Prosecution Insights
Last updated: October 22, 2026
Application No. 19/131,856

GRAIN-ORIENTED ELECTRICAL STEEL SHEET

Non-Final OA §101§112§DOUBLEPATENT
Filed
May 21, 2025
Priority
Nov 22, 2022 — JP 2022-186504 +1 more
Examiner
KRUPICKA, ADAM C
Art Unit
1784
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
NIPPON STEEL Corporation
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
62%
Grant Probability
Moderate
1-2
OA Rounds
1y 10m
Est. Remaining
89%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 62% of resolved cases
62%
Career Allowance Rate
486 granted / 782 resolved
-2.9% vs TC avg
Strong +27% interview lift
Without
With
+27.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 3m
Avg Prosecution
31 currently pending
Career history
824
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.6%
-39.4% vs TC avg
§103
54.2%
+14.2% vs TC avg
§102
17.1%
-22.9% vs TC avg
§112
21.9%
-18.1% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 782 resolved cases

Office Action

§101 §112 §DOUBLEPATENT
DETAILED ACTION Double Patenting A rejection based on double patenting of the “same invention” type finds its support in the language of 35 U.S.C. 101 which states that “whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process... may obtain a patent therefor...” (Emphasis added). Thus, the term “same invention,” in this context, means an invention drawn to identical subject matter. See Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 151 U.S. 186 (1894); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Ockert, 245 F.2d 467, 114 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1957). A statutory type (35 U.S.C. 101) double patenting rejection can be overcome by canceling or amending the claims that are directed to the same invention so they are no longer coextensive in scope. The filing of a terminal disclaimer cannot overcome a double patenting rejection based upon 35 U.S.C. 101. Claim 1 is provisionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claim 1 of co-pending Application No. 19/131,777 (reference application). This is a provisional statutory double patenting rejection since the claims directed to the same invention have not in fact been patented. 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. Claim 1 is 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. Claim 1 includes a clause “in which grain-oriented electrical steel sheet;” however the purpose or intent of this phrase with respect to the scope of the claimed steel sheet is unclear. It appears applicants intend to further limit the grooves be establishing a clause defining the grooves, however the phrase is awkward. Correction is required to clarify what is intended by “in which grain-oriented electrical steel sheet;”. Allowable Subject Matter Claim 1 is rejected under double patenting above as well as under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) but is otherwise found to distinguish over the prior art. Mogi et al. (PGPub US 10,385,418) disclose a grain oriented electrical steel sheet but do not appear to disclose an Sabottom or Saside. While the materials and processes disclosed by Mori et al. are similar to that disclosed by applicants, there is insufficient evidence such that one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected the steel sheets to inherently possess an Sabottom or Saside within applicants’ claimed range. Mogi et al. for example do not disclose a pickling treatment consistent with that disclosed by applicants (applicants’ present specification 0054-0060). Claim 1 is found to distinguish over Mogi et al. and would be in condition for allowance upon resolution of the double patenting rejection and rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as set forth above. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM C KRUPICKA whose telephone number is (571)270-7086. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8-5pm EST. 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 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. /Adam Krupicka/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1784
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

May 21, 2025
Application Filed
Oct 02, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §101, §112, §DOUBLEPATENT (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12768000
ULTRA HIGH STRENGTH COLD ROLLED STEEL SHEET HAVING EXCELLENT SPOT WELDABILITY AND FORMABILITY, ULTRA HIGH STRENGTH PLATED STEEL SHEET AND MANUFACTURING METHOD THEREFOR
3y 11m to grant Granted Oct 20, 2026
Patent 12753524
DOUBLE LAYERED ELECTROLYTIC COPPER FOIL AND MANUFACTURING METHOD THEREOF
3y 10m to grant Granted Oct 06, 2026
Patent 12752514
METAL COMPOSITE STRUCTURE AND METHOD FOR PRODUCING SAME
2y 1m to grant Granted Oct 06, 2026
Patent 12741315
POWDER, ARTICLE, AND METHOD OF MANUFACTURING ARTICLE
2y 7m to grant Granted Sep 22, 2026
Patent 12735780
A ZINC OR ZINC-ALLOY COATED STRIP OR STEEL WITH IMPROVED ZINC ADHESION
3y 2m to grant Granted Sep 15, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

Strategy Recommendation AI-generated — please review before filing

Get a prosecution strategy drawn from examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Typically takes 5-10 seconds — AI-generated, attorney review required before filing

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
62%
Grant Probability
89%
With Interview (+27.0%)
3y 3m (~1y 10m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 782 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allowance rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month