DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-2 are pending and currently under review.
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 § 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.
Claim(s) 1-2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Omura et al. (US 2020/0087746) in view of Madi et al. (US 2010/0122712) and Suzuki et al. (JPH08143971, machine translation referred to herein).
Regarding claim 1, Omura et al. discloses a method of manufacturing a grain-oriented electrical steel sheet [abstract]; wherein said method includes steps of hot rolling [0080], cold rolling once or twice or more with intermediate annealing therein [0081], subjecting the cold rolled steel to pickling with an HCl acid solution [0138, 0143], performing decarburization annealing [0082], followed by application of an MgO annealing separator and final annealing [0083-0084].
Omura et al. does not expressly teach that pickling is performed with a solution as claimed. Madi et al. discloses a pickling solution for electrical steels having cost-saving benefits [0002-0004]; wherein said solution includes 6 to 15 percent of an acid of HCl and 2 to 8 percent of ferric ions [0017-0018, 0023]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to modify the method of Omura et al. by utilizing the pickling solution of Madi et al. to save costs as expressly taught by Madi et al. The examiner notes that the aforementioned ranges of Madi et al. fall within the claimed ranges.
The aforementioned prior art does not expressly teach controlling a concentration of CO during decarburization annealing as claimed. Suzuki et al. discloses that it is known to control an atmosphere of decarburization annealing for grain-oriented steels sheets to include less than 6 percent of CO inevitably mixed therein such that C content can be reduced and annealing time can be shortened [0001, 0018-0019, 0027]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to modify the method of the aforementioned prior art by controlling a concentration of CO for the aforementioned benefit. The examiner notes that the CO range of Suzuki et al. falls within the claimed range.
Regarding claim 2, the aforementioned prior art discloses the method of claim 1 (see previous). As stated above, Omura et al. and Madi et al. both teach that the pickling solution includes HCl.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS A WANG whose telephone number is (408)918-7576. The examiner can normally be reached usually M-Th: 7-5.
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 Johnson can be reached at 5712721177. 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.
/NICHOLAS A WANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1734