Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/258,327

METHOD FOR PRODUCING GRAIN-ORIENTED ELECTRICAL STEEL SHEET

Final Rejection §103
Filed
Jun 20, 2023
Examiner
LUK, VANESSA TIBAY
Art Unit
1733
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
JFE Steel Corporation
OA Round
2 (Final)
54%
Grant Probability
Moderate
3-4
OA Rounds
3y 11m
To Grant
82%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 54% of resolved cases
54%
Career Allow Rate
385 granted / 714 resolved
-11.1% vs TC avg
Strong +28% interview lift
Without
With
+27.9%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 11m
Avg Prosecution
50 currently pending
Career history
764
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.3%
-39.7% vs TC avg
§103
53.8%
+13.8% vs TC avg
§102
8.5%
-31.5% vs TC avg
§112
26.6%
-13.4% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 714 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
DETAILED ACTION Status of Claims Claims 1 and 3 are pending and presented for examination on the merits. Claim 1 is currently amended. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 02/18/2026 was filed after the mailing date of the non-final Office action on 08/21/2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS is being considered by the examiner. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action. Claims 1 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP H09-249916 (A) to Watanabe et al. (“JP ʹ916”) (abstract and computer-generated translation are attached). Regarding claim 1, JP ʹ916 discloses a method for producing a grain-oriented silicon steel sheet (method for producing a grain-oriented electrical steel sheet). Abstract. The method includes steps of (i) providing a slab; (ii) hot rolling; (iii) cold rolling once or multiple times including intermediate annealing to a final sheet thickness; (iv) decarburization annealing; (v) applying an annealing separator to the steel sheet surface before final annealing; and (vi) final annealing. Para. [0009], [0015]. The slab contains C 0.02-0.1 wt.% and Si 2.0-4.0 wt.% (abstract; para. [0009], [0027]; claim 1), which fall within the claimed ranges. Mn may be added in amounts of 0.03-0.10 wt.% (para. [0015], [0028], [0036]), which falls within the claimed range. An auxiliary inhibitor like V can be added in an amount of 0.01-0.2 wt.% in total, alone or in combination with other auxiliary inhibitors (para. [0029]), which overlaps the claimed range. The slab is steel (iron and inevitable impurities as the balance). Para. [0009]. The annealing separator uses MgO as the main component. Para. [0031]. The annealing separator may contain an additive (metal compound) of one or more of oxides, hydroxides, and sulfates of one or more of Sn, Bi, and Sb, among other elements, in an amount of 0.6-7 parts by weight per 100 parts by weight of MgO (para. [0010]-[0012], [0032], [0033]), which overlaps the claimed range. The average particle size of the aforementioned additive (metal compound) ranges from 0.3 µm to 15 µm. Para. [0010], [0012], [0023], [0024], [0033]; claim 2. The particles may be selected to closer to or approaching the lower limit of 0.3 µm, as implied by the range, suggesting that the additives need not be larger than 1 µm (ratio of particles with a particle size of 1 µm or more in the metal compound being 0.0010 particles per µm2 or less). The overlap between the ranges taught in the prior art and recited in the claims creates a prima facie case of obviousness. MPEP § 2144.05(I). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to select from among the prior art ranges because there is utility over an entire range disclosed in the prior art. Regarding claim 3, JP ʹ916 discloses that the steel slab may further constitute an inhibitor. Para. [0028]. When AlN is used as an inhibitor, the Al content is 0.01-0.04 wt.% and the N content is 50-120 ppm (0.0050-0.0120 wt.%), each of which overlaps the claimed ranges. Para. [0028]. In addition to a main inhibitor, auxiliary inhibitors include Cu, Sn, Cr, Sb, Mo, and P, among others, alone or in combination in amount of 0.01-0.2 wt.% in total (para. [0029]), which overlaps the claimed ranges. Claims 1 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP ʹ916 in view of US 2014/0251514 (A1) to Watanabe et al. (“US ʹ514”). Regarding claim 1, JP ʹ916 discloses a method for producing a grain-oriented silicon steel sheet (method for producing a grain-oriented electrical steel sheet). Abstract. The method includes steps of (i) providing a slab; (ii) hot rolling; (iii) cold rolling once or multiple times including intermediate annealing to a final sheet thickness; (iv) decarburization annealing; (v) applying an annealing separator to the steel sheet surface before final annealing; and (vi) final annealing. Para. [0009], [0015]. The slab contains C 0.02-0.1 wt.% and Si 2.0-4.0 wt.% (abstract; para. [0009], [0027]; claim 1), which fall within the claimed ranges. Mn may be added in amounts of 0.03-0.10 wt.