Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/268,571

STEEL SHEET WITH EXCELLENT PHOSPHATABILITY AND MANUFACTURING METHOD THEREFOR

Non-Final OA §112
Filed
Jun 20, 2023
Examiner
SIDDIQUI, ADIL ABDUL WAJID
Art Unit
1735
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Posco Co. Ltd.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
54%
Grant Probability
Moderate
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 2m
To Grant
69%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 54% of resolved cases
54%
Career Allow Rate
146 granted / 272 resolved
-11.3% vs TC avg
Strong +15% interview lift
Without
With
+15.3%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 2m
Avg Prosecution
16 currently pending
Career history
288
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.1%
-39.9% vs TC avg
§103
57.2%
+17.2% vs TC avg
§102
12.9%
-27.1% vs TC avg
§112
22.3%
-17.7% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 272 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 . Election/Restrictions Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (claims 1-6) in the reply filed on 01/16/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 7-11 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 01/16/2026. Claim Objections Claims 1-3 are objected to because of the following informalities: In claim 1, in the paragraph starting with “(In formula 1…”, the parentheses language should be replaced with the language “…wherein, in formula 1…” instead. In claims 2-3, “…in 5% of sulfuric acid aqueous solution…” should be “…in 5% concentration sulfuric acid aqueous solution…”. 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 1-6 are rejected as failing to define the invention in the manner required by 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. The claims (in the instant case, claim 1) must be in one sentence form only. Claims 2-6 are rejected as being dependent from claim 1. Claim 6 is 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. Claim 6 recites the limitation "the phosphate treatment" in line 2 of claim 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 1-5 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. Claim 6 would be allowable if rewritten 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 and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: with regard to independent claim 1, the prior art does not anticipate or reasonably render obvious the cumulative limitations of the claim, with particular attention to the features of “the steel sheet has an oxide layer having a thickness of 10 nm or less inward from the surface of the steel sheet”, “contains cementite in an area fraction of 2% or more, and the balance of ferrite”, and satisfying formula 1, wherein formula 1 is ([Mn]+[Si]+[Al])/(3×[P])≤0.60, and wherein in formula 1, [Mn], [Si], [Al] and [P] mean the maximum amount of each element when elemental analysis is carried out in the thickness direction of the oxide layer. Specifically, the applicant has demonstrated criticality of ranges; as can be seen in Table 1, Examples that satisfied the combination of Formula 1, the oxide layer thickness limitation of being 10 nm or less (as seen in Table 2), and containing cementite in an area fraction of 2% or more with a balance of ferrite, (as seen in Table 2), all were able to satisfy all three of the yield strength being sufficiently high (220-270 MPa), the 180° folding crack test being passed, and the phosphate particle major axis length property of being under 10 µm (as can be seen in Table 2). The comparative examples, which did not satisfy one or more of the oxide layer thickness limitation, the cementite limitation, or Formula 1, were not able to satisfy all three of the yield strength being sufficiently high (220-270 MPa), the 180° folding crack test being passed, and the phosphate particle major axis length property. Examiner Note In the interest of compact prosecution, if the applicant would like claims 7-11 to be rejoined, the applicant should amend claim 7 to include all of the limitations of claim 1 (e.g., recite “A method of manufacturing the steel sheet with excellent phosphatability according claim 1…” and correct all informalities, such as “phosphatability” spelling in claim 1, change “th” to “the” in claim 9, and claim 10 should be one sentence, not two. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Adil Siddiqui whose telephone number is (571)272-8047. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10AM-6PM CST. 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 Walker can be reached at 571-272-3458. 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. /ADIL A. SIDDIQUI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1735
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jun 20, 2023
Application Filed
Feb 04, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12599969
POWDER BED FUSION BUILD PLATE THERMAL HISTORY INDICATOR
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12594595
ALUMINUM ALLOY INGOT AND METHOD FOR PRODUCING SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12590357
METHOD FOR CARBIDE DISPERSION STRENGTHENED HIGH PERFORMANCE METALLIC MATERIALS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12577632
HIGH-STRENGTH WIRE ROD HAVING HIGH HYDROGEN EMBRITTLEMENT RESISTANCE FOR COLD HEADING, AND METHOD FOR MANUFACTURING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12569940
SOLDER ALLOY, JOINT PORTION, JOINING MATERIAL, SOLDER PASTE, JOINT STRUCTURE, AND ELECTRONIC CONTROL DEVICE
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

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
54%
Grant Probability
69%
With Interview (+15.3%)
3y 2m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 272 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