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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 31 August 2026 has been entered.
Claims 1-7 and 11-14 remain pending in the application, wherein claims 1 and 6 have been amended, claims 8-10 are newly canceled, and claims 11-14 are withdrawn.
The amendments to claim 1 incorporate limitations from newly canceled claims 8-10, and the amendment to claim 6 narrows the recited range (also in paragraph 0043 of the instant specification). Accordingly, no new matter has been presented as a result of these amendments.
Response to Arguments
The amendments to claim 1 have corrected each of the informalities previously set forth in the Office Action mailed 03 June 2026. The objection to claim 1 has been withdrawn.
The amendments to claim 6 differentiates claim 7 from claim 6 so that they are no longer substantial duplicates. The rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see p. 8-12, filed 31 August 2026, with respect to the prior art rejection, have been fully considered and are persuasive. Applicant has provided objective evidence that the steel sheet disclosed by Zaizen does not necessarily have the recited range of eddy current losses as evidenced from example steels in US 2025/0354243 having compositions that overlap with that of Zaizen. The rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see p. 13, filed 31 August 2026, regarding the nonstatutory double patenting rejections, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that selected copending applications do not claim a “double cold rolled” steel sheet and being double cold rolled imparts structural features. However, in view of the overlapping ranges for other claimed limitations (i.e. composition, microstructure, magnetic polarization in most cases, percentage eddy current loss, tensile strength, yield strength, and total elongation), and in the absence of evidence of the difference in structural features, it is maintained that the method of double cold rolling (i.e. as compared to single cold rolling or other method) is a product-by-process limitation and therefore is not limited to the recited step, only the structure implied by the steps. See MPEP § 2113(I). Applicant further argues that the thicknesses recited in selected applications do not overlap. This discrepancy was acknowledged for the ‘767 application and was so close as to be initially overlooked in the ‘874 application. As outlined for the ‘767 application, the thickness of a rolled steel sheet is considered a change in size or proportion and is considered to be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as a matter of design choice absent a showing of significance. See MPEP § 2144.04(IV)(A). It is noted that both the ‘874 application and the ‘767 application recited overlapping ranges for other features such as composition, microstructure, magnetic polarization (in the ’874 application), percentage eddy current loss, tensile strength, yield strength, and total elongation. It is noted that neither of these arguments are applicable to the ‘140 application.
Double Patenting
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-7 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over copending Application Nos. 19/266,226; 19/266,237; 19273,485; 19/284,953; 19/287,874; 19/289,140; 19/323,081; and 19/339,767 (reference applications) as outlined in the Office Action mailed 03 June 2026, after adjusting for amendments in the instant application and in the copending applications as applicable.
These are provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejections because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-7 are currently rejected for multiple instances of nonstatutory double patenting as outlined above but would be allowable if these rejections are overcome.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for indication of allowable subject matter:
The closest prior art of record is the disclosure of Zaizen as outlined in the Office Action mailed 03 June 2026. However, Applicant has provided objective evidence that the steel sheet disclosed by Zaizen does not necessarily have the recited range of eddy current losses as evidenced from example steels in US 2025/0354243 having compositions that overlap with that of Zaizen.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KIM S HORGER whose telephone number is (571)270-5904. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30 AM - 4:00 PM 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.
/KIM S. HORGER/Examiner, Art Unit 1784
Prosecution Insights