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 16 October 2025 has been entered.
Applicant’s arguments, filed 16 October 2025, with respect to the rejections of the claims under 35 USC § 103 have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Therefore, the claims remain rejected as obvious in view of the prior art.
Status of the Claims
In the amendment dated 16 October 2025, the status of the claims is as follows: no claims were amended.
Claims 1-2, 4-12, and 14-18 are pending.
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 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.
Claims 1, 5, 7, 11, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ponzio et al. (US-20190280577-A1) in view of Miller (US-5837961-A) and Yang et al. (CN-108326202-A, referencing foreign version for drawings and provided English translation for written disclosure).
Regarding claim 1, Ponzio teaches an ablation system (fig. 1; fig 1a shows the removal areas 20a and 20b where insulation 20’ has been removed by the laser beams) comprising:
a wire feed (supply reel 10, fig. 1) configured to feed a wire (electrical conductor 20, fig. 1);
a wire take-up (bending unit 17, fig. 1) configured to take-up the wire (“bent by the bending unit 17 to form the coil member,” para 0044; forming a coil is construed as “taking up the wire”);
a wire handling coupler (feeding unit 15, fig. 1; “feeding unit 15 is provided with two clamp units 30 and 31 for clamping the electric conductor 20,” para 0059), configured to couple to (as shown in fig. 5) and to advance the wire (“feeding unit 15 causes the electric conductor to be drawn from supply reel 10 and to be pushed towards the bending unit 17,” para 0042) and to stop the wire (“hold,” para 0060; construed such that the clamp units 30 and 31 can clamp or hold the conductor in order to stop its movement) between the wire feed (supply reel 10, fig. 1) and the wire take-up (bending unit 17, fig. 1) in a controlled manner (“Controllers 50 are configured to guarantee the sequence and values of the movements of clamp units 30 and 31,” para 0067) and configured to couple to (“clamping the electric conductor 20,” para 0059) and advance the wire from the wire feed toward the wire take-up (“Feeding unit 15 causes the electric conductor to be drawn from supply reel 10 and to be pushed towards the bending unit 17. This results in rotating the supply reel 10 to unreel the electrical conductor 20 and cause it to advance towards the bending unit 17,” para 0042), and then release the wire, such that the wire handling coupler is configured to move relative to the wire back toward the wire feed (“With clamp 30 open and following a movement in direction F′, clamp unit 30 is repositioned along electric conductor 20 at the beginning of the stroke in direction F for feeding a predetermined length of electric conductor 20,” para 0063; “Clamp units 30 and 31 are …open when moving in direction F′ for repositioning,” para 0065; direction F’ relative to conductor 20 in fig. 5 moves left or back towards where the supply reel 10 is located in fig. 1)
a laser ablation processor (laser unit 13, fig. 1) between the wire feed (supply reel 10, fig. 1) and the wire take-up (bending unit 17, fig. 1), the laser ablation processor comprising at least one laser (laser sources 13a and 13b, fig. 1) configured to ablate the wire (figs. 3-4 show the electrical conductor 20 being cut, described paras 0038-0040); and
a clamp (straightening unit 11, fig. 1; Ponzio does not explicitly disclose using clamps in the straightening unit) located between the wire feed (supply reel 10, fig. 1) and the wire take-up (bending unit 17, fig. 1);
wherein the wire handling coupler (feeding unit 15, fig. 1) is located on a first side (right side, fig. 1) of the laser ablation processor (laser unit 13, fig. 1) and the clamp (straightening unit 11, fig. 1) is located on a second side (left side, fig. 1) of the laser ablation processor, which is opposite the first side.
Ponzio, figs. 1 and 5
PNG
media_image1.png
727
1020
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
434
680
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Ponzio does not explicitly disclose at least one laser configured to ablate the wire when the wire is stopped; a clamp configured to clamp onto the wire, without moving the wire toward or away from the wire feed, when the wire is stopped thereby minimizing oscillation of the wire to less than 0.002 inches.
