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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d): (d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.— Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph: Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers. Claims 2 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 2 recites additional elements contained in lieu of part of Fe, which fails to further limit claim 1, which recites a composition “consisting of.” The transitional phrase "consisting of" excludes any element, step, or ingredient not specified in the claim. See MPEP 2111.03 . Claim 2 allows for additional elements not recited in claim 1 and thus fails to further limit claim 1. Similarly, claim 4 recites additional elements contained in lieu of part of Fe, which fails to further limit claim 3, which recites a composition “consisting of.” Claim 4 allows for additional elements not recited in claim 3 and thus fails to further limit claim 3. Examiner recommends amending claims 1 and 3 to recite the elements recited in claims 2 and 4, respectively, as optional. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 1 and 3 are allowed. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Regarding claim 1, the prior art fails to disclose or fairly suggest the steel material as recited. In particular, the closest prior art, Ohashi et al. (JP 2017 -186658), hereinafter “Ohashi,” wherein an English machine translation is used and cited herein, teaches a steel material having a chemical composition including, by mass%, C: 0.20-0.35%, Si: 0.01-0.35%, Mn: 0.55-1.50% , S: 0.01-0.15%, Cr: 0.01-0.20%, Al: 0.020% or less, N: 0.003-0.030%, O: 0.010% or less, and a balance of Fe and unavoidable impurities ([0008], claim 1), which overlaps with the instantly claimed chemical composition, Fn1, and Fn2. However, Ohashi fails to teach or adequately suggest wherein in the steel material, a surface number density of a total of MnS single inclusions having an equivalent circular diameter of 5.0 µm or more and the MnS composite inclusions having an equivalent circular diameter of 5.0 µm or more is 20 /mm 2 or more, a ratio of a total number of MnS single inclusions having an equivalent circular diameter of 1.0 µm or more and the MnS composite inclusions having an equivalent circular diameter of 1.0 µm or more with respect to a total number of inclusions having an equivalent circular diameter of 1.0 µm or more is 70% or more, and a ratio of a number of MnS composite oxides having an equivalent circular diameter of 1.0 µm or more with respect to a total number of the single oxides having an equivalent circular diameter of 1.0 µm or more and the MnS composite oxides having an equivalent circular diameter of 1.0 µm or more is 30% or more, as required by claim 1. Thus, claim 1 is distinct over the teachings of the prior art. Claim 3 requires all of the limitations of claim 1 and is 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 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