Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/265,345

FERRITIC STAINLESS STEEL WITH IMPROVED RIDGING RESISTANCE AND ITS MANUFACTURING METHOD

Non-Final OA §102§112
Filed
Jun 05, 2023
Examiner
KOSHY, JOPHY STEPHEN
Art Unit
1733
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Posco Co. Ltd.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
63%
Grant Probability
Moderate
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 5m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 63% of resolved cases
63%
Career Allow Rate
307 granted / 489 resolved
-2.2% vs TC avg
Strong +40% interview lift
Without
With
+39.5%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 5m
Avg Prosecution
51 currently pending
Career history
540
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.5%
-39.5% vs TC avg
§103
46.5%
+6.5% vs TC avg
§102
6.4%
-33.6% vs TC avg
§112
30.5%
-9.5% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 489 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §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 . Election/Restrictions & Status of Claims Applicant’s election of Group I, claims 1-3, drawn to a ferritic stainless steel in the reply filed on 12/09/2025 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)). Claims 4-7 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected inventio, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 12/. Claim Objections Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1 does not end with a period. The terms “wherein, C, Si, Mn, Ni, Cr, Mo, Cu, Ti, Al, and N represent the content (wt%) of each element” and “wt%” should not be in parentheses. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention. Claims 1-2 are rejected 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. Regarding claims 1-2, instant claims require a ferritic stainless steel “with improved ridging resistance”. The term improved is a comparative term but the claims do not specify any of the improvement, the original ridging resistance or the final ridging resistance thereby making them indefinite. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. List 1 Element Instant Claims (mass%) Prior Art No. 26 Steel D (mass%) C 0.001 – 0.3 0.01 Si 0.01 – 1.0 0.2 Mn 0.1 – 3.0 1.6 Cr 10 – 15 12.5 N 0.001 – 0.3 0.02 P 0.03 or less 0.02 Ni 1.0 or less - Cu 1.0 or less 0.1 Al 1.0 or less 0.03 Mo 0.003 or less - Ti 1.0 or less - Fe + impurities Balance Balance Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by JP 2004-197197 A of Matsubara and its English machine translation (JP’197). Regarding claim 1, JP 2004-197197 A of Matsubara and its English machine translation (JP’197) {abstract, [0001]-[0006], [0008]-[0055]} teaches [0001] “a ferritic stainless steel sheet suitable for use in household articles, kitchen articles, automobile parts, and the like, and particularly to improvement in workability and ridging resistance” [0009] “a ferritic stainless steel sheet which advantageously solves the problems of the prior art described above, has a high r value, is excellent in workability, and has excellent ridging resistance” having specific compositions wherein a specific example, Steel D (Table 1:composition) Example No. 26 (Tables 2-2 and 3-2: processing and properties), that lies within the claimed compositional range of the instant claims as shown in the List 1 above thereby anticipating the alloy of the instant claims. A specific example in the prior art which is within a claimed range anticipates the range. “[W]hen, as by a recitation of ranges or otherwise, a claim covers several compositions, the claim is ‘anticipated’ if one of them is in the prior art.” Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (citing In re Petering, 301 F.2d 676, 682, 133 USPQ 275, 280 (CCPA 1962)) See MPEP § 2131.03 I. Regarding the recited formula (1) and its recited range, the specific sample provides a value of 6.34 for the equation, γS = 900C − 30Si + 12Mn + 23Ni − 17Cr − 12Mo + 12Cu − 49Ti − 52Al + 950N + 178, thereby anticipating the recited range. In addition, it is well settled that there is no invention in the discovery of a general formula if it covers a composition described in the prior art, In re Cooper and Foley 1943 C.D. 357, 553 O.G. 177; 57 USPQ 117, Saklatwalla 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. Regarding claim 2, the prior art in Table 3-2 teaches that Example No. 26 has an average ferrite grain size D1 and D2 of 8.8 and 9.1 microns thereby meeting the instant recited limitation. The D1 and D2 are taught as follows in the prior art. [0027] “The ferritic stainless steel sheet of the present invention has the above composition and a ferrite structure in which the average crystal grain size of ferrite gradually decreases from the center of the thickness to the surface layer. The crystal grain size gradient structure referred to in the present invention means a structure in which the average crystal grain size of the surface layer portion is 98% or less as compared with the average in the thickness direction. The average crystal grain size of the surface layer portion in the present invention means the average crystal grain having the above-described size and measured in a visual field centered on a position 0.1 mm from the outermost portion in the thickness direction (depth direction). Is the diameter. The average crystal grain size in the thickness direction (hereinafter referred to as the thickness average crystal grain size) is a value obtained by averaging the average crystal grain size at each position in the thickness direction measured at a pitch of 0.2 mm over the entire thickness. . Further, when the average crystal grain size of the surface layer portion is larger than 98% of the average thickness of the sheet thickness, the improvement in ridging resistance is not remarkable.” [0044] “A test piece was sampled from the center of the obtained stainless cold-rolled steel sheet from the center of the width, and the section in the C direction was measured from the outermost part in the thickness direction from the 0.1 mm position to the 3.9 mm position at an interval of 0.2 mm using an optical microscope. Observing a visual field of 400 μm (center distribution 200 μm each) and 300 μm (center distribution 150 μm each) in the plate width direction and a total of 20 visual fields with a magnification of 250 × The average crystal grain size was determined in each field of view and used as the value at each center position in the plate thickness direction, and the average value was further averaged in the plate thickness direction to measure the plate thickness average crystal grain size. Incidentally, the average crystal grain size of the ferrite, in accordance with the provisions of JIS G 0552, using an image analyzer to determine the average cross-sectional area of the crystal grains, assuming that it is circular, converted to the crystal grain size, The average crystal grain size was used. In addition, the crystal grain size of ferrite is a thickness average crystal grain size D2 which is an average value of the entire region in the thickness direction, and a surface layer portion measured in a visual field centered on a position of 0.1 mm in the thickness direction from the outermost portion. Was determined.” Regarding claim 3, the prior art teaches in Table 3-2 that Example No. 26 has a ridging grade 1 which is defined as [0015] “Ridging grade 1 for undulation height of steel sheet of 10μm or less” thereby meeting the instant recited limitation. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOPHY S. KOSHY whose telephone number is (571)272-0030. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 AM- 5:00 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 HENDRICKS can be reached on (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. /JOPHY S. KOSHY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1733
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jun 05, 2023
Application Filed
Jun 05, 2023
Response after Non-Final Action
Jan 07, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12601027
STEEL MATERIAL HAVING EXCELLENT HYDROGEN EMBRITTLEMENT RESISTANCE AND IMPACT TOUGHNESS AND METHOD FOR MANUFACTURING
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12595525
METHOD FOR PRODUCING ELECTRICAL STEEL SHEET
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12597542
SOFT MAGNETIC IRON
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12584384
PERFORATING GUN TUBE AND PERFORATING GUN
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12583061
Solder Alloy, Solder Paste, and Solder Joint
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

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
63%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+39.5%)
3y 5m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 489 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