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. 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. The term “ mainly composed of MgO ” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “ mainly composed of MgO ” is not defined by the claim . Paragraph [0041] of the instant specification states that the phrase "mainly composed of MgO" means that the MgO content in the annealing separator is 60 mass % or more in terms of solid content. The content of MgO in the annealing separator is preferably 80 mass % or more in terms of solid content. This does not provide clarity as it is unclear if the claim would encompass annealing separators with an MgO content between 60 mass % and 80% mass% or if it would only encompass annealing separators with an MgO content of more than 80 mass%. O ne of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Claims 2-4 are also rejected as they depend on claim 1. 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. Claims 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JPH02125815 of Iwamoto in view of JPH0230778 of Shimizu . Claim 1 claims a method for producing a grain-oriented electrical steel sheet, comprising subjecting a steel material containing, by mass%, Si: 2.0 % or more and 5.0 % or less, Mn: 0.01 % or more and 0.50 % or less, and one or both of S and Se: 0.001 % or more and 0.100 % or less in total, to hot rolling, followed by cold rolling once, or twice or more with intermediate annealing in between, followed by decarburization annealing, followed by application and drying of an annealing separator mainly composed of MgO, followed by final annealing, followed by flattening annealing, wherein the final annealing is performed in an atmosphere where a flow rate of an atmospheric gas is 0.2 L/min or higher per tonne of steel sheet and a dew point is 10 °C or lower, the flattening annealing is accompanied by coating treatment including application of a coating solution, and prior to the application of the coating solution, pickling treatment is performed using an acid with a concentration of 1.0 mass% or more and 20.0 mass% or less at a temperature of 15 ° C or higher for 1 second or more and 60 seconds or less. Iwamoto teaches the manufacture of grain-oriented silicon steel sheet having superior magnetic characteristic in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Iwamoto teaches a grain-oriented steel sheet with Si in the range of 2.5 to 4.0 wt %, Mn in the range of 0.03 to 0.15 wt %, and S and/or Se in the range of 0.008 to 0.100 wt %, Para[0001]. These overlap with the claimed values. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists, see MPEP 2144.05 . Iwamoto discloses that the steel sheet is hot-rolled, and then cold-rolled once or twice with intermediate annealing. In a method for producing a unidirectional silicon steel sheet, the method comprises a series of steps of applying an 80% range, finishing to a final sheet thickness, applying an annealing separator after decarburizing annealing and performing final finish annealing, Para[0001]. Iwamoto also teaches a gas flow rate of 2 cc/min*kg (equivalent to 2 L/min per ton) , and a dew point of 0°C or less, Para[0001]. Iwamoto discloses that after finish annealing, insulation tension coating is applied and flattening annealing is performed to finish the product, Para[0001]. While Iwamoto teaches pickling, it is not taught after final annealing and prior to the application of the coating solution. Shimizu teaches the production of grain-oriented silicon steel sheet with excellent electromagnetic characteristic and coating adhesion in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Shimizu discloses pickling prior to coating, Para[0001]. Shimizu teaches that the object of light acid pickling prior to coating is to remove unreacted separating agent, and for the purpose of improving the magnetism, Para[0001]. Shimizu also teaches phosphoric acid with a concentration of 1% or more and 20% or less before overcoating and that l ight acid pickling was carried out with either hydrochloric acid or sulfuric acid at a liquid temperature of 15 ° C or more for 2 seconds or more and 60 seconds or less to reduce S or Se present in the forsterite coating and in the vicinity of the coating and the iron, Para[0001]. These values for concentration, temperature, and time overlap with the claimed values. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists, see MPEP 2144.05 . Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to pickle the grain-oriented steel sheet disclosed by Iwamoto before coating, as taught by Shimizu, in order to remove unreacted separating agent and achieve improved magnetism. Thus, Iwamoto in view of Shimizu covers all limitations of claim 1. Claim 2 further limits claim 1 by claiming that the acid is one of phosphoric acid, hydrochloric acid, sulfuric acid, or nitric acid. Iwamoto is silent on phosphoric acid, hydrochloric acid, sulfuric acid, and nitric acid . Shimizu discloses Phosphoric acid, hydrochloric acid, and sulfuric acid, Para[0001]. Shimizu teaches that light acid pickling was carried out with either hydrochloric acid or sulfuric acid at a liquid temperature of 15 ° C or more for 2 seconds or more and 60 seconds or less to reduce S or Se present in the forsterite coating and in the vicinity of the coating and the iron, Para[0001]. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use one of phosphoric acid, hydrochloric acid, or sulfuric acid, as taught by Shimizu, as the pickling acid in the method disclosed by Iwamoto in order to reduce S or Se in the coating. Thus, Iwamoto in view of Shimizu covers all limitations of claim 2. Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JPH02125815 of Iwamoto in view of JPH0230778 of Shimizu taken as cited above, further in view of WO9301329 of Masui . Claim 3 further limits claim 1 by claiming that the annealing separator has an ignition loss after the drying of 1.0 mass% or more and 7.0 mass% or less. Iwamoto and Shimizu are silent on ignition loss. Masui teaches a unidirectional silicon steel sheet having excellent film properties in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Masui discloses that the weight change before and after drying of MgO expressed by ignition loss (loss on ignition) should be between 0.5 and 5.0%, Para[0087]. This overlaps with the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists, see MPEP 2144.05 . Masui teaches that if this ignition loss value is less than 0.5%, the reaction of MgO will be poor and the coating will be defective, whereas if the ignition loss is more than 5.0%, it will be in a state of peroxidation, resulting in film failure, Para[0087]. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the annealing separator with the ignition loss taught by Masui in the method disclosed by Iwamoto in view of Shimizu in order to avoid defective coating and film failure. Thus, Iwamoto in view of Shimizu further in view of Masui covers all limitations of claim 3. Claim 4 further limits claim 2 by claiming that the annealing separator has an ignition loss after the drying of 1.0 mass% or more and 7.0 mass% or less. Iwamoto and Shimizu are silent on ignition loss. Masui discloses that the weight change before and after drying of MgO expressed by ignition loss (loss on ignition) should be between 0.5 and 5.0%, Para[0087]. This overlaps with the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists, see MPEP 2144.05 . Masui teaches that if this ignition loss value is less than 0.5%, the reaction of MgO will be poor and the coating will be defective, whereas if the ignition loss is more than 5.0%, it will be in a state of peroxidation, resulting in film failure, Para[0087]. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the annealing separator with the ignition loss taught by Masui in the method disclosed by Iwamoto in view of Shimizu in order to avoid defective coating and film failure. Thus, Iwamoto in view of Shimizu further in view of Masui covers all limitations of claim 4. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT JACOB BENJAMIN STILES whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-0598 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday-Friday 7:30am - 5:00pm . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Keith Hendricks can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (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. /Keith D. Hendricks/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1733 /JACOB BENJAMIN STILES/ Examiner, Art Unit 1733