However, in the same field of endeavor of removing insulation from wires, Miller teaches at least one laser (laser beam source 32, fig. 8) configured to ablate the wire (insulated wire 146, fig. 8) when the wire is stopped (“the controller 34 has already activated the laser beam source 32 shortly after the insulated wire 146 has been gripped,” column 13, lines 23-25; construed such that the wire is stopped when it is gripped).
Miller, fig. 8
PNG
media_image3.png
380
498
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Ponzio to include, at least one laser configured to ablate the wire when the wire is stopped, in view of the teachings of Miller, by using the laser unit 13 to ablate the electrical conductor 20, as taught by Ponzio, when the wire is stopped, as taught by Miller, because the laser-beam ablation will be much precise if the conductor is still than if the conductor is moving.
Ponzio / Miller do not explicitly disclose a clamp configured to clamp onto the wire, without moving the wire toward or away from the wire feed, when the wire is stopped thereby minimizing oscillation of the wire to less than 0.002 inches.
However, reasonably pertinent to the same problem of accurately feeding wires quickly, Yang teaches a clamp (chuck 31, and cylinder 32, fig. 2) configured to clamp (“clamp,” para 0037) onto the wire (wire 4, fig. 2), without moving the wire toward or away from the wire feed (“second clamping cylinder 32 for driving the second clamping head to clamp or release the wire,” para 0037; cylinder 32 is oriented vertically, fig. 2; construed as clamping in a vertical direction and not moving the wire horizontally), when the wire is stopped (“clamp…the wire,” para 0037; the wire is construed as “stopped” when the second clamping head clamps the wire) thereby minimizing oscillation of the wire to less than 0.002 inches (examiner understands the claimed “oscillation” to be in the “direction of the length of the wire,” para 0026 of the Specification and fig. 3B of the Drawings in the Instant Application; Yang teaches a ”feeding error range within ±0.01mm,” para 0008; construed as oscillation forwards and backwards that is less than 0.01 mm; 0.01 mm is .0004 inches, which is less than the claimed .002 inches).
Yang, fig. 2
PNG
media_image4.png
648
878
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Ponzio to include, a clamp configured to clamp onto the wire, without moving the wire toward or away from the wire feed, when the wire is stopped thereby minimizing oscillation of the wire to less than 0.002 inches, in view of the teachings of Yang, by using the translation cylinder 22, the first clamping cylinder 212, and the second clamping cylinder 32, as taught by Yang, as the straightening unit 11, as taught by Ponzio, in order to use an alternating clamping system that has a high dimensional control accuracy and which provides a continuous and precise feeding of wires, because the dimensional accuracy of wires is a critical feature in manufacturing wires for medical products (Yang, paras 0005-0008).
Regarding claim 5, Ponzio teaches wherein the clamp (straightening unit 11, fig. 1) is located between the wire feed (supply reel 10, fig. 1) and the laser ablation processor (laser unit 13, fig. 1) and the wire handling coupler (feeding unit 15, fig. 1) is located between the laser ablation processor (laser unit 13, fig. 1) and the wire take-up (bending unit 17, fig. 1).
Regarding claim 7, Ponzio teaches wherein the wire feed (supply reel 10, fig. 1) further comprises a wire feed spool (supply reel 10, fig. 1) and at least one of wire tensioning rollers (“straightening unit 11 (which may include, for example, rollers),” para 0026; the rollers are construed as straightening or applying tension to the conductor 20 and being part of the supply reel 10, fig. 1), weighted rollers, springs, electromagnetics, and motors.
