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 § 102/103
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.
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:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 11, 13-16, 18, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Krause USPN 4,322,481. Krause teaches thin amorphous (col. 1, line 31: 2605A alloy) strip (col. 2, line 58: 2 mil) that is cut with continuous notches (i.e., grooves) (col. 2, lines 49-68; and Figure 12). Krause does not teach that the cutting is achieved with cutting roller. However, the resulting structure, formed by mechanical removal of strip material and lacking in bulge, would be expected to the same as or substantially the same as those being claimed. There is no process feature for making the claimed notch that would be expected to preclude encompassing those of Krause. The Specification teaches that notches having no bulge is encompassed (Specification at page 14). Regarding Claim 13, Krause teaches grooves in longitudinal and transverse directions (Figures 1-5), emphasizing transverse direction, which is orthogonal to the longitudinal direction which can be the casting direction, and teaches grooves can be applied in any direction (col. 7, lines 5-20). Thus, it would be expected that this directional teaching includes teaching preparing grooves in any direction, which would include that direction claimed. Regarding Claim 14, Krause teaches effective notch distance range which substantially overlaps that claimed (col. 7, line 15). Regarding Claim 15, although Krause may not exemplify such, Krause teaches that full width notches is preferred (col. 7, line 7), which at 100% is greater than the claimed 70 %. Regarding Claims 16, 18, and 19, these claims are not interpreted as demanding discontinuous linear notch array (staggered), and so the claims encompass the cited art for the same reasons as Claim 11.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 11, 13-16, 18, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Krause USPN 4,322,481. Krause teaches thin amorphous (col. 1, line 31: 2605A alloy) strip (col. 2, line 58: 2 mil) that is cut with continuous notches (i.e., grooves) (col. 2, lines 49-68; and Figure 12). Krause does not teach that the cutting is achieved with cutting roller. However, the resulting structure, formed by mechanical removal of strip material and lacking in bulge, would be expected to the same as or substantially the same as those being claimed. There is no process feature for making the claimed notch that would be expected to preclude encompassing those of Krause. The Specification teaches that no bulge is encompassed (Specification at page 14). Furthermore, Krause teaches that grooves can be formed by any method including by casting (col. 7, line 1 through col. 8, line 5), which casting method would be expected to lead to uniform and controlled notch distribution since the formation of notches is coincident with forming the strip. Thus, regarding Claim 11, it also would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to prepare the grooved strip using suggested casting method which would be expected to lead to grooves meeting bulge height requirement since no bulges would be expected. Regarding Claim 13, Krause teaches grooves in longitudinal and transverse directions (Figures 1-5), emphasizing transverse direction which would be expected to be the direction orthogonal to the casting direction. To the extent Krause does not expressly teach grooving orthogonal to casting direction, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to prepare grooves in any direction, which would include that claimed, since Krause contemplates doing so. Regarding Claim 14, Krause suggests effective notch distance range which overlaps that claimed (col. 7, line 15), rendering the claimed range obvious. See MPEP 2144.05. Regarding Claim 15, although Krause may not exemplify such, Krause teaches that full width notches is preferred (col. 7, line 7), which at 100% is greater than the claimed 70 %, rendering it obvious. Regarding Claims 16, 18, and 19, these claims are not interpreted as demanding discontinuous linear notch array (staggered), and so the claims encompass the cited art for the same reasons as Claim 11.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Krause USPN 4,322,481 in view of Itagaki USPA 2022/0364212. Krause teaches thin amorphous (col. 1, line 31: 2605A alloy) strip (col. 2, line 58: 2 mil) that is cut with continuous notches (i.e., grooves) (col. 2, lines 49-68; and Figure 12). Krause does not teach that the cutting is achieved with cutting roller. However, the resulting structure, formed by mechanical removal of strip material and lacking in bulge, would be expected to the same as or substantially the same as those being claimed. There is no process feature for making the claimed notch that is would be expected to preclude encompassing those of Krause. The Specification teaches that no bulge is encompassed (Specification at page 14). Regarding Claim 13, Krause teaches grooves in longitudinal and transverse directions (Figures 1-5), emphasizing transverse direction. Krause does not expressly teach casting direction. Itagaki teaches that strip to be marked (i.e., notched) in transverse direction wherein transverse direction is orthogonal to casting direction (paragraphs 30 and 142-145) is effective. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to prepare longitudinal direction as casting direction since Itagaki teaches such arrangement is effective.
Response to Amendment
In view of applicant’s amendments and arguments, applicant traverses the section 102/103 rejection over Krause, the section 103 rejection over Krause, the section 103 rejection over Krause in view of Itagaki, the section 103 rejection over Krause in view of Sawa in view of VonHoene, and the section 103 rejection over Krause in view of Sawa in view of VonHoene in view of Itagaki of the Office Action mailed on 6 February 2026. The section 103 rejection over Krause in view of Sawa in view of VonHoene and the section 103 rejection over Krause in view of Sawa in view of VonHoene in view of Itagaki of the Office Action mailed on 17 October 2025 are withdrawn, although the claims rejected under these combinations remain rejected for the reasons set forth above.
Applicant argues that the claimed product by process limitations would be expected to lead to distinguishable products as compared to those of the cited prior art. This argument was rebutted in the Office Action mailed on 6 February 2026, and those rebuttal arguments are incorporated by reference herein. It is emphasized again that applicant has provided no evidence in support of its contentions in a manner that would render the cited art necessarily distinguishable. Applicant argues that the Krause fails to teach or suggest the claimed discontinuous linear notches being arranged in a staggered manner. While this may be correct, the claim is not interpreted as requiring such arrangement when it provides for “continuous . . . notches” at line 2. Rejections are maintained as set forth above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 MICHAEL E. LA VILLA whose telephone number is (571)272-1539. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. through Fri. from 9:00 a.m. ET to 5:30 p.m. ET.
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, Humera N. Sheikh, can be reached at (571) 272-0604. 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.
/MICHAEL E. LA VILLA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1784
16 June 2026
Prosecution Insights