Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/580,017

METHOD FOR PRODUCING LIGHT GAUGE STEEL

Non-Final OA §103§112
Filed
Jan 20, 2022
Examiner
MCGUTHRY BANKS, TIMA MICHELE
Art Unit
1733
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Algoma Steel Inc.
OA Round
5 (Non-Final)
82%
Grant Probability
Favorable
5-6
OA Rounds
2y 6m
To Grant
83%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 82% — above average
82%
Career Allow Rate
941 granted / 1154 resolved
+16.5% vs TC avg
Minimal +2% lift
Without
With
+1.9%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 6m
Avg Prosecution
65 currently pending
Career history
1219
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.8%
-39.2% vs TC avg
§103
40.3%
+0.3% vs TC avg
§102
19.4%
-20.6% vs TC avg
§112
33.0%
-7.0% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1154 resolved cases

Office Action

§103 §112
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 . Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114 A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 1/20/2026 has been entered. Status of Claims Claims 1, 3, and 12 are currently amended, Claims 2 and 7 are canceled, Claims 4 and 5 are as originally filed, and Claims 6 and 8-11 are as previously presented. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d): (d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS - Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph: Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers. Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 11 recites the plate of steel has a thickness of equal to or less than 94 mm, which is outside of the range of less than 70 mm. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 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, 3, 4, 6, 8, 11, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PL 214816 B1, based on the machine translation, in view of Noe et al (US 5,579,658). PL 214816 B1 (PL ‘816) teaches an alloy steel for amour plates with a maximum of 0.40% carbon [0007] made by austenitizing, water spraying (quenching) and tempering. The steel sheet has thicknesses of 5, 8, and 10 mm [0016]. However, PL ‘816 does not teach stretching and leveling the tempered steel plate as claimed. Noe et al teaches a method for producing large steel plates using stretch-bend leveling and then stretcher-leveling. The strip is discontinuously stretch-leveled by 0.5 to 3.0% (column 3, lines 15-17). The strip can be provided with a thickness of 3 mm to 15 mm (lines 30-33). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the stretcher-leveling method of Noe et al with the process of PL ‘816, since Noe et al teaches a method that is economical, excess plate storage transport is avoided losses are minimized, and a high quality product can be obtained (column 1, lines 56-62). Regarding Claim 3, PL ‘816 teaches austenitizing in a furnace. The limitation of “reheat furnace” reads on a furnace, since there is nothing in the claims that read on a previous or different type of heating. Therefore, PL ‘816 teaches a “reheat furnace” since the steel is heated in a furnace. Regarding Claim 4, PL ‘816 teaches water quench [0016]. Regarding Claim 6, PL ‘816 teaches plantes used for shields [0006], which reads on blanks. Regarding Claim 8, Noe et al teaches the strip is hot-rolled (column 4, line 31). Regarding Claim 11, PL ‘816 teaches the thickness is less than 94 mm. Regarding Claim 12, PL ‘816 teaches equal to or less than 0.32 wt% carbon. Claims 1, 3-6, and 8-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 102776438 A, based on the machine translation. CN 102776438 A (CN ‘438) teaches an ultra-high strength steel plate formed by austenitizing, water quenching, and tempering [0016]. The steel plate is 8 mm thick [0020], which is greater than the claimed lower range of 5 mm. The carbon content is 0.14-0.35% [0009]. However, CN ‘438 does not teach stretching and leveling the tempered steel plate as claimed. Noe et al is applied as discussed above. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the stretcher-leveling method of Noe et al with the process of CN ‘438, since Noe et al teaches a method that is economical, excess plate storage transport is avoided losses are minimized, and a high quality product can be obtained (column 1, lines 56-62). Regarding Claim 3, CN ‘438 teaches austenitizing at a temperature of 880-940 °C [0010], which reads on heating in at least a furnace. The limitation of “reheat furnace” reads on a furnace for heating, since there is nothing in the claims that read on a previous or different type of heating. Therefore, CN ‘438 teaches a “reheat furnace” since the steel is heated. Regarding Claim 4, CN ‘438 teaches water quench [0016]. Regarding Claim 5, CN ‘438 teaches air cooling after tempering [0010]. Regarding Claim 6, CN ‘438 teaches a steel plate used for national defense, automobiles, and construction [0004], which reads on a steel blank. Regarding Claim 8, Noe et al teaches the strip is hot-rolled (column 4, line 31). Regarding Claim 9, CN ‘438 teaches the yield strength is 1000-1300 MPa (~145,000 – 189,000 psi), tensile strength is 1200-1400 MPa (~174,000 - 203,000 psi), the elongation is 6-15% [0011]. These values overlap the claimed ranges. In the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists because the prior art discloses the utility of the composition over the entire disclosed range. See MPEP § 2144.05. Regarding Claim 10, CN ‘438 teaches the disclosed yield strength and tensile strength as described above. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the hardness of the steel plate taught in CN ‘438 would at least overlap or read on the claimed hardness range of 387-418 BHN, since CN ‘438 teaches the composition and strength properties as described above. See MPEP § 2112.01. Regarding Claim 11, CN ‘438 teaches the thickness is less than 94 mm. Regarding Claim 12, CN ‘438 teaches equal to or less than 0.32 wt% carbon. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 3-6, and 8-12 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Tec-Science teaches austenitizing, quenching, and tempering steel. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tima M. McGuthry-Banks whose telephone number is (571)272-2744. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 7:30 am to 4:00 pm. 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, Keith D. Hendricks can be reached at (571) 272-1401. 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. Tima M. McGuthry-Banks Primary Examiner Art Unit 1733 /TIMA M. MCGUTHRY-BANKS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1733
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jan 20, 2022
Application Filed
Jun 17, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §103, §112
Sep 24, 2024
Response Filed
Nov 15, 2024
Final Rejection — §103, §112
Feb 21, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Feb 25, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
May 15, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103, §112
Sep 19, 2025
Response Filed
Oct 15, 2025
Final Rejection — §103, §112
Dec 24, 2025
Interview Requested
Jan 05, 2026
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Jan 05, 2026
Examiner Interview Summary
Jan 20, 2026
Request for Continued Examination
Jan 26, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
Feb 11, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12601024
HETEROSTRUCTURED ANTIMICROBIAL STAINLESS STEEL AND METHOD FOR SYNTHESIZING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12601030
METHOD FOR PRODUCING REDUCED FORM OF METAL OXIDES
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12590347
PROCESS FOR MANUFACTURING COLD-ROLLED AND ANNEALED STEEL SHEET WITH A VERY HIGH STRENGTH, AND SHEET THUS PRODUCED
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12590761
DIRECT FLAME PREHEATING SECTION FOR A CONTINUOUS METAL STRIP PROCESSING LINE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12569897
PRODUCTION METHOD FOR GRAIN-ORIENTED ELECTRICAL STEEL SHEET, AND PRODUCTION LINE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

5-6
Expected OA Rounds
82%
Grant Probability
83%
With Interview (+1.9%)
2y 6m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 1154 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow 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