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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-5, 8-11, and 13-14 have been amended; Claim 15 is added as a new claim. Claims 1-15 remain for examination, wherein claim 1 is an independent claim.
Previous Rejections/Objections
Previous objection of Claims 1-5 because the informalities has been withdrawn in view of the Applicant’s “Arguments/Remarks with amendment” filed on 6/3/2026.
Previous objection of Claim 11 because the informalities has been withdrawn in view of the Applicant’s “Arguments/Remarks with amendment” filed on 6/3/2026.
Previous objection of Claim 14 because the informalities has been withdrawn in view of the Applicant’s “Arguments/Remarks with amendment” filed on 6/3/2026.
Previous rejection of Claims 1-14 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or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention is withdrawn in view of the Applicant’s “Arguments/Remarks with amendment” filed on 6/3/2026.
Previous rejection of Claims 1-10 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (KR 1020190078232 A1, with on-line translation, thereafter KR’232) in view of Fujikura et al (US-PG-pub 2018/0119258 A1, listed in IDS filed on 1/28/2026, thereafter PG’258) is withdrawn in view of the Applicant’s “Arguments/Remarks with amendment” filed on 6/3/2026.
Previous rejection of Claims 11-14 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR’232 in view of PG’258, and further in view of Sano et al (JP 4595217 B2, with on line translation, thereafter JP’217) is withdrawn in view of the Applicant’s “Arguments/Remarks with amendment” filed on 6/3/2026.
However, in view of the Applicant’s “Arguments/Remarks with amendment” filed on 10/16/2025, and reconsideration, a new ground rejection has listed as following:
Claim Objections
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: all “-“ in the instant claim should be deleted. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-15 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory obviousness type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-13 of co-pending application No. 19/246103 (US 12,516,396 B2).
Claims 1-13 of co-pending application No. 19/246103 (US 12,516,396 B2) is applied to the instant claims 1-14 for the same reason as stated in the previous office action dated 6/3/2026.
Regarding the amended features in the instant claims 1 and 8-10 and newly added claim 15, the claimed properties including total iron losses, Ts, YS, and elongation in the instant claims
are recognized as a material properties fully depended on the alloy composition and structures. All of the alloy composition ranges and manufacturing process disclosed in claims 1-13 of co-pending application No. 19/246103 (US 12,516,396 B2) overlap the claimed ranges, which is a prima facie case of obviousness. MPEP 2144.05 I. Therefore, the claimed features would be highly expected form the steel sheet of Claims 1-13 of co-pending application No. 19/246103 (US 12,516,396 B2). MPEP 2112 01 and 2145 II.
Claims 1-15 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory obviousness type double patenting as being unpatentable over:
Claims 1-14 of co-pending application No. 19/323,081 (US-PG-Pub 2026/0009099 A1);
Claims 1-14 of co-pending application No. 19/311,171 (US-PG-Pub 2025/0389002 A1);
Claims 1-14 of co-pending application No. 19/289,141 (US-PG-Pub 2025/0361576 A1);
Claims 1-13 of co-pending application No. 19/287,874 (US-PG-Pub 2025/0354238 A1);
Claims 1-14 of co-pending application No. 19/289,140 (US-PG-Pub 2025/0354233 A1);
Claims 1-14 of co-pending application No. 19/266,226 (US-PG-Pub 2025/0340962 A1);
Claims 1-14 of co-pending application No. 19/266,237 (US-PG-Pub 2025/0340963 A1);
Claims of copending applications cited above are applied to the instant claims 1-14 for the same reason as stated in the previous office action dated 3/5/2026.
Regarding the amended features in the instant claims 1 and 8-10 and newly added claim 15, the claimed properties including total iron losses, Ts, YS, and elongation in the instant claims
are recognized as a material properties fully depended on the alloy composition and structures. All of the alloy composition ranges and manufacturing process disclosed in claims of co-pending applications overlap the claimed ranges, which is a prima facie case of obviousness. MPEP 2144.05 I. Therefore, the claimed features would be highly expected form the steel sheet of Claims of co-pending applications. MPEP 2112 01 and 2145 II.
This is a provisional obvious-type double patenting rejection since the conflict claims in the co-pending applications have not in fact been patented.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments to the art rejection to Claims 1-15 have been considered but they are moot in view of the new ground rejection as stated as above. Regarding the arguments related to the amended features in the instant claims, the Examiner’s position has been stated as above.
Proper “Terminal Disclaimer” can overcome the present ODP rejections.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JIE YANG whose telephone number is (571)270-1884. The examiner can normally be reached on 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, Jonathan J Johnson can be reached on 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
Prosecution Insights