Regarding claim 11, Ponzio teaches a method of ablation ablating a wire (fig. 1; fig 1a shows the removal areas 20a and 20b where insulation 20’ has been removed by the laser beams) comprising:
providing the wire (electrical conductor 20, fig. 1) on a wire feed (supply reel 10, fig. 1);
providing a wire take-up (bending unit 17, fig. 1) configured to take-up the wire (“bent by the bending unit 17 to form the coil member,” para 0044; forming a coil is construed as “taking up the wire”);
controlling movement of the wire between the wire feed (supply reel 10, fig. 1) and the wire take-up (bending unit 17, fig. 1) with a wire handling coupler (feeding unit 15, fig. 1; “feeding unit 15 is provided with … clamp units 30 … for clamping the electric conductor 20,” para 0059) coupling to the wire (“clamping the electric conductor 20,” para 0059) to move and advance the wire from the wire feed toward the wire take-up (“feeding unit 15 causes the electric conductor to be drawn from supply reel 10 and to be pushed towards the bending unit 17,” para 0042), and then releasing the wire, such that the wire handling coupler moves relative to the wire back toward the wire feed (“With clamp 30 open and following a movement in direction F′, clamp unit 30 is repositioned along electric conductor 20 at the beginning of the stroke in direction F for feeding a predetermined length of electric conductor 20,” para 0063; “Clamp units 30 …open when moving in direction F′ for repositioning,” para 0065; direction F’ relative to conductor 20 in fig. 5 moves left or back towards where the supply reel 10 is located in fig. 1)
laser ablating the wire with at least one laser (laser sources 13a and 13b, fig. 1) located between the wire feed (supply reel 10, fig. 1) and the wire take-up (bending unit 17, fig. 1; figs. 3-4 show the electrical conductor 20 being cut, described paras 0038-0040); and
and a clamp (feeding unit 15, fig. 1) the wire at a second location (clamp unit 31, which is located at the feeding unit 15, fig. 1; para 0059) between the wire take-up (bending unit 17, fig. 1) and the at least one laser (laser sources 13a and 13b, fig. 1);
wherein the wire handling coupler (straightening unit 11, fig. 1) is located on a first side (left side, fig. 1) of a laser ablation processor (laser unit 13, fig. 1) and the clamp (feeding unit 15, fig. 1) is located on a second side (right side, fig. 1) of the laser ablation processor, which is opposite the first side.
Ponzio does not explicitly disclose laser ablating the wire wherein the wire is stopped; clamping the wire during the laser ablation at a first location between the wire feed and the at least one laser, without moving the wire toward or away from the wire feed thereby minimizing oscillation of the wire to less than 0.002 inches.
However, in the same field of endeavor of removing insulation from wires, Miller teaches ablating the wire wherein the wire is stopped (“the controller 34 has already activated the laser beam source 32 shortly after the insulated wire 146 has been gripped,” column 13, lines 23-25; construed such that the wire is stopped when it is gripped).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Ponzio to include, laser ablating the wire wherein the wire is stopped, in view of the teachings of Miller, by using the laser unit 13 to ablate the electrical conductor 20, as taught by Ponzio, when the wire is stopped, as taught by Miller, because the laser-beam ablation will be much precise if the conductor is still than if the conductor is moving.
Ponzio / Miller do not explicitly disclose clamping the wire during the laser ablation at a first location between the wire feed and the at least one laser, without moving the wire toward or away from the wire feed thereby minimizing oscillation of the wire to less than 0.002 inches.
However, reasonably pertinent to the same problem of accurately feeding wires quickly, Yang teaches clamping the wire during the laser ablation (“clamp,” para 0037) at a first location between the wire feed and the at least one laser (the wire feed is construed as being to the left of fig. 2; the “laser” is construed as being the punch, which is to the right; para 0019), without moving the wire toward or away from the wire feed (“second clamping cylinder 32 for driving the second clamping head to clamp or release the wire,” para 0037; cylinder 32 is oriented vertically, fig. 2; construed as clamping in a vertical direction and not moving the wire horizontally) thereby minimizing oscillation of the wire to less than 0.002 inches (examiner understands the claimed “oscillation” to be in the “direction of the length of the wire,” para 0026 of the Specification and fig. 3B of the Drawings in the Instant Application; Yang teaches a ”feeding error range within ±0.01mm,” para 0008; construed as oscillation forwards and backwards that is less than 0.01 mm; 0.01 mm is .0004 inches, which is less than the claimed .002 inches).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Ponzio to include, clamping the wire during the laser ablation at a first location between the wire feed and the at least one laser, without moving the wire toward or away from the wire feed thereby minimizing oscillation of the wire to less than 0.002 inches, in view of the teachings of Yang, by using the translation cylinder 22, the first clamping cylinder 212, and the second clamping cylinder 32, as taught by Yang, as the straightening unit 11, as taught by Ponzio, in order to use an alternating clamping system that has a high dimensional control accuracy and which provides a continuous and precise feeding of wires, because the dimensional accuracy of wires is a critical feature in manufacturing wires for medical products (Yang, paras 0005-0008).
