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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Specification and Claim 1 have been amended; Claims 1-6 remain for examination, wherein claim 1 is an independent claim. It is acknowledged of the receipt of the Applicant’s “Terminal Disclaimer” filed 3/15/2026, which has been approved on 3/15/2026.
Previous Rejections/Objections
Previous rejection of Claims 1-6 on the ground of non-statutory obviousness type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-6 of co-pending application No. 18/0183011 (US-PG-pub 2024/0183011 A1) is withdrawn in view of the Applicant’s “Arguments/Remarks with amendment” filed on 3/16/2026 and the Applicant’s “Terminal Disclaimer” filed 3/15/2026, which has been approved on 3/15/2026.
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 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.
Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Imamura et al ( US-PG-pub 2016/0319390, thereafter PG’390) in view of Hayakawa et al (US-PG-pub 2019/0233914 A1, thereafter PG’914).
PG’390 in view of PG’914 is applied to the instant claims 1-2 for the same reason as stated in the previous office action dated 12/29/2025.
Regarding the amended feature in the instant claim 1, PG’390 teaches a manufacturing process for a grain-oriented electrical steel sheet by including a series of steps of hot rolling a raw steel material (Abstract of PG’914) and PG’914 teaches the slab of the raw steel is heated to about 1400oC for hot rolling (par.[0040] of PG’390), which reads on the claimed heating range of 1310 to 1400oC as claimed in the instant claim.
Claims 3-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PG’390 in view of PG’914, and further in view of in view of Sakai et al (US-PG-pub 2013/0017408, thereafter PG’408).
PG’390 in view of PG’914 and PG’408 is applied to the instant claims 1-2 for the same reason as stated in the previous office action dated 12/29/2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments to the art rejection to Claims 1-6 have been considered but they are not persuasive in view of the new ground rejection as stated above. Regarding the arguments related to the amendments in the instant claims, the Examiner’s position has been stated as following.
The Applicant’s arguments have been summarized as following:
1, Hayakawa et al (PG’914) does not specify the claimed heating temperature range for the steel material.
2, the cited prior art(s) does not specify the claimed heating parameters in temperature range of 800-900oC, which is related to the iron loss of the alloy.
In response,
Regarding the argument 1, Firstly, as pointed out in the rejection above, PG’914 teaches the slab of the raw steel is heated to about 1400oC for hot rolling (par.[0040] of PG’390), which reads on the claimed heating range of 1310 to 1400oC as claimed in the instant claim. Secondly, the Applicant’s arguments should not be against the combined prior arts individually, one should not show non-obviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In the instant case, rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Imamura et al (PG’390) in view of Hayakawa et al (PG’914)is applied to the instant claims 1-2 and Sakai et al (PG’408) is further cited for claims 3-6. The reason and motivation for the combination can further refer to the rejection for in the office action above and previous office action dated 12/29/2025.
Regarding the argument 2, Hayakawa et al (PG’914) indicates that: “In terms of completing secondary recrystallization, the average heating rate in a temperature range of 800° C. or more and 900° C. or less in the secondary recrystallization annealing is preferably 5° C./h or less.” (Par.[0320] of PG’914) for 2-20h (par.[0321] of PG’914), which is same annealing temperature range as claimed and overlapping the heating rate of 0.5-4.0oC/hr and duration as claimed in the instant claim 1. MPEP 2144 05 I. Actually, PG’914 provides examples heating from 800° C to 880° C at 2.0oC/h. and hold for 50hrs, (par.[0346]-[0348] of PG’914), which reads on the claimed heating parameters as calmed in the instant claim.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JIE YANG whose telephone number is (571)270-1884. The examiner can normally be reached on IFP.
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 J Johnson can be reached on 571-272-1177. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JIE YANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1734
Prosecution Insights