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
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 05/15/2026 has been entered.
Status of the Claims
Claims 4-6 has been canceled; Claim 1 has been amended; Claims 7-12 are withdrawn as non-elected claims. Claim 21 has been added as a new claim, Claims 1-3 and 21 remain for examination, wherein claim 1 is an independent claim. It is acknowledged of the Applicant's "Terminal Disclaimer" filed on 2/12/2026. Which has been approved on 2/12/2026.
Previous Claim Objections/Rejections
Previous rejection of Claims 4 and 6 under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Park et al (US-PG-pub 2019/0316237 A1, thereafter PG’237) in view of Ota et al (US 6,413,332 B1, thereafter US’332) is withdrawn since these claims have been canceled in view of the Applicant’s “Arguments/Remarks with amendment” filed on 05/15/2026.
Previous rejection of Claim 1-4 and 6 on the ground of non-statutory obviousness type double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims 1-15 of co-pending application No. 17/917993 (updated as US-PG-pub 2023/0144982 A1) is withdrawn in view of the Applicant’s “Arguments/Remarks with amendment” filed on 02/12/2026 and the Applicant's "Terminal Disclaimer" filed on 2/12/2026. Which has been approved on 2/12/2026.
However, in view of the Applicant’s “Arguments/Remarks with amendment” filed on 05/15/2026, newly cited reference©, and reconsideration, a new ground rejection has been listed as following:
. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al (US-PG-pub 2019/0316237 A1, thereafter PG’237) in view of Ota et al (US 6,413,332 B1, thereafter US’332).
Regarding claims 1-2, PG’237 teaches a ferritic stainless steel having excellent ridging properties and excellent surface quality of a final product (Abstract, Examples, and claims of PG’237), which reads on the ferrite-based stainless steel having improved surface characteristics as claimed in the instant claim. The comparison between the claimed alloy composition ranges and the example in table 1 of PG’237 has been listed in following table. All of the essential alloy composition ranges disclosed in the example in table 1 of PG’237 are within the claimed alloy composition ranges. PG’237 provides examples having surface microgroove with length 100 mm or more (Fig.1-3 of PG’237) and area ratio of 2.0% or less (claim 2, examples, and table 3 of PG’237), which reads on the micro flaws with a lengthy of 100 mm or more and overlaps the claimed density of micro-flaws as claimed in the instant claim 1. Overlapping in density of micro-flaws creates a prima facie case of obviousness. MPEP 2144 05 I. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to optimize the claimed density of micro-flaws from the disclosure of PG’327 since PG’327 teaches the same ferritic stainless steel having excellent ridging properties and excellent surface quality of a final product as claimed throughout whole disclosing range. It is noted that PG’327 does not specify including the claimed amount of Ti and Nb as claimed in the instant claims. US’332 teaches a ferritic Cr-containing steel sheet having excellent ductility formability, and anti-ridging properties, and exhibiting excellent surface quality after forming(Abstract, examples, and claims of US’332). All of the alloy composition ranges disclosed by US’332 (Claims, Col.6, ln.46 to CVol.10, ln.43 of US’332) overlaps the claimed alloy composition ranges. MPEP 2144 05 I. US’332 specify including one or more of 0.05 to 0.50% of Ti, and 0.05 to 0.50% of Nb in order to form carbide and nitride, or carbonitride, and decrease the amounts of solute C and N in ferrite, thereby improving ductility and formability. (Col.10, lns.28-43 of US’332), which overlaps the claimed ranges of Ti and Nb as claimed in the instant claim 1. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to add proper amount of Ti and Nb as demonstrated by US’332 for the alloy of PG’237in order to obtain the desired ductility and formability. (Col.10, lns.28-43 of US’332).
Regarding the distinctness of reflected image in the instant claim 1, the claimed distinctness of reflected image is recognized as material properties fully depended on the alloy composition and surface features. Since PG’327 in view of US’332 teaches the same ferritic stainless steel having excellent ridging properties and excellent surface quality of a final product with the similar alloy composition and surface features as claimed, and PG’327 specify applying cold rolling before hot annealing and surface polishing (Abstract, claims, and par.[0004]-[0005], [0077] of PG’327), which reads on all of the essential process steps as disclosed in the instant invention (non-elected cl.7 of the instant application), the claimed distinctness of reflected image in the instant claim would be highly expected in the alloy of PG’327 in view of US’332. MPEP 2112 01 and 2145 II.
