Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/076,653

STEEL MATERIAL

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Dec 07, 2022
Examiner
YANG, JIE
Art Unit
1734
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Daido Steel Co. Ltd.
OA Round
7 (Non-Final)
62%
Grant Probability
Moderate
7-8
OA Rounds
3y 7m
To Grant
81%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 62% of resolved cases
62%
Career Allow Rate
758 granted / 1223 resolved
-3.0% vs TC avg
Strong +19% interview lift
Without
With
+19.4%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 7m
Avg Prosecution
73 currently pending
Career history
1296
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.1%
-39.9% vs TC avg
§103
51.3%
+11.3% vs TC avg
§102
13.0%
-27.0% vs TC avg
§112
16.1%
-23.9% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1223 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 10/22/2025 has been entered. Status of claims Claims 12-20 have been cancelled; Claims 1 and 3 have been amended; claims 1-11 remain for examination, wherein claim 1 is an independent claim. Previous Rejections/Objections Previous rejection of Claims 1-11 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takada et al (JP 2006206934 A, with on-line translation, thereafter JP’934) is withdrawn in view of the Applicant’s “Arguments/Remarks with amendment” filed on 10/22/2025. Previous rejection of Claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP’934 in view of Teramoto et al (US-PG-pub 2021/0032733 A1, thereafter PG’733) is withdrawn in view of the Applicant’s “Arguments/Remarks with amendment” filed on 10/22/2025. In view of the Applicant’s amendments in the instant claims, newly recorded reference(s), and reconsideration, a new ground rejection is listed as following: Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 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. Claims 1-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uno Mitsuo et al (JP H09111412 A, with on-line translation, thereafter JP’412). Regarding claims 1-6, JP’412 teaches a non-heat treated steel having a division fracture surface showing brittle fracture surface, suitably used as a steel for connecting rod (Title, abstract, and examples of JP’412), which reads on the steel material as recited in the instant claims and reads on the limitation of used in a state where heat treatment is not performed (instant cl.2). The comparison between the alloy composition ranges disclosed by the Example #10 in table 2 of JP’412 and those disclosed in the instant claims 1 and 3 are listed in the following table. All of the major alloy composition ranges disclosed by the Example #10 in table 2 of JP’412 are within the claimed ranges as recited in the instant claims 1 and 3. It is noted that the Mn, Cr, V, and Mo amounts in example #10 in table 2 of JP’412 are outside the claimed range. However, JP’412 specify adjusting Mn in range 0.3-2.0wt% (cl.1 and par.[0026] of JP’412); adjusting Cr in range 0.02-1.5wt% (cl.1 and par.[0029] of JP’412); adjusting V in range 0.05-0.50wt% (cl.1 and par.[0030] of JP’412); and adjusting Mo in range 0.01-0.50wt% (cl.2 and par.[0037] of JP’412), which overlap the claimed ranges of Mn, Cr, V, and Mo. Overlapping in Mn, Cr, V, and Mo ranges creates a prima facie case of obviousness. MEPE 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 amount of Mn, Cr, V, and Mo as disclosed by JP’412 since JP’412 teaches the same a non-heat treated steel as claimed throughout whole disclosing range and JP’412 specify applying proper amount of Mn, Cr, V, and Mo for improving the properties of the steel. (par.[0026], [0029]-[0030], and [0037] of JP’412). Regarding the formula (1)-(3) (cl.1 and 4), and formula (4)-(5) (cl.5-6), which are recognized as general formula fully depended on the steel composition ranges. It is well settled that there is no invention in the discovery of a general formula if it covers a composition and dimension described in the prior art. In re Cooper and Foley 1943 C.D.357, 553 O.G.177; 57 USPQ 117, Taklatwalla v. Marburg. 620 O.G.685, 1949 C.D.77, and In re Pilling, 403 O.G.513, 44 F(2) 878, 1931 C.D.75. In the instant case, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the selection of the proportions of elements ranges from JP’412 in order to meet the claimed equation would appear to require no more than routine investigation by those ordinary skilled in the art. In re Austin, et al., 149 USPQ 685, 688. Element From instant Claim 1 (mass%) From the Example # 10 in table 2 of JP’412 (mass%) Overlapping range (mass%) C 0.3-0.45 0.35 0.35 Si 0.40-1.00 0.81 0.81 Mn 0.60-1.20 0.56 Adjustable: 0.3-2.0 0.56 close to low limit 0.6 Overlapping: 0.6-1.2 Cr 0.30-0.70 0.19 Adjusting: 0.02-1.5 -- Overlapping: 0.30-0.70 V 0.33-0.47 0.25 Adjusting: 