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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 06/19/2026 has been entered. Claims 6-10 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the Specification, Drawings, and Claims have overcome each and every objection and 112(b) rejections previously set forth in the Office Action mailed on 03/25/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 6, 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nagai et al., JP 2017080806 (hereafter Nagai).
Regarding claim 6,
A laser cutting method for a steel strip, comprising (abstract)
cutting an end in a width direction of the steel strip including a joint obtained by joining a rear end of a preceding steel strip and a front end of a following steel strip by using a laser beam, (abstract teaches “Steel strip notching equipment for
forming a notch in a plate width direction end portion of a joint part where the rear end of a preceding steel strip and the leading end of a succeeding steel strip are joined is characterized in that cutting is performed on a laser cutting machine”)
wherein the steel strip is cut such that an interval between pieces of dross having an aspect ratio of 1.0 or more is set to 1.0 mm or more( The aspect ratio is interpreted as (dross height/dross width) as described in paragraph [9] of the original disclosure. Fig. 4 (a) further teaches a dross with an aspect ratio of 1.
It is implied that an interval between more than 1 mm between dross in Fig. 4(a).)
and an interval between dross having an aspect ratio of 1.0 or more and dross having an aspect ratio of less than 1.0 is set to 1.0 mm or more in the end in the width direction after cutting. (Annotated Fig. 4 (a) teaches 1mm or more distance between two dross.)
PNG
media_image1.png
912
1188
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 4 in Nagai
Regarding claim 8,
A laser cutting facility , in which the laser cutting method for the steel strip according to claim 6 is executed. (Nagai teaches in abstract “Steel strip notching equipment for forming a notch in a plate width direction end portion of a joint part where the rear end of a preceding steel strip and the leading end of a succeeding steel strip are joined is characterized in that cutting is performed on a laser cutting machine”. It is implied that the laser cutting is carried out in a laser cutting facility for a steel strip.)
Regarding claim 9,
A cold rolling method for a steel strip, comprising performing cold rolling on a steel strip (Abstract teaches “a cold rolling method, and a manufacturing method of a cold rolling steel strip”)
cut by the laser cutting method for the steel strip according to claim 6. (Abstract teaches “Steel strip notching equipment for forming a notch in a plate width direction end portion of a joint part where the rear end of a preceding steel strip and the leading end of a succeeding steel strip are joined is characterized in that cutting is performed on a laser cutting machine by pulse cutting”)
Regarding claim 10,
A method of manufacturing a cold rolled steel strip, comprising manufacturing the cold rolled steel strip (Abstract teaches “a cold rolling method, and a manufacturing method of a cold rolling steel strip”)
by a process including the cold rolling method for the steel strip according to claim 9. (Similar scope to claim 9 and therefore rejected under the same argument.)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagai as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Takeda et al., US 20030015568 (hereafter Takeda).
The laser cutting method for the steel strip according to claim 6, wherein a cutting process of cutting the end in the width direction (Abstract in Nagai)
….in the steel strip with a laser are continuously executed with the steel strip being stopped. (The claim is interpreted as the steel strip is continuously rolled. Abstract in Nagai teaches “a manufacturing method of a cold rolling steel strip that enable cold rolling without causing a joint part rupture (weld zone rupture)”.)
and a hole forming process of forming one or more holes (Nagai is silent about this.
Takeda teaches “In a continuous processing line, a weld portion is detected in an after process, and there is a case where a hole is processed in a vicinity of the weld portion to be used as a marker for shearing away the portion or for control” in paragraph [86]. )
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to add the step of forming a hole in the steel strip as taught in Takeda in the method of Nagai. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because “it is possible to process the hole, which is necessary for detecting the weld portion in an after process, concurrently with the shearing operation, and a time which the line is stopped may be shortened and, at the same time, a number of installation spaces may be reduced and it is possible to make cost reductions” as taught in paragraph [88] in Takeda.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 06/19/2026 with respect to claim(s) 6-10 have been considered but are not persuasive.
The applicant cited MPEP 2125 (II) on page 5 of the remarks and argued that
PNG
media_image2.png
107
865
media_image2.png
Greyscale
MPEP 2125 (II) sets forth “When the reference does not disclose that the drawings are to scale and is silent as to dimensions, arguments based on measurement of the drawing features are of little value.” However, Fig. 4 in Nagai is an actual photograph of a laser cut surface to compare dross as taught in the google translated image below. The photograph has an explicit scale mark of 1mm to measure the actual features in the photograph.
PNG
media_image3.png
569
568
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FAHMIDA FERDOUSI whose telephone number is (303)297-4341. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday; 9:00AM-3:00PM; PST.
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, Steven Crabb can be reached at (571)270-5095. 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.
/FAHMIDA FERDOUSI/ Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights