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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 10-13 are withdrawn. Claims 16-21 are new. Claims 1-7 and 14-21 are examined herein.
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 1-7 and 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hong (US 2023/0036214).
Regarding claims 1-6 and 16-17, Hong discloses (Abstract; [0017] to [0050]) a non-oriented electrical steel sheet with a composition that overlaps with the instant claimed composition and therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have selected amounts of each element from the ranges disclosed in Hong to produce a steel composition that meets the recited composition in claims 1-4. See MPEP 2144.05 I.
Element
Claim 1
(mass %)
Hong
(mass %)
Overlap
(mass %)
C
0.0001-0.007
≤0.01
0.0001-0.007
Mn
0.09-0.15
0.001-0.6
0.09-0.15
Si
2.6-2.95
2.1-3.8
2.6-2.95
Al
0.1-0.5
0.001-0.6
0.1-0.5
P
≤0.15
≤0.08
≤0.08
S
≤0.006
≤0.01
≤0.006
N
≤0.09
≤0.01
≤0.01
Sn
0-0.04
0-0.08
0-0.04
Ti
0-0.1
0-0.005
0 – 0.005
Sb
0-0.2
0-0.08
0-0.08
Fe + Impurities
Balance
Balance
Balance
Hong discloses examples that meet the recited composition in claim 1 (See Table 1, Inventive Materials 2 and 3).
Hong discloses that the steel sheet has a thickness of 0.1 mm to 0.35 mm and the steel has a grain size of 70-150 µm ([0072] to [0074]), which overlap the recited thickness and grain size in claim 1. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Thus, the recited steel thickness and grain size is a prima facie case of obviousness over Hong. See MPEP 2144.05 I.
Hong discloses that the recrystallized structure is 99% or more ([0074]), which meets the limitation recited in claims 1 and 5-6.
Hong does not explicitly disclose that the structure is made of ferrite grains and the percentage of eddy current loss in iron loss is 35-45%. Since the steel disclosed by Hong contains ultra-low amount of carbon and high amount of silicon and aluminum and silicon and aluminum are ferrite forming elements, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect that the steel disclosed by Hong is composed of ferrite grain as recited in claims 1, 16 and 17.
Further, these structure and property limitations are determined by the steel composition and a method of making the steel sheet.
Hong discloses a method of making the steel sheet, comprising: heating the slab to 1150 to 1250° C for 0.1 to 1 hour, hot-rolling to manufacture the hot-rolled sheet with a finish rolling temperature of 800 to 1000° C, coiling the hot rolled steel sheet at temperatures of 700° C or less, annealing the hot-rolled-sheet at 900 to 1195° C for 30 to 95 seconds, subjecting the annealed hot-rolled sheet to pickling, then cold rolling with a rolling reduction of 50 to 95%, finally annealing the cold-rolled steel sheet at
850 to 1080° C for 60 to 150 seconds ([0069] to [0073]), which overlap the process temperature and time in claim 10.
In view of the fact that Hong teaches a steel composition that meets the recited composition in claim 1 and a method of making the steel sheet with processing temperature and time overlapping the recited temperature and time in claim 10, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect that the steel sheet disclosed by Hong to meet the limitation that the steel has the recited ferrite structure and the recited percentage of eddy current loss in iron loss in claim 1. “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.
Regarding claims 7 and 14-15, Hong does not explicitly disclose the recited mechanical properties in claims 7 and 14-15. However, in view of the fact that Hong teaches a steel composition that meets the recited composition in claim 1 and a method of making the steel sheet with processing temperature and time overlapping the recited temperature and time in claim 10, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect that the steel sheet disclosed by Hong to meet the recited mechanical properties in claims 7 and 14-15. “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.
Claims 1-6 and 16-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP’653 (JPH 11-222653 A), and further in view of Okubo (US 2024/0271255).
Regarding claims 1-6 and 16-21, JP’653 discloses (Abstract; [0007] to [0012]) a non-oriented electrical steel sheet with a composition that overlaps with the instant claimed composition and therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have selected amounts of each element from the ranges disclosed in JP’653 to produce a steel sheet that meets the recited composition in claims 1-4 and 18-21. See MPEP 2144.05 I.