% (para. [0015], [0028], [0036]), which falls within the claimed range. The annealing separator uses MgO as the main component. Para. [0031]. The annealing separator may contain an additive (metal compound) of one or more of oxides, hydroxides, and sulfates of one or more of Sn, Bi, and Sb, among other elements, in an amount of 0.6-7 parts by weight per 100 parts by weight of MgO (para. [0010]-[0012], [0032], [0033]), which overlaps the claimed range. The average particle size of the aforementioned additive (metal compound) ranges from 0.3 µm to 15 µm. Para. [0010], [0012], [0023], [0024], [0033]; claim 2. The particles may be selected to closer to or approaching the lower limit of 0.3 µm, as implied by the range, suggesting that the additives need not be larger than 1 µm (ratio of particles with a particle size of 1 µm or more in the metal compound being 0.0010 particles per µm2 or less). The overlap between the ranges taught in the prior art and recited in the claims creates a prima facie case of obviousness. MPEP § 2144.05(I). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to select from among the prior art ranges because there is utility over an entire range disclosed in the prior art. With respect to the addition of at least one element selected from the group consisting of Ti, Zr, Hf, V, Nb, and Ta, JP ʹ916 teaches that auxiliary inhibitors Cu, Sn, Cr, Sb, Ge, Mo, Te, Bi, P, and V can be added, alone or in combination with one another, in an amount of 0.01-0.2 wt.% in total. Para. [0029]. Where V is added as an auxiliary inhibitor, it can be added in combination with another element to reach the total of 0.01-0.2 wt.%, but JP ʹ916 is silent as to a specific proportion of V if it is added in combination with another element. US ʹ514 is directed to a grain-oriented electrical steel sheet. Abstract; para. [0002]. The steel sheet may further contain V 0.005-0.1% by mass (para. [0017], [0054]), which overlaps the claimed range. These elements have the effect of reinforcing an inhibitor effect that stably enhances magnetic flux density. Para. [0055]. JP ʹ916 seeks to avoid great variations in magnetic flux density. Para. [0017]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have added V in the steel slab of JP ʹ916 in the amounts taught by US ʹ514 when multiple auxiliary inhibitors are present because they would provide stability and enhance magnetic flux density of the electrical steel sheet. Where V is not selected as auxiliary inhibitor in JP ʹ916, it would be omitted (zero percent). JP ʹ916 does not teach adding Ti, Zr, Hf, Nb, and Ta. US ʹ514 is directed to a grain-oriented electrical steel sheet. Abstract; para. [0002]. The steel sheet may further contain one or more of Ti 0.005-0.1% by mass and Nb 0.005-0.1% by mass (para. [0017], [0054]), each of which overlap the claimed range. These elements have the effect of reinforcing an inhibitor effect that stably enhances magnetic flux density. Para. [0055]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have added Ti and/or Nb in the amounts taught by US ʹ514 to the steel slab of JP ʹ916 because these elements would stabilize and improve magnetic flux density of the electrical steel sheet. Regarding claim 3, JP ʹ916 discloses that the steel slab may further constitute an inhibitor. Para. [0028]. When AlN is used as an inhibitor, the Al content is 0.01-0.04 wt.% and the N content is 50-120 ppm (0.0050-0.0120 wt.%), each of which overlaps the claimed ranges. Para. [0028]. In addition to a main inhibitor, auxiliary inhibitors include Cu, Sn, Cr, Sb, Mo, and P, among others, alone or in combination in amount of 0.01-0.2 wt.% in total (para. [0029]), which overlaps the claimed ranges. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments filed on 11/11/2025 with regard to Park (WO 2008/047999 (A1)) in view of Watanabe (US 2014/0251514 (A1)) have been considered, but they are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on this combination of references to reject the claims. Park is no longer used to reject the claims in this Office action. Watanabe (US ʹ514) is cited in this Office action, but is utilized in combination with new reference JP ʹ916, thereby rendering the argument moot. 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 VANESSA T. LUK whose telephone number is (571)270-3587. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:30 AM - 4:30 PM ET. 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 D. Hendricks, can be reached at 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 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. /VANESSA T. LUK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1733 February 26, 2026
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jun 20, 2023
Application Filed
Aug 19, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Nov 11, 2025
Response Filed
Feb 26, 2026
Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12601036
ALUMINUM ALLOY COMPRISING LITHIUM WITH IMPROVED FATIGUE PROPERTIES
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12603202
Method for Manufacturing Sintered Magnet and Sintered Magnet
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12597811
METHOD OF HEAT-TREATING ADDITIVELY MANUFACTURED FERROMAGNETIC COMPONENTS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12597541
ALLOY FOR R-T-B BASED PERMANENT MAGNET AND METHOD FOR MANUFACTURING R-T-B BASED PERMANENT MAGNET
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12590351
PRODUCTION METHOD FOR NON-ORIENTED SILICON STEEL AND NON-ORIENTED SILICON STEEL
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 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

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
54%
Grant Probability
82%
With Interview (+27.9%)
3y 11m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 714 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