Element
From instant Claim 1 (wt %)
Example in table 1 of PG’237 (wt %)
Within range
(wt %)
C
0.001-0.05
0.049
0.049
N
0.001-0.05
0.028
0.028
Si
0.1-1.0
0.18
0.18
Mn
0.1-1.0
0.58
0.58
Cr
12.0-22.0
16.18
16.18
Ti
0.01-1.0
0.05-0.5 (from US’332)
Overlapping: 0.05-1.0
Nb
0.01-1.0
0.05-0.5 (from US’332)
Overlapping: 0.05-1.0
Fe
Balance + impurities
Balance + impurities
Balance + impurities
From instant Claim 2 (mass %)
At least one of
Mo: 0.01-2.0;
Al: >0-0.10;
Cu: >0-1.0;
V: 0.01-0.3;
Zr: 0.01-0.3;
B: 0.0010-0.0100
Al: 0.094
Al: 0.094
Regarding claim 3, PG’237 teaches having the area ratio of 2.0% or less of surface microgroove (claim 2, examples, and table 3 of PG’237), which is the same area ratio as claimed in the instant claim.
Claim(s) 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PG’237 in view of US’332, and further in view of Ueda et al (US 5,181,970, thereafter US’970).
Regarding the instant claim 21, PG’237 in view of US’332 does not specify the claimed cold rolling utilizing a roll having a diameter of 70 mm or less as claimed in the instant claim. US’970 teaches a stainless steel thin strip and sheet having a superior surface gloss and high rusting resistance is produced by heating a continuous cast slab of ferritic or martensitic stainless steel containing 10 to 35% by weight of Cr (abstract and claims of US’970). US’970 teaches that the cold rolling is carried out at the final stage even by using work rolls having a small diameter such as 70 mm in order to improve of the gloss of the surface of the steel sheet. (Fig.3, Col.4, lns.51-55 and Col.7, lns.6-21 of US’970), which overlaps the claimed roll diameter range of 70 mm or less as claimed in the instant claim. MPEP 2144 05 I. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to apply cold roller with proper diameter as demonstrated by US’970 for the alloy of PG’237 in view of US’332 in order to improve of the gloss of the surface of the steel sheet. (Fig.3, Col.4, lns.51-55 and Col.7, lns.6-21 of US’970).
. Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments to the art rejection to Claims 1-3 and 21 have been considered but they are moot in view the new ground rejection as stated above. Regarding the Applicant’ arguments related to the amended features in the instant claims, the Examiner’s position has been sated as above.
The Applicant’s arguments are summarized as following:
1, The rejection improperly assumes that the claimed optical characteristics would be expected from similar alloy compositions and surface characteristics.
2, The experimental data in the specification supports the distinction between area ratio and flaw density.
In response,
Regarding the Applicant’s arguments 1-2, Firstly, as pointed out in the rejection above and the previous office actions dated 12/16/2025 and 7/18/2025, Park et al (PG’327) in view of Ota et al (US’332) teaches the same ferritic stainless steel having excellent ridging properties and excellent surface quality of a final product with the similar alloy composition and surface features as claimed, the claimed distinctness of reflected image and the deviation of distinctness of reflected image (in previous cl.6) in the instant claim 1 would be highly expected in the alloy of Park et al (PG’327) in view of Ota et al (US’332). MPEP 2112 01 and 2145 II. Secondly, it is noted that there is no evidence to show the argued unexpected result. Finally, Park et al (PG’327) specify applying cold rolling before hot annealing and surface polishing (Abstract, claims, and par.[0004]-[0005], [0077] of PG’327), which reads on all of the essential process steps as disclosed in the instant invention (non-elected cl.7 of the instant application). It is noted that the Applicant has not provided evidence to show the criticality of the process steps in term of the claimed features. And Ueda et al (US’970) is further cited for the limitation of the newly added claim 21.
Conclusion
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