Element
Claim 1
(mass %)
JP’653
(mass %)
Overlap
(mass %)
C
0.0001-0.007
≤0.005
0.0001-0.005
Mn
0.09-0.15
0.07-1.5
0.09-0.15
Si
2.6-2.95
2.2-4.0
2.6-2.95
Al
0.1-0.5
0.1-1.5
0.1-0.5
P
≤0.15
---
---
S
≤0.006
0.0007-0.0008
0.0007-0.0008
N
≤0.09
0.0008-0.0009
0.0008-0.0009
Sn
0-0.04
0
0
Fe + Impurities
Balance
Balance
Balance
JP’653 is silent on the P amount. Okubo teaches a non-oriented electrical steel having major composition overlapping the composition disclosed by JP’653 (see Abstract; [0043] to [0081]). Okubo discloses that when the amount of P is 0.02-0.1 wt%, the steel has good strength and easy to roll ([0050]). Thus, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to control the amount of P in the range of 0.02-0.1 wt% as taught by Okubo in the steel of JP’653 in order to make a steel having good strength as disclosed by Okubo.
JP’653 discloses that the essential elements are C, Si, Al, Mn and P, S and N are impurities (Abstract; [0011]), which meet the transitional phrase “consists of” as recited in claims 18-21.
JP’653 discloses that the steel sheet has a thickness of 0.25 mm to 0.4 mm (Abstract), which overlap the recited thickness in claim 1. JP’653 discloses that the steel has a grain size of 70-125 µm ([0017]), which overlaps the recited grain size in claim 1. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Thus, the recited steel thickness and grain size is a prima facie case of obviousness over JP’653. See MPEP 2144.05 I.
JP’653 discloses that the recrystallization annealing is performed on cold-rolled sheet at 900-1000 ºC for 30 second ([0020]), which meet the recited recrystallization annealing temperature and time in claim 10, and one of ordinary skill in the art would expect that the steel sheet disclosed by JP’653 to meet the recited area ratio of the recrystallized microstructure in claims 1 and 5-6.
JP’653 does not explicitly disclose that the structure is made of ferrite grains. However, non-oriented steel containing ultra-low carbon content, high silicon content and high aluminum content is made of ferrite grains is well-known to one of ordinary skill in the art. Since the steel disclosed by JP’653 contains ultra-low amount of carbon and high amount of silicon and aluminum, and silicon and aluminum are ferrite forming elements, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the steel disclosed by JP’653 consists of a ferrite microstructure as recited in claims 1, 16 and 17. Further, Okubo teaches a non-oriented electrical steel having major composition overlapping the composition disclosed by Lee (see Abstract; [0043] to [0081]). Okubo discloses that the steel is composed of ferrite grains ([0083] to [0084]). Thus, the steel disclosed by JP’653 is composed of ferrite as recited in claims 1, 16 and 17.
JP’653 does not explicitly disclose that the percentage of eddy current loss in iron loss is 35-45%. However, this property limitation is determined by the steel composition and the structure of the steel. In view of the fact that JP’653 in view of Okubo teaches a steel composition that meets the recited steel composition in claim 1 and a structure that meets the recited ferrite grain size in claim 1, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect that the steel sheet disclosed by JP’653 in view of Okubo to meet the recited percentage of eddy current loss in iron loss in claim 1.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-7 and 14-21 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-16 of copending Application No. 19/283,298. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-16 of copending Application No. 19/283,298 teach all the composition, structure and property limitations recited in claims 1-7 and 14-21. See MPEP 2144.05 I.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/27/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicants argued that Hong does not teach a process that is “identical or substantially identical” to the process as described in the present specification for achieving the claimed microstructure and mechanical characteristics. Hong lacks cooling rate from finish rolling temperature to coiling temperature, heating rate from room temperature to annealing temperature and cooling rate after the annealing. Thus, Hong does not meet the feature a percentage of eddy current losses in total iron losses, measured at 1T and 400 Hz according to IEC 60404-2 standards, less than 35-45 % when calculated in accordance with Bertotti method.
In response, instant Specification discloses that a percentage of eddy current losses in total iron losses depends on the Si amount. Instant Specification has not disclosed the effect of cooling rate from finish rolling temperature to coiling temperature, heating rate from room temperature to annealing temperature and cooling rate after the annealing have an effect on percentage of eddy current losses in total iron losses. In view of the fact that Hong teaches many examples containing Si amount that meets the recited Si range, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect that the steel disclosed by Hong to meet the recited percentage of eddy current losses in total iron losses.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Xiaowei Su whose telephone number is (571)272-3239. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-5:00.
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 Hendricks can be reached at 5712721401. 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.
/XIAOWEI SU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1733