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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 12/27/23, 6/20/25, and 3/6/26 have been considered by the examiner.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 10-11 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 7/8/26.
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 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.
Language from the reference(s) is shown in quotations. Limitations from the claims are shown in quotations within parentheses. Examiner explanations are shown in italics.
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.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uesaka et al. (US 2019/0189318 A1), previously cited.
Regarding claims 8-9, Uesaka teaches a non-oriented electrical steel sheet with the following composition (see Table 1):
Element
ClaimsMass %
Uesaka Example “C”Mass %
C
0.01 % or less
0.0010
Si
2.0 % or more and 5.0 % or less
3.7
Mn
0.05 % or more and 5.00 % or less
0.8
P
0.1 % or less
0.005
S
0.01 % or less
0.001
Al
3.0 % or less
1.4
N
0.0050 % or less
--
Ti (claim 9, group E)
0 % or more and 0.005 % or less
0.002
As (claim 9, group E)
0 % or more and 0.05 % or less
0.0009
Pb (claim 9, group E)
0 % or more and 0.002 % or less
0.0009
Si + Al
4.5% or more
5.1
Crystal grain sizer, Table 2, No.s 1 or 2
60 µm or more and 200 µm or less
m
Uesaka is silent regarding statistical analysis parameters of the crystal grain size distribution such as the standard deviation or skewness. However, Uesaka takes several steps to ensure appropriate control of the grain size distribution. Uesaka teaches that “by including at least one of As and Pb with a total content of 0.0005% or more, precipitates such as MN can be caused to grow with precipitated As and/or Pb, or a compound thereof, as the nucleus, allowing the grain size distribution to be controlled appropriately” (paragraph [0107]).
The instant application teaches that in the annealing process, the average heating rate V1 within a range of 500° C. to 700° C. is set to 10° C./s or more, and that the reason for setting the average heating rate V1 to 10° C./s or more is to ensure that the standard deviation S1 of the crystal grain size distribution in the resulting non-oriented electrical steel sheet satisfies the above formula (1) to form the desired steel sheet microstructure (paragraph [0119]). Uesaka teaches that “during the final annealing, the heating rate from 400° C. to 740° C. is set to 30° C./s to 300° C./s, and that setting the heating rate to 30° C./s to 300° C./s allows the grain size to be set to an appropriate distribution” (paragraph [0156]). Uesaka teaches that “if the heating rate is less than 30° C./s, the grain size distribution becomes sharp, and the number of grains that have an advantageous size with respect to iron loss under inverter excitation suddenly decreases” (paragraph [0156]).
The instant application teaches that by setting Si+Al (total content of Si and Al) to 4.5% or more and performing cold rolling under appropriate conditions, the skewness of the crystal grain size distribution of cold-rolled and annealed sheet can be reduced (paragraph [0065]). Uesaka Example “C” gives a total content of Si and Al of 5.1, as stated above. The instant application teaches that when the final pass entry temperature T1 is 50° C. or higher, after the annealing process described below, the skewness γ1 of the crystal grain size distribution is 1.50 or less, and that as a result, the desired steel sheet microstructure is obtained (paragraph [0108]). Uesaka teaches that “the annealed hot rolled sheet is preferably subjected to pickling before the cold rolling” (paragraph [0149]). Uesaka teaches that “at least the rolling delivery-side material temperature for one pass is preferably 100° C. to 300° C, that if the rolling delivery-side material temperature is 100° C. or higher, development of the {111} orientation can be suppressed, and that if the rolling delivery-side material temperature is 300° C. or less, randomization of the texture can be suppressed” (paragraph [0150]).
Regarding the claimed statistical analysis parameters, 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. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP § 2112.01 I. “Products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties.” A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP § 2112.01 II. Therefore, it is expected that the steel of the prior art possesses the parameters as claimed in the instant claims since a) the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in composition (see compositional analysis above), b) the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure (both steels are non-oriented electrical steel sheets, as described above), and c) the claimed and prior art products are produced by identical or substantially identical processes (see processing analysis above). Since the Office does not have a laboratory to test the reference alloy, it is applicant’s burden to show that the reference alloy does not possess the properties as claimed in the instant claims. See In re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977); In re Marosi, 218 USPQ 289, 292-293 (Fed. Cir. 1983); In re Fitzgerald et al., 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980).
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to REBECCA JANSSEN whose telephone number is (571)272-5434. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Thurs 10-7 and alternating Fri 10-6.
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. The Examiner requests that interviews not be scheduled during the last week of each fiscal quarter or the last half of September, which is the end of the fiscal year. Q4: 9/21-9/30/26; Q1: 1/4-1/8/27.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Keith Hendricks can be reached on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/REBECCA JANSSEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1733
Prosecution Insights