0.05-0.5 -- Overlapping: 0.33-0.47 Ti 0.002-0.015 0.012 0.012 P 0.100 or less 0.021 0.021 S 0.065 or less 0.053 0.053 Cu 0.06-0.50 0.19 0.19 Ni 0.07-0.50 0.09 0.09 Nb 0.010 or less Not intended included Not intended included Pb 0.30 or less 0.16 0.16 Bi 0.20 or less Not intended included Not intended included Ca 0.0100 or less Not intended included Not intended included Zr 0.010 or less Not intended included Not intended included Mg 0.010 or less Not intended included Not intended included Te 0.010 or less Not intended included Not intended included Mo 0.10 or less 0.11 Optional: 0.01-0.5 Close to up limit 0.1 Overlapping: 0.01-0.10 Al 0.050 or less 0.033 0.033 N 0.030 or less Not intended included Not intended included Fe Balance + impurities Balance and impurities Balance and impurities Equation (1) 0.35 or more General formular Overlapping compositions From claim 3 At least one selected from group Nb: >0-0.010; Pb: >0-0.30; Bi: >0-0.20; Ca: >0-0.010; Zr: >0-0.010; Mg: >0-0.50; and Te: >0-0.010 Pb: 0.16 Pb: 0.16 From claim 4 Equation (3) P1: 1.04-1.15 General formular Overlapping compositions From claims 5-6 P2/P3 1.4 or more General formular Overlapping compositions From claim 11 From #10 in table 5 of JP’412 Within ranges YS (MPa) 900 or more 917 917 Yield ratio 0.8 or more 0.81 0.81 Regarding claims 7-10, the claimed (V + Ti) precipitates are considered as material features (cl.7-10) fully depended on the alloy composition and manufacturing process. JP’412 provides the similar steel alloy manufactured by the same hot forging process (Abstract, par.[0010], and examples of JP’412) as disclosed in the instant invention. Therefore, the features of the claimed (V + Ti) precipitates (cl.7-10) would be highly expected in the steel of JP’412. MPEP 2112 01 and 2145 II. Actually, JP’412 teaches applying V for strengthening ferrite by precipitation strengthening (par.[0011] of JP’412). Regarding the claim 11, JP’412 provides properties for the example #10 in table 5 with yield strength 917 MPa and proof stress ratio of 0.81, which reads on the claimed yield ratio and yield strength as claimed in the instant claim. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments to the art rejection to Claims 1-11 have been considered but they are moot in view of the new ground rejection as stated above. 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
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Dec 07, 2022
Application Filed
Apr 19, 2023
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Sep 14, 2023
Response Filed
Sep 19, 2023
Final Rejection — §103
Dec 29, 2023
Response after Non-Final Action
Feb 13, 2024
Request for Continued Examination
Feb 13, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Feb 15, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Mar 11, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Jul 10, 2024
Examiner Interview Summary
Jul 10, 2024
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Jul 31, 2024
Response Filed
Sep 25, 2024
Final Rejection — §103
Dec 17, 2024
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Dec 17, 2024
Examiner Interview Summary
Jan 17, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Feb 25, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Feb 26, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Mar 12, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Jun 18, 2025
Response Filed
Jul 23, 2025
Final Rejection — §103
Sep 25, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Oct 22, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Oct 23, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Oct 24, 2025
Examiner Interview Summary
Oct 24, 2025
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Oct 30, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12603200
RARE EARTH SINTERED MAGNET, METHOD FOR PRODUCING RARE EARTH SINTERED MAGNET, ROTOR, AND ROTARY MACHINE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12595533
IMPROVED METHOD FOR RECYCLING ZINC (ZN)
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12592329
R-T-B-BASED PERMANENT MAGNET MATERIAL, PREPARATION METHOD THEREFOR AND USE THEREOF
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12584187
METHOD FOR REMOVING PHOSPHORUS FROM PHOSPHORUS-CONTAINING SUBSTANCE, METHOD FOR MANUFACTURING RAW MATERIAL FOR METAL SMELTING OR RAW MATERIAL FOR METAL REFINING, AND METHOD FOR MANUFACTURING METAL
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12584203
STEEL SHEET FOR NON-ORIENTED ELECTRICAL STEEL SHEET
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 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

7-8
Expected OA Rounds
62%
Grant Probability
81%
With Interview (+19.4%)
3y 7m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 1223 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