8DETAILED 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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/22/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicants argue that it would not have been obvious to combine Hara with Nagai since one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize there would be a different in laser parameters for cutting a steel sheet and notching a steel strip.
The Office disagrees. While Hara does not disclose notching a steel sheet, the disclosed laser parameters are used to cut a steel sheet. If the laser parameters can be used to cut a hole in steel it would be also capable of notching or cutting a section off a side of the steel sheet. Nagai demonstrates a use case in which a laser cuts a notch at the end of a steel strip in order to remove the weakest point in a butt joint weld. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to implement that teaching in Hara if the cutting machine was implemented in working with steel sheets that had welded butt joints.
Applicants also argue that their claimed parameter ranges achieve unexpected results. Hara’s laser parameters does not have an upper or lower limit for duty cycles, beam diameter, or laser output levels.
The Office disagrees. Hara clearly states the laser with ranges (beam diameter and laser output) used to process the steel sheet in table 2. The ranges are clear and specified, and falls within applicant’s claimed range. Hara also discloses observing dross and the problems that arise due to dross (par. 109 and 179). Yes, Hara does not disclose the duty cycle, however in view of Cole, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to adjust and control the duty cycle as part of routine optimization and to reduce dross.
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.
Claim(s) 9-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hara (US 20190176270 A1) in view of Nagai (JP 2017080806 A) and Cole (US 20030192865 A1).
Claim 9. Hara discloses a laser cutting method for a steel strip (title), comprising
wherein output of the pulse-type laser beam is set to 0.5 kw or more per 1 ms (pulse frequency greater than 800 Hz, par. 84, with a output of between 4-5 kW, Table 2),
a processing point diameter of the pulse-type laser beam is set to 0.1 mm or more and less than 0.6 mm (beam diameter between 0.2 – 0.3 mm, Table 2), and
Hara does not disclose cutting a vicinity of 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 pulse laser beam.
Nagai discloses cold rolling a steel strip wherein the laser cuts a notch in the joint between two welded sheets (Fig. 1, par. 5)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hara to incorporate the teachings of Nagai and cut the steel in the vicinity of a joint. Doing so would have the benefit of cutting of the weaker portion of the steel strip because butt joint welds are often poor (par. 5, Nagai).
Hara in view of Nagai does not disclose a ratio between a pulse period time and a down-time is set to 0.3 or more and less than 0.8.
Cole discloses a laser cutter for sheet metal wherein the pulsed laser has a 0.5 ratio between pulse duration and down time (Fig. 6B, par. 94).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hara in view of Nagai to incorporate the teachings of Cole and have the pulse duty cycle be 50%. Cole demonstrates that one of ordinary skill in the art would be able to adjust and control the pulse duty cycle according to design specifications. Performing adjustments to a pulsed laser’s duty cycle is well known in art and part of routine optimization.
Claims 10 and 14. The laser cutting method for the steel strip according to claim 9, wherein a portion cut by the pulse-type laser beam includes both end surfaces in a width direction of the steel strip (cut notch is at the welded joint, par. 5, Nagai, which will cut both end surfaces that are joined) and one or more holes through the steel strip (cut notch results in a part that has a closed shape from the view of the sheet’s thickness, see 112b rejection ).
Claims 11 and 15. The laser cutting method for the steel strip according to claim 9, wherein compressed air of 0.5 MPa or more is used as gas used for the pulse-type laser beam (assisted gas pressure is 0.5-0.9 mPa, par. 15).
Claims 12 and 16. The laser cutting method for the steel strip according to claim 10, wherein compressed air of 0.5 MPa or more is used as gas used for the pulse-type laser beam (assisted gas pressure is 0.5-0.9 mPa, par. 15).
Claim 13. Hara discloses a laser cutting facility for a steel strip (laser cutting machine, abstract),
wherein output of the pulse-type laser beam is set to 0.5 kw or more per 1 ms (lse frequency greater than 800 Hz, par. 84, with a output of between 4-5 kW, Table 2),
a processing point diameter of the pulse-type laser beam is set to 0.1 mm or more and less than 0.6 mm (beam diameter between 0.2 – 0.3 mm, Table 2), and
Hara does not disclose cutting a vicinity of 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 pulse laser beam.
Nagai discloses a steel strip wherein the laser cuts a notch in the joint between two welded sheets (Fig. 1, par. 5)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hara to incorporate the teachings of Nagai and cut the steel in the vicinity of a joint. Doing so would have the benefit of cutting off the weaker portion of the steel strip because butt joint welds are often poor (par. 5, Nagai).
Hara in view of Nagai does not disclose a ratio between a pulse period time and a down-time is set to 0.3 or more and less than 0.8.
Cole discloses a laser cutter for sheet metal wherein the pulsed laser has a 0.5 ratio between pulse duration and down time (Fig. 6B, par. 94).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hara in view of Nagai to incorporate the teachings of Cole and have the pulse duty cycle be 50%. Cole demonstrates that one of ordinary skill in the art would be able to adjust and control the pulse duty cycle according to design specifications. Performing adjustments to a pulsed laser’s duty cycle is well known in art and part of routine optimization.
Claims 17 and 18. Hara in view of Nagai discloses a cold rolling method for a steel strip, comprising performing cold rolling on a steel strip cut by the laser cutting method for the steel strip according to claim 9 (par. 1, Nagai).
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 SIMPSON A CHEN whose telephone number is (571)272-6422. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8-5.
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.
/SIMPSON A CHEN/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/ELIZABETH M KERR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights