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: 1-3 and 8-17 in the reply filed on 3/6/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 4-7 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 3/6/2026. 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. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness . Claim (s) 1- 3 and 8-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hatake et al. (JP 2001-89830), hereinafter “ Hatake ,” wherein an English machine translation is used and cited herein . Regarding claim s 1 and 2 , Hatake teaches a cold forgeable (i.e., cold-workable) steel wire bar steel (i.e., mechanical structural steel) comprising, in mass%, C: 0.2-0.6%, Si: 0.5% or less, Mn: 0.2-1%, P: 0.02% or less, S: 0.02% or less, Cr: 2% or less, Al: 0.01-0.06%, and a balance of Fe and inevitable impurities (Abstract, [0001], [0007]-[0008]), which overlaps with the instantly claimed chemical composition ranges. Hatake further teaches wherein the steel has a bainite structure in which pro-eutectoid ferrite fraction is 5-30 area% ( Abstract, [0008]) , which overlaps with the instantly claimed pro-eutectoid ferrite area percentage. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP §2144.05. Hatake is silent as to the dislocation density of the steel and the average crystal grain size of the pro-eutectoid ferrite. However, Hatake teaches an overlapping chemical composition and an overlapping microstructure, as detailed above, and further teaches a method of manufacturing its steel comprising steps of hot rolling at a finishing temperature of 780-925⁰C from a thickness of 50 mm to 13 mm, cooling the steel to 701-710⁰C at a cooling rate of 6.1⁰C/s or higher, cooling the steel to 674-685⁰C at a cooling rate of 0.13-0.19⁰C/s, cooling the steel to 520-550⁰C at a cooling rate of 6.1⁰C/s or higher ([0038], Tables 2 and 4: experiment nos. 3 and 11-14), which is substantially similar to the method described in paragraph [0014] of the instant specification. Thus, as Hatake teaches a steel with an overlapping chemical composition, overlapping microstructure, and a substantially similar process of manufacturing, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the steel of Hatake to have a dislocation density and pro-eutectoid ferrite average crystal grain size that are the same or overlapping with that recited in claim 1. In the case where “the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of anticipation or obviousness has been established.” See MPEP §2112.01. Regarding claim s 3 and 15-17 , Hatake teaches wherein the steel further comprises, in mass%, Ni: 3% or less, Mo: 1% or less, Ti: 0.1% or less, V: 0.5% or less, and N: 0.01% or less, ([0008], [0010], [0022], [0028] -[ 0030]), which satisfies or overlaps with the instantly claimed ranges. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP §2144.05. Regarding claims 8, 10, and 12, Hatake teaches wherein the steel has a bainite structure in which pro-eutectoid ferrite fraction is 5-30 area% and a balance of 25 area% or less which may include pearlite (Abstract, [0008], [0025]). As to claims 9, 11, and 13-14, Hatake teaches wherein the steel has a bainite structure in which pro-eutectoid ferrite fraction is 5-30 area% and a balance of a trace amount of 25 area% or less which may include pearlite (Abstract, [0008], [0025]). Hatake does not explicitly teach wherein the balance may contain trace martensite. However, Hatake teaches an overlapping chemical composition, as detailed above regarding claim 1, and further teaches a method of manufacturing its steel comprising steps of hot rolling at a finishing temperature of 780-925⁰C from a thickness of 50 mm to 13 mm, cooling the steel to 701-710⁰C at a cooling rate of 6.1⁰C/s or higher, cooling the steel to 674-685⁰C at a cooling rate of 0.13-0.19⁰C/s, cooling the steel to 520-550⁰C at a cooling rate of 6.1⁰C/s or higher ([0038], Tables 2 and 4: experiment nos. 3 and 11-14), which is substantially similar to the method described in paragraph [0014] of the instant specification. Thus, as Hatake teaches a steel with an overlapping chemical composition and a substantially similar process of manufacturing, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the steel of Hatake to have trace martensite, which would read on the limitations of claims 9, 11, and 13-14. In the case where “the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of anticipation or obviousness has been established.” See MPEP §2112.01. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT ANTHONY M LIANG whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-0483 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Jonathan Johnson can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (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