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.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim 1, it is unclear how thickness of the forsterite film is defined. Applicant characterizes the film as having root structures which means that the film thickness may not be conventionally characterized. Applicant provides definition, but it is unclear how the provided definition relates to that being claimed and thus what is the claim scope. See Specification (paragraph 38). Analogous rejection applies to Claim 2.
Regarding Claim 2, it is unclear how the claimed precision is defined. Applicant provides definition, but is unclear how the provided definition relates to that being claimed and thus what is the claim scope. See Specification (paragraph 39).
Regarding Claim 3, it unclear what is meant by “further contains . . . at least one . . .”, where each possible further ingredient can be present in an “or less” amount. It is unclear whether all being completely absent is in the intended claim scope. It is unclear whether one element being in the claimed range (including zero amount) means that other specified elements can assume any amount, whether in the claimed range or not. Analogous rejection applies to Claim 8.
Regarding Claim 7, it is unclear where this step is to occur among those of previous Claim 4. It is unclear whether “in the cooling process” necessarily refers to the soaking treatment feature of this claim. Analogous rejection applies to Claims 10-12.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 1 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Claims 2-12 are would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding Claims 1-12, the reviewed prior art does not teach or suggest these claimed articles and claimed methods of making these claimed articles. Particularly, the reviewed prior art does not teach or suggest claimed grain-oriented electrical steel having the claimed composition, including Ti and Nb requirements, wherein Ti and Nb peak intensity requirements are satisfied with respect to forsterite film, as claimed, and meet claimed requirements for B8 as claimed, in the claimed context. For example, Takahashi USPA 2013/0292006 fails to expressly teach or suggest Ti and Nb peak intensity as claimed or provide basis for establishing inherency thereof. See Takahashi (Tables 2 and 3; and entire document). For example, Imamura USPA 2018/0202018 discloses grain oriented electrical steel sheet having forsterite layer thereon wherein Ti is controlled in steel composition and in forsterite layer, but fails to expressly teach or suggest claimed intensity requirements with respect to forsterite film or provide basis for establishing inherency thereof and fails to expressly teach or suggest or provide basis for establishing inherency of claimed B8. See Imamura (Table 3; and entire document).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL E. LA VILLA whose telephone number is (571)272-1539. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. through Fri. from 9:00 a.m. ET to 5:30 p.m. 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, Humera N. Sheikh, can be reached at (571) 272-0604. 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.
/MICHAEL E. LA VILLA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1784 6 June 2026
Prosecution Insights