DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-6 are pending and currently under review.
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 .
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) 1-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kong et al. (WO2020111640, machine translation referred to herein) in view of either one of Murakami et al. (JP2005200713, machine translation referred to herein), Hammer et al. (EP1420072, machine translation referred to herein), or Itou et al. (JPS58123825, machine translation referred to herein).
Regarding claim 1, Kong et al. discloses a method of manufacturing a hot rolled, non-oriented electrical steel sheet [0001, 0189]; wherein said method includes producing a steel slab having a thickness of up to 125 mm and a composition of 2.6 to 3.8 weight percent Si, 0.05 to 2 weight percent Al, and 0.05 to 2 weight percent Mn through continuous casting [0024, 0151, 0189]; rough rolling to a thickness of 10 to 30 mm [0156]; and reheating and finish rolling to 1.3 mm [0157, 0189]. The examiner notes that the overlap between the parameters of Kong et al. and that as claimed is prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2144.05(I). As a mere example of said overlap, the examiner notes that rough rolling from 125 mm to 10 mm for example results in a rough rolling reduction ratio of approximately 92% and finish rolling from 10 mm to 1.3 mm for example results in a finish rolling reduction ratio of approximately 87%.
Kong et al. does not expressly teach that the steel slab surface temperature is maintained at 800 degrees C or more after casting and during transferring and further heated at 1100 to 1300 degrees C for at least 60 seconds prior to hot rolling as claimed. However, the examiner submits that these parameters would have been obvious in view of the prior art.
Murakami et al. discloses manufacturing non-oriented electrical steels [0001]; wherein the slab after continuous casting is maintained at a temperature of 500 to 950 degrees C and transferred to a reheating furnace at up to 1200 degrees C for 300 minutes or more in order to maintain uniform heating [0046-0051]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to modify the method of Kong et al. by controlling heating of the slab between casting and hot rolling for the aforementioned benefit of Murakami et al.
Alternatively, Hammer et al. discloses manufacturing non-oriented electrical steels [0001]; wherein the slab after casting is immediately heated at 1040 to 1160 degrees C for up to 60 minutes prior to hot rolling to achieve equalization and desirable control of slab temperature [0006, 0016-0017, 0021, table2]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to modify the method of Kong et al. by controlling heating of the slab between casting and hot rolling (ie. during transferring) for the aforementioned benefit of Hammer et al.
Alternatively, Itou et al. discloses manufacturing non-oriented electrical steels [p.2]; wherein the slab after casting is immediately maintained at 900 to 1150 degrees C for up to 30 minutes prior to hot rolling (ie. during transferring) to improve hot rolling performance [p.9-10]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to modify the method of Kong et al. by controlling heating of the slab between casting and hot rolling for the aforementioned benefit of Itou et al.
In either of the above combinations, the examiner notes that the overlap between the parameters of the prior art and that as claimed is prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 2, the aforementioned prior art discloses the method of claim 1 (see previous). Kong et al. further teaches a final thickness after hot rolling (ie. finish rolling) of 1.3 mm as stated above.
Regarding claims 3-4, the aforementioned prior art discloses the method of claim 1 (see previous). The examiner notes that the hot rolling parameters of Kong et al. further overlap with the claimed ranges as demonstrated by the examiner’s example calculation above. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 5, the aforementioned prior art discloses the method of claim 1 (see previous). Kong et al. further teaches an inclusion of C from 0.0005 to 0.006 weight percent, which overlaps with the claimed range [0024]. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 6, the aforementioned prior art discloses the method of claim 1 (see previous). Kong et al. further teaches subsequent steps of annealing, cold rolling, and final annealing [0143, 0177].
Claim(s) 1-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Itou et al. (JPS58123825, machine translation referred to herein) in view of Tanaka et al. (US 2009/0202383) and Park et al. (WO2020130644, machine translation referred to herein).
Regarding claim 1, Itou et al. discloses a method of manufacturing non-oriented, hot-rolled electrical steels [p.2, 9]; wherein said method includes steps of continuously casting a slab having a thickness of 200 mm [p.5]; wherein after casting the slab is immediately maintained at 900 to 1150 degrees C for up to 30 minutes prior to hot rolling to improve hot rolling performance [p.9-10]; followed by subsequent hot rolling [p.5, 9-10]. Itou et al. further teaches example steels having compositions that fall within the claimed ranges such as C-J and N [tables1-3]. The examiner notes that the overlap between the manufacturing parameters of Itou et al. and that as claimed is prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Itou et al. does not expressly teach controlling rough rolling reduction as claimed. Tanaka et al. discloses that it is known to control rough rolling reduction for manufacturing of non-oriented electrical steel to be 83% or more to suppress defects [abstract, 0114]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to modify the method of Itou et al. by controlling rough rolling to be 83% or more for the aforementioned benefit of Tanaka et al.
Itou et al. does not expressly teach controlling finish rolling reduction as claimed. Park et al. discloses that it is known to control finish rolling reduction for manufacturing of non-oriented electrical steel to be 85% or more achieve a desired microstructural texture [0143]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to modify the method of Itou et al. by controlling finish rolling to be 85% or more for the aforementioned benefit of Park et al.
Regarding claim 2, the aforementioned prior art discloses the method of claim 1 (see previous). Itou et al. further teaches a final thickness after hot rolling (ie. finish rolling) of 2 mm [p.6].
Regarding claims 3-4, the aforementioned prior art discloses the method of claim 1 (see previous). The examiner notes that the aforementioned reduction ratios of Tanaka et al. and Park et al. further overlap with the claimed ranges. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 5, the aforementioned prior art discloses the method of claim 1 (see previous). The aforementioned examples of Itou et al. further include S amounts which meet the claimed range [tables1-3]. Alternatively, said examples of Itou et al. do not include Cr or Ni (ie. 0%), for example, which also meets the claimed ranges.
Regarding claim 6, the aforementioned prior art discloses the method of claim 1 (see previous). Itou et al. further teaches annealing after hot rolling, subsequent cold rolling, and final annealing [p.6, 10].
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