8 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 Objections Claim s 9 and 13 objected to because of the following informalities: Claims 9 and 13 recites “kw,” this should be –kW-- . Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b ) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the appl icant regards as his invention. Claims 9-12 , 14, and 17 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 9 recites “ comprising 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-type laser beam.” The limitation is indefinite because it is unclear if “by using a pulse-type laser beam” is referring to the joining of the steel strips or the cutting of the steel strip at a vicinity of the joint. It appears from the specification, that applicants recite “pulse-type laser beam” for the laser cutter however, grammatically it could be read as for the joining of the steel strips. Claims 10 and 14 recites “ a portion cut by the pulse-type laser beam includes…one or more closed cross-sectional shapes.” This limitation is indefinite because it is unclear which cross-section is being referenced. If the cross-section is the thickness of the sheet, then any cut would have a cut outline that has a “closed shape.” If the cross-section is referring to the cut’s cross-section or the vertical surface of the sheet then a hole would have a closed shaped. Additionally, “a portion cut” could refer to the sheet that was cut or the part that was cut out. For examination, the limitation will be interpreted as –any cross-section of a portion cut has a closed shape--. Claims 1 1 -12 and 17 rejected due to dependency. 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 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-type laser beam (pulsed laser, Fig. 7, par. 84) , 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 a ratio between a pulse period time and a down-time is set to 0.3 or more and less than 0.8. 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 closed cross-sectional shapes (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) , in which 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 is cut by using a pulse-type laser beam (pulsed laser, Fig. 7, par. 84) , 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 a ratio between a pulse period time and a pulse time is set to 0.3 or more and less than 0.8. 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 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 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 Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT SIMPSON A CHEN whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-6422 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Steven Crabb can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (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