).
Regarding the coiling step, Yoshitomi teaches coiling a hot-rolled sheet at a temperature of 700OC or less, which reads on the claimed coiling temperature of 400 – 750OC. 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(1).
Regarding claims 6 and 18, it is noted that the element options comprising groups A, B, and C can be chosen at 0 wt%. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the sheet composition of ‘419, as recited in Table 1, inherently fulfills the limitations set forth in claim 6.
Additionally, ‘419 teaches that the steel sheet can also comprise one or more of the following elements at the following compositions (Clm. 4):
Cr: 0.01% or more and 0.50% or less,
Cu: 0.01% or more and 0.50% or less,
P: 0.005% or more and 0.50% or less,
Ni: 0.001% or more and 0.50% or less,
Sb: 0.005% or more and 0.50% or less,
Sn: 0.005% or more and 0.50% or less,
Bi: 0.005% or more and 0.50% or less,
Mo: 0.005% or more and 0.100% or less,
B: 0.0002% or more and 0.0025% or less,
Nb: 0.0010% or more and 0.0100% or less,
V: 0.0010% or more and 0.0100% or less
The compositions read on all of the options of group A. One can select any and all of the elements and compositions listed above while selecting elements of groups B and C at 0 wt% and be within the limitations set forth by claim 6. 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(1).
Claims 2 & 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘419 (US 2020/0040419 A1), ‘147 (JP 6292147 B2), and Yoshitomi (US 5039359 A), as applied to claims 1 above, and further in view of Katsuro (JPS61284523A).
Regarding claims 2 and 3, neither ‘419, ‘147, nor Yoshitomi teach straining the steel sheet before or during the low-temperature heat treatment. Additionally, neither ‘419, ‘147, nor Yoshitomi teach that the strain is applied by either bending the sheet around a roll at an angle of 90O or higher, or light draft rolling.
Katsuro teaches a method for producing a grain-oriented steel sheet with a high magnetic flux density, wherein the steel sheet is subjected to a strain via a skin pass roll treatment after being subjected to both a cold-roll step and an intermediate annealing step. The skin pass roll treatment is set such that the total sheet thickness reduction is less than 20% (Abstract) and preferably within 3% and 10% (Description). The skin pass roll treatment occurs prior to the last cold-roll pass (Abstract). Katsuro teaches that straining via skin-pass rolling promotes growth of grains at the surface, which ultimately promotes development of goss-oriented grains after a secondary recrystallization treatment.
‘419, ‘147, Yoshitomi, and Katsuro are all in the art of producing a grain-oriented steel sheet for use in magnetic applications.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to incorporate the skin pass treatments of Katsuro into the sheet production method of ‘419 in view of ‘147 and Yoshitomi because it enables growth of grains at the surface of the sheet, which would ultimately promote the development of goss-oriented grains at the sheet surface.
Claims 9-12, 14-17, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘419 (US 2020/0040419 A1), ‘147 (JP 6292147 B2), Yoshitomi (US 5039359 A), and Katsuro (JPS61284523A) as applied to claims 2 and 3 above.
Regarding claims 9 and 10, ‘147 teaches that the final rolling treatment starts within 72 hours of cooling, which reads on the claimed time limit of 300 hours. 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(1).
Regarding claims 11, 12, 14, and 15, Claims 5, 11, 12, 14, and 15 recite identical limitations. Therefore, claims 11, 12, 14, and 15 have the same obviousness issues and rejections as discussed above for claim 5. 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(1).
Regarding the slab heating step, ‘419’s temperature range reads on the claimed range of 1300OC or lower. 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(1).
Regarding the hot-rolling step, ‘419’s start and finishing temperatures read on the claimed rough-rolling and finishing-rolling temperatures ranges of 900 – 1200OC and 700 – 1000OC, respectively. 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(1).
Regarding the cold-rolling step, ‘419 teaches a grain-oriented steel sheet produced with the above method with an initial sheet thickness of 2.2 mm after hot rolling and a final sheet thickness of 0.23 mm after cold-rolling, for a total rolling reduction of 89% [0154-0155], which reads on the claimed total rolling reduction of 80 – 92%. 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(1).
Regarding the primary recrystallization step, ‘419 teaches grain-oriented steel sheets that were subjected to a primary recanalization annealing in an environment containing H2+N2 at temperatures of 820OC – 840OC and times of 100 – 150 s with dew points of 54 -55OC [0156, 0162, 0178], which read on the claimed primary recrystallization parameters. 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(1).
Regarding the secondary recrystallization step, ‘419 teaches grain-oriented steel sheets that were subjected to a secondary recanalization annealing in an environment containing H2 at a temperature of 1200OC and time of 10 h [0157, 0163, 0177], which read on the claimed secondary recrystallization parameters. 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(1).
Additionally, ‘419 claims that the production of the grain-oriented steel sheet comprises either
a hot-band annealing step after hot-rolling, followed by one cold-rolling step to reach a final sheet thickness (Clm. 1), wherein the soaking temperature is set to 950OC or more; or
two or more cold rolling steps after hot-rolling to reach a final sheet thickness, wherein an intermediate annealing step is included between each cold-rolling step and the soaking temperature is set to 950OC or more (Clm. 1).
Regarding the hot-band annealing step, ‘419 teaches grain-oriented steel sheets that were subjected to the hot-band annealing step at a soaking temperature of 1000OC for 60 seconds [0161, 0175], which reads on the claimed temperature range of 800 – 1250OC and the claimed time range of 5 s or longer. 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(1).
Regarding the intermediate annealing step, ‘419 teaches a grain-oriented steel sheet that was subjected to the intermediate annealing step at a soaking temperature of 1000OC for 100 seconds [0154], which reads on the claimed temperature range of 800 – 1250OC and the claimed time range of 5 s or longer. 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(1).
Regarding the coiling step, Yoshitomi teaches coiling a hot-rolled sheet at a temperature of 700OC or less, which reads on the claimed coiling temperature of 400 – 750OC. 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(1).
Regarding claims 17, 19, and 20, the reader is directed towards the discussion regarding claim 6 above. Claims 6, 17, 19, and 20 recite identical limitations. Therefore, claims 17, 19, and 20 have the same obviousness issues and rejection as claim 6. 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(1).
it is noted that the element options comprising groups A, B, and C can be chosen at 0 wt%. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the sheet composition of ‘419, as recited in Table 1, inherently fulfills the limitations claimed.
Additionally, ‘419 claims that the steel sheet can also comprise one or more of the following elements at the following compositions (Clm. 4):
Cr: 0.01% or more and 0.50% or less,
Cu: 0.01% or more and 0.50% or less,
P: 0.005% or more and 0.50% or less,
Ni: 0.001% or more and 0.50% or less,
Sb: 0.005% or more and 0.50% or less,
Sn: 0.005% or more and 0.50% or less,
Bi: 0.005% or more and 0.50% or less,
Mo: 0.005% or more and 0.100% or less,
B: 0.0002% or more and 0.0025% or less,
Nb: 0.0010% or more and 0.0100% or less,
V: 0.0010% or more and 0.0100% or less
The compositions read on all of the options of group A. One can select any and all of the elements and compositions listed above while selecting elements of groups B and C at 0 wt% and be within the limitations claimed. 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(1).
CONTACT INFORMATION
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAVIER FLORES whose telephone number is 571-272-9130. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 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 WALKER can be reached at 571-272-3458. 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.
/J.F./Examiner, Art Unit 1735
/KEITH WALKER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1735
Prosecution Insights