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. Detail Action Claims 1-5 remain for examination, wherein claim 1 is an independent claim. Claim Objections Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: proper unit should be added for the claimed “bending strength”. Appropriate correction is required. 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- 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fishler et al (US 4,791,9 78 , listed in IDS filed on 12/07/2023, thereafter US’9 78 ) in view of Hanse et al (US 5,691,061, listed in IDS filed on 12/07/2023, thereafter US’061) . Regarding claim 1 , US’9 78 teaches a one-piece carbon-bonded graphite refractory stopper rod for use in continuous casting of molten metal includes a co - pressed body portion with an integral porous nose section (Abstract, claims, and Figs. of US’9 78 ). As shown in the Figs 2-4 of US’9 78 , US’9 78 provides example with stopper having gas flow cavity in center part and a t least part of a vertical section of a nose including porous refractory material (Fig.2-4, Col.6, ln.63 to Col.7, ln.28 of US’978), which reads on the claimed stopper with porous refractory material and higher strength refractory material as claimed in the instant claim. US’978 does not specify the arrangement of the different refractory material as claimed in the instant claim. US’061 teaches a pouring stopper rod for controlling the flow of molten metal from a ladle or tundish with a body and reinforced nose forming the end of the body and is of a material different than that of the body. (Col.1, ln.53 to Col.2, ln.17 of US’061). US’061 provides example having external refractory layer (Fig.6 and Col.6, ln.42 to Col.7, ln.37 of US’061). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to optimize apply the refractory arrangement as demonstrated by US’061 for the stopper of US’978 since both US’978 and US’061 teach the same stopper for continuous casting as claimed throughout whole disclosing range. Regarding claim 2, US’061 provides materials for the stopper rod and external layer (Table on col.8 and Col.6, lns.42-52 of Us’061). The claimed bending strength would be highly expected form the stopper US’978 in view of US’061. MPEP 2112 01 and 2145 II. Regarding clai ms 3 and 5 , US’061 provides example having external refractory layer (Fig.6 and Col.6, ln.42 to Col.7, ln.37 of US’061) , which reads on the arrangement of the refractory material as claimed in the instant claim. Regarding claim 4, US’061 provides example having external layer 10 mm ( Col.6, ln.42 to Col.7, ln.37 of US’061) , which reads on the claimed thickness range of 5mm or more as claimed in the in the instant claim. Double Patenting The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg , 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman , 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi , 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum , 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel , 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington , 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969). A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b). Claims 1- 5 are rejected on the ground of non - statutory obviousness type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1- 5 of co-pending application No. 17/417461 (US 12,023,730 B2 ) . Regarding claims 1- 5 , although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentable distinct from each other with claims 1-5 of co-pending application No. 17/417461 (US 12,023,730 B2) . C laims 1-5 of co-pending application No. 17/417461 (US 12,023,730 B2) teaches “a stopper for continuous casting comprising: a cavity for conveying gas in a vertical direction center of the stopper; one or a plurality of gas discharge holes passing through from the cavity to the outside in a distal center or a side surface of a reduced-diameter region including a fitted portion to a lower nozzle ”, which reads on the stopper for continuation casting as claimed in the instant claims. Thus, no patentable distinction was found in the instant claims compared with the manufacturing process a grain-oriented electrical steel sheet as disclosed by C laims 1-5 of co-pending application No. 17/417461 (US 12,023,730 B2) . Claims 1- 5 are rejected on the ground of non - statutory obviousness type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1- 11 of co-pending application No. 17/ 431214 (US 11,745,257 B2) . Regarding claims 1-6, although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentable distinct from each other with claims 1-11 of co-pending application No. 17/431214 (US 11,745,257 B2) . C laims 1-11 of co-pending application No. 17/431214 (US 11,745,257 B2) teaches a stopper for controlling a flow rate of molten steel in continuous casting of molten steel, and fittingly engageable with the stopper in a fitting engagement region , which reads on the stopper for continuation casting as claimed in the instant claims. Thus, no patentable distinction was found in the instant claims compared with the manufacturing process a grain-oriented electrical steel sheet as disclosed by Claims 1-5 of co-pending application No. 17/417461 (US 12,023,730 B2). Thus, no patentable distinction was found in the instant claims compared with the manufacturing process a grain-oriented electrical steel sheet as disclosed by claims 1-8 of co-pending application No. 17/603877 (US 12,305,255 B2) . Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT JIE YANG whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571) 270-1884 . The examiner can normally be reached on FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Jonathan J Johnson can be reached on FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 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