DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-18 are pending, and claims 1-16 are currently under review.
Claims 17-18 are withdrawn.
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 without traverse of group I, claims 1-16, in the reply filed on 6/29/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 17-18 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 6/29/2026.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Japan on 12/16/2021. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the foreign application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 5, 9, and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wakizaka et al. (JP2021165411, machine translation referred to herein).
Regarding claim 1, Wakizaka et al. discloses a non-oriented electrical steel sheet having a composition as seen in table 1 below [0011]. Wakizaka et al. further teaches an grain size of 20 micrometers or less, as well as an amount of <100> grains being at least 18% and an amount of <111> grains being less than 25% [0011, 0016]. Wakizaka et al. teaches that grain growth occurs perpendicular to the steel plate, which is therefore perpendicular to a rolling direction because rolling occurs parallel to the steel plate [0055]. The examiner notes that the overlap between the composition and structure of Wakizaka et al. and that as claimed is prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Table 1.
Element (wt.%)
Claim 1 (wt.%)
Wakizaka et al. (wt.%)
C
0 – 0.01
0 – 0.05
Si
1 – 5
2.5 – 4.5
Mn
0.05 – 5
0.15 – 2
P
0 – 0.1
0.005 – 0.2
S
0 – 0.01
0 – 0.01
Al
0 – 3
0.15 – 3
N
0 – 0.005
0 – 0.01
Fe & Impurities
Balance
Balance
Regarding claims 5, 9 and 13, Wakizaka et al. discloses the steel of claim 1 (see previous). Wakizaka et al. further teaches inclusions of Zn in an amount of 0.0005 to 0.02 weight percent, and W and Mo in amounts that satisfy formula 2 [0011, 0027]. The examiner notes that these ranges overlap with the claimed ranges, which is prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Claim(s) 3, 7, 11, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wakizaka et al. (JP2021165411, machine translation referred to herein) in view of Tanaka et al. (US 2009/0202383).
Regarding claim 3, Wakizaka et al. discloses the steel of claim 1 (see previous). Wakizaka et al. does not expressly teach an inclusion of Co as claimed. Tanaka et al. discloses an electrical non-oriented steel sheet [abstract]; wherein said steel can further include Co in an amount of up to 4 weight percent to increase strength [0084, 0088]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to modify the steel of Wakizaka et al. by including Co for the aforementioned benefit as taught by Tanaka et al. The examiner notes that Co range of Tanaka et al. overlaps with the claimed range, which is prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claims 7, 11, and 13, Wakizaka et al. discloses the steel of claim 3 (see previous). Wakizaka et al. further teaches inclusions of Zn in an amount of 0.0005 to 0.02 weight percent, and W and Mo in amounts that satisfy formula 2 [0011, 0027]. The examiner notes that these ranges overlap with the claimed ranges, which is prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, and 16 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claims 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, and 16 are directed to the steel composition and structure of independent claim 1, wherein said steel further includes a structure of <100> and <111> grains oriented in a 45 degree and -45 degree orientation as claimed. There is no prior art of record that teaches these features together. There is further no prior art that teaches the particular processing steps detailed in [p.20-32 instant specification] which is disclosed to achieve the aforementioned structural features.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS A WANG whose telephone number is (408)918-7576. The examiner can normally be reached usually M-Th: 7-5.
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, Jonathan Johnson can be reached at 5712721177. 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.
/NICHOLAS A WANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1734
Prosecution Insights