Prosecution Insights
Last updated: October 02, 2026
Application No. 18/702,142

ECO-FRIENDLY STEEL SHEET HAVING HIGH STRENGTH AND HIGH FORMABILITY, AND METHOD FOR MANUFACTURING SAME

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Apr 17, 2024
Priority
Oct 19, 2021 — RE 10-2021-0139497 +1 more
Examiner
SMOOT, MORIAH SIMONE MCMIL
Art Unit
Tech Center
Assignee
Posco Co. Ltd.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
64%
Grant Probability
Moderate
1-2
OA Rounds
4m
Est. Remaining
71%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 64% of resolved cases
64%
Career Allowance Rate
76 granted / 119 resolved
+3.9% vs TC avg
Moderate +7% lift
Without
With
+6.7%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 10m
Avg Prosecution
42 currently pending
Career history
155
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
2.0%
-38.0% vs TC avg
§103
49.2%
+9.2% vs TC avg
§102
14.7%
-25.3% vs TC avg
§112
28.1%
-11.9% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 119 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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/Restriction Applicant’s election of Group 1 in the reply filed on 08/11/2026 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)). 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. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takashima et al. US 20190078173 A. Regarding Claim 1, Takashima et al. teaches at [0014], a steel sheet having a composition “in mass %, C: 0.05 to 0.11%, Si: 0.60% or less, Mn: 1.50 to 2.10%, P: 0.05% or less, S: 0.005% or less, Al: 0.01 to 0.10%, N: 0.010% or less, Ti: 0.005 to 0.07%, Nb: 0.01 to 0.10%,” Cr: 0.50% or less [0068] and the balance Fe and unavoidable impurities. Takashima et al. teaches at [0014] the sheet comprises a microstructure containing 75 to 95% in area fraction of ferrite (meeting the limitation for a soft phase), and 3 to 15% of martensite (meeting the limitation for a hard phase). These values overlap the values instantly claimed, meeting the limitations of the instant Claim. See MPEP 2144.05. In cases where claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Regarding Claim 2, Takashima et al. teaches the microstructure of its steel sheet contains 10% or less of uncrystallized ferrite by volume (including zero), and 75 to 95% recrystallized ferrite [0076], overlapping the instantly claimed ranges of 5% or less and 60% or more respectively, meeting the limitations of the instant Claim. See MPEP 2144.05. In cases where claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Regarding Claim 3, Takashima et al. teaches the microstructure of its steel sheet contains 3 to 15% of martensite (meeting the limitation for hard phase) and trace bainite [0079], meeting the limitations of the instant Claim. Regarding Claim 4, Takashima et al. teaches at [0080] the aspect ratio of the martensite (meeting the limitation for hard phase) is “4.0 or less, preferably 3.5 or less,” overlapping the instantly claimed range of 1.2 or less, meeting the limitations of the instant Claim. See MPEP 2144.05. In cases where claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Regarding Claim 4, Takashima et al. teaches its steel sheet has a tensile strength of 590 MPa or more (Abstract), overlapping the instantly claimed range of 590 MPa or more, and an elongation of 28% or more [0042], overlapping the instantly claimed range of 18% or more, meeting the limitations of the instant Claim. See MPEP 2144.05. In cases where claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: KR 20160078570 A teaches a steel sheet composition overlapping the instantly claimed elemental composition. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MORIAH S. SMOOT whose telephone number is (571)272-2634. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30am - 5pm EDT. 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 at (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. /Keith D. Hendricks/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1733 /M.S.S./Examiner, Art Unit 1733
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Apr 17, 2024
Application Filed
Aug 21, 2026
Non-Final Rejection (signed) — §103
Sep 23, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12744262
METHOD FOR RECOVERING ACTIVE METALS FROM LITHIUM SECONDARY BATTERY
3y 9m to grant Granted Sep 22, 2026
Patent 12680044
HIGH-CARBON BIOGENIC REAGENTS AND USES THEREOF
2y 5m to grant Granted Jul 14, 2026
Patent 12629749
SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR PARTIAL SINTERING OF POWDER TO CREATE LARGER POWDER PARTICLES FOR ADDITIVE MANUFACTURING PROCESSES
3y 6m to grant Granted May 19, 2026
Patent 12624404
METHOD FOR OPERATING BLAST FURNACE
4y 0m to grant Granted May 12, 2026
Patent 12618119
HYDROGEN-RICH BLAST FURNACE IRONMAKING SYSTEM BASED ONMASS-ENERGY CONVERSION, AND PRODUCTION CONTROL METHOD THEREFOR
1y 2m to grant Granted May 05, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

Strategy Recommendation AI-generated — please review before filing

Get a prosecution strategy drawn from examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Typically takes 5-10 seconds — AI-generated, attorney review required before filing

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
64%
Grant Probability
71%
With Interview (+6.7%)
2y 10m (~4m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 119 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allowance 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