Office Action Predictor
Last updated: April 15, 2026
Application No. 18/267,000

STEEL AEROSOL MONOBLOC

Non-Final OA §112
Filed
Jun 13, 2023
Examiner
LIANG, ANTHONY M
Art Unit
1734
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Arcelormittal
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
83%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 11m
To Grant
86%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 83% — above average
83%
Career Allow Rate
548 granted / 659 resolved
+18.2% vs TC avg
Minimal +3% lift
Without
With
+3.3%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 11m
Avg Prosecution
37 currently pending
Career history
696
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.7%
-39.3% vs TC avg
§103
44.0%
+4.0% vs TC avg
§102
7.6%
-32.4% vs TC avg
§112
33.8%
-6.2% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 659 resolved cases

Office Action

§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 . Claim Objections Claims 23-33 are objected to because of the following informalities: In claim 23, line 3, “inferior to” should read –less than–. In claim 23, line 4, “inferior to” should read –less than–. In claim 23, last line, “a first face” should read –the first face–. In claim 23, last line, “a second face” should read –the second face–. In claims 24-26 and 28-32, please add a comma after “as recited in claim [xx]”. In claim 27, line 3, “chemcial” should read --chemical–. In claim 33, line 2, “a tin coated steel strip” should read –the tin coated steel sheet–. 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 23-33 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. A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 23 recites the broad recitation “a chemical composition in weight percent comprising”, and the claim also recites “a balance consisting of” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The transitional term "comprising", which is synonymous with "including" or "containing," is inclusive or open-ended and does not exclude additional, unrecited elements or method steps. The transitional phrase "consisting of" excludes any element, step, or ingredient not specified in the claim. See MPEP 2111.03. While the limitation “a balance consisting of” suggest a closed composition, the chemical composition is still “comprising,” which is open-ended. Therefore, it is unclear whether the composition is open or closed to additional unrecited elements. For the purposes of examination, claim 23 is given the broadest reasonable interpretation such that the chemical composition is comprising and is open to additional unrecited elements. Examiner recommends amending “a balance consisting of” to –a balance of–. Claim 24-33 are dependent on claim 23 and are therefore also rejected for the same reasons. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 23-33 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Regarding claim 23, the prior art fails to disclose or fairly suggest the tin coated steel sheet as recited. In particular, the closest prior art, Hiraoka et al. (JP H09-194993), hereinafter Hiraoka, wherein an English machine translation is used and cited herein, teaches an Sn-plated steel sheet for cans, the steel sheet having a chemical composition comprising, by weight, ≤0.20% C, ≤1.0% Mn, ≤0.0070% B, ≤0.0150% N, ≤0.100% S, ≤0.15% P, ≤0.5% Si, ≤0.150% Al, ≤0.10% Nb, ≤0.105 Ti, and a balance of Fe and inevitable impurities (Abstract, [0010], [0012]-[0013], [0015]-[0018], [0022], [0024]-[0025]), which overlaps with the instantly claimed chemical composition ranges. Hiraoka further discloses wherein the steel sheet has a first and second face ([0010], [0025], Fig. 1) and a thickness of 0.23 mm ([0026]). However, Hiraoka fails to teach or adequately suggest the features of a yield strength lower than 400 MPa, an average grain aspect ratio below 1.5, a strain hardening coefficient below 1.5, a ferritic microstructure with a mean grain size from 5 to 15 µm, and a tin coating from 0.5 to 4.0 g.m-2 on the first face and from 2.8 to 11.2 g.m-2 on the second face, as required by claim 23. Thus, claim 23 is distinct over the teachings of the prior art. Claims 24-33 further limit the subject matter of claim 23 and are thus also distinct over the teachings of the prior art. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANTHONY M LIANG whose telephone number is (571)272-0483. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00am-5:00pm. 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 Johnson can be reached at (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 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. /ANTHONY M LIANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1734
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jun 13, 2023
Application Filed
Jan 06, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §112
Apr 07, 2026
Response Filed

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12601038
NON-ORIENTED ELECTRICAL STEEL SHEET, MOTOR CORE, AND PRODUCTION METHODS THEREOF
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12584183
MOLTEN IRON DEPHOSPHORIZATION METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12583032
METHOD FOR PREPARING A LOW-TEMPERATURE SINTERING SILVER PASTE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12584184
TRACK PART AND METHOD FOR PRODUCING A TRACK PART
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12577635
Method for Extracting and Recovering Gold from Aqueous Solution
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 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
83%
Grant Probability
86%
With Interview (+3.3%)
2y 11m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 659 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in for Full Analysis

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month