Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/014,352

ADHESIVELY-LAMINATED CORE MANUFACTURING METHOD AND ADHESIVELY-LAMINATED CORE MANUFACTURING DEVICE

Non-Final OA §103§112
Filed
Jan 04, 2023
Examiner
TRINH, MINH N
Art Unit
3729
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Toagosei Co. Ltd.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
86%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 12m
To Grant
96%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 86% — above average
86%
Career Allow Rate
1286 granted / 1499 resolved
+15.8% vs TC avg
Moderate +10% lift
Without
With
+10.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 12m
Avg Prosecution
48 currently pending
Career history
1547
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.2%
-39.8% vs TC avg
§103
33.0%
-7.0% vs TC avg
§102
22.9%
-17.1% vs TC avg
§112
37.8%
-2.2% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1499 resolved cases

Office Action

§103 §112
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 . Election/Restrictions Applicant’s election without traverse of Species IIB (claims 1-2) in the reply filed on 11/24/25 is acknowledged. Claims 3-17 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species (e.g., species IA-IB, IIA, IIIA-B and IV), there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 11/24/25. An OA on the merits of claims 1-2 as follows: Specification The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification. Claim Objections Claims 1-2 are objected to because of the following informalities: Since the scope of the claims 1-2 is clearly directed to” the method of manufacturing an adhesively laminated core”, therefore the preamble should be updated to the following for clarity of the claims scope. “An adhesively-laminated core manufacturing method which is a method for manufacturing an adhesively-laminated core by punching a plurality of steel sheet parts while a strip-shaped steel sheet is fed and laminating the steel sheet parts via an adhesive, the adhesively-laminated core manufacturing method comprising:” (preamble of claim 1) has been updated to the following form: -- A method for manufacturing an adhesively-laminated core comprising steps of: punching a plurality of steel sheet parts from a strip-shaped steel sheet while feeding the strip-shaped steel sheet; and laminating the steel sheet parts by an adhesive;”--, for clarity of the method claim limitation. 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 1-2 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. Since the scope of the claims clearly drawn to “a method of manufacturing an adhesively laminated core” as clearly represented in the preamble therefore the following changes to the claims were necessary to correct minor informalities with the claim language by ensuring that certain terms or phrases were recited consistently throughout all of the claims. In no way do these changes affect the scope of the claimed invention. “a step of” (claim 1, lines 5 and 8) should be deleted to reflect changes as suggested in line 1 of the preamble above. “before a pressing oil is applied” (claim 1, about line 6) should be updated to:-- “prior to applying a pressing oil to a surface of the curing acceleration portion”-- “to a surface” (claim 1, line 8) should be updated to :--“to the surface”--, to reflect changes as suggested above. “The adhesively-laminated core manufacturing method according to claim 1” (see claim 2, line 1) should also be updated to: -- “The method for manufacturing an adhesively-laminated core according to claim 1”-- “wherein each of the steel sheet parts includes a first steel sheet part and a second steel sheet part, the adhesively-laminated core manufacturing method comprising:” (claim 2, line 2) should be updated to: --“wherein each of the plurality of steel sheet parts includes a first steel sheet part and a second steel sheet part; and the punching of the plurality of steel sheet parts further comprising: “ -- “a first step of” (claim 2, line 4); “a second step of” (claim 2, line 7); ”a third step of”(claim 2, line 9) should be deleted to reflect changes as suggested in base claim 1 undersection of “claim objection to above”. Further, it is also suggested that Applicant should carefully revise their disclosure and correct other typos in the claims and/or specification. 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. Claim(s) 1-2 as best understood is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP6164029B2 hereinafter the ‘029 in view of Haraguch (JP 2006334648A). The ‘029 discloses substantially every aspect limitation includes as adhesively-laminated core manufacturing method which is a method for manufacturing an adhesively-laminated core by punching a plurality of steel sheet parts while a strip-shaped steel sheet is fed and laminating the steel sheet parts via an adhesive, the adhesively-laminated core manufacturing method comprising: a step of forming a curing acceleration portion by applying and drying a curing accelerator on one or both surfaces of the strip-shaped steel sheet before a pressing oil is applied (see discussed in ¶¶ [001-002] of the translation provided by applicants (IDS)); The ‘029 is in silent regarding to the step of applying the pressing oil to a surface of the curing acceleration portion. However, the Takura discloses such above (see discussion in light of the abstract under solution). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having an ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to employ the Haraguchi’s teaching as mentioned above onto invention of the ‘029 in order to facilitate the bonding and adherent process by utilizing the known and available techniques. The motivation for the combination above can be found in either reference since both reference in same endeavor field invention. As applied to claim 2, as best under stood appears to meet by the combination teaching as set forth above since “preparing the first steel sheet part having a first surface, the curing acceleration portion formed on the first surface, and the pressing oil disposed on the surface of the curing acceleration portion” appears to be a repeat process as set forth in base claim 1, and no inventive method feature existed in claim 2 because “preparing” is not an inventive feature. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MINH N TRINH whose telephone number is (571)272-4569. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH ~5:00-3:30. 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, Sunil K Singh can be reached at 571-272-3460. 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. /MINH N TRINH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3729 mt
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jan 04, 2023
Application Filed
Dec 19, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103, §112
Apr 01, 2026
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Apr 01, 2026
Examiner Interview Summary

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12604397
A METHOD OF MANUFACTURING A FORMED FILM
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12603395
BATTERY MODULE ASSEMBLY APPARATUS USING VISION AND ASSEMBLY METHOD USING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12603337
ADJUSTING METHOD OF NON-AQUEOUS ELECTROLYTIC SOLUTION AND PRODUCING METHOD OF LITHIUM-ION SECONDARY BATTERY WITH REUSED ELECTRODE PLATE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12603627
Method for Manufacturing Vibration Element
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12597832
METHOD FOR LAMINATED CORE OF ROTATING ELECTRIC MACHINE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
86%
Grant Probability
96%
With Interview (+10.0%)
2y 12m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1499 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month