Regarding claim 15, Ponzio teaches wherein the wire feed (supply reel 10, fig. 1) further comprises tensioning the wire between the wire feed and the wire take-up using least one of wire tensioning rollers (“straightening unit 11 (which may include, for example, rollers),” para 0026; the rollers are construed as straightening or applying tension to the conductor 20 and being part of the supply reel 10, fig. 1), weighted rollers, springs, electromagnetics, and motors.
Claims 2 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ponzio et al. (US-20190280577-A1) in view of Miller (US-5837961-A) and Yang et al. (CN-108326202-A, referencing foreign version for drawings and provided English translation for written disclosure) as applied to claims 1 and 11 above and further in view of Stehle (DE-102015119324-A1, referencing foreign version for drawings and provided English translation for written disclosure).
Regarding claim 2, Ponzio teaches the invention as described above but does not explicitly disclose wherein the wire handling coupler and the clamp are configured to simultaneously clamp the wire while the at least one laser ablates the wire when the wire is stopped.
However, in the same field of endeavor of removing insulation from wires, Stehle teaches wherein the wire handling coupler (holding unit 15.1, fig. 4) and the clamp (pulling unit 15.2, fig. 4) are configured to simultaneously clamp the wire (“The holding unit 15.1 and the pulling unit 15.2 can then fix the cable 2,” para 0107) while the at least one laser ablates the wire when the wire is stopped (“a cable tensioning device can be provided which is designed to fix and/or tighten the supplied cable in the processing area,” para 0046; construed such that the cable is configured to be fixed or stopped when it is processed).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Ponzio to include, wherein the wire handling coupler and the clamp are configured to simultaneously clamp the wire while the at least one laser ablates the wire when the wire is stopped, in view of the teachings of Stehle, by using the translation cylinder 22, the first clamping cylinder 212, and the second clamping cylinder 32, as taught by Yang, in the tightening unit 11, as taught by Ponzio, and by clamping, as taught by Stehle, the clamp units 30 and 31 during laser processing, as taught by Ponzio, in order to stabilize the cable so that the laser beam can hit the designated processing points on the circumference of the cable insulation precisely without risking damage to the wire located at the cable core, which could negatively affect the electrical conductivity of the wire (Stehle, paras 0002-0003 and 0047).
Regarding claim 12, Ponzio teaches the invention as described above but does not explicitly disclose wherein the wire handling coupler and the clamp simultaneously clamp the wire while the at least one laser ablates the wire when the wire is stopped.
However, in the same field of endeavor of removing insulation from wires, Stehle teaches wherein the wire handling coupler (holding unit 15.1, fig. 4) and the clamp (pulling unit 15.2, fig. 4) simultaneously clamp the wire (“The holding unit 15.1 and the pulling unit 15.2 can then fix the cable 2,” para 0107) while the at least one laser ablates the wire when the wire is stopped (“a cable tensioning device can be provided which is designed to fix and/or tighten the supplied cable in the processing area,” para 0046; construed such that the cable is configured to be fixed or stopped when it is processed).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Ponzio to include, wherein the wire handling coupler and the clamp simultaneously clamp the wire while the at least one laser ablates the wire when the wire is stopped, in view of the teachings of Stehle, by using the translation cylinder 22, the first clamping cylinder 212, and the second clamping cylinder 32, as taught by Yang, in the tightening unit 11, as taught by Ponzio, and by clamping, as taught by Stehle, the clamp units 30 and 31 during laser processing, as taught by Ponzio, in order to tighten the cable so that the laser beam can hit the designated processing points on the circumference of the cable insulation precisely without risking damage to the wire located at the cable core, which could negatively affect the electrical conductivity of the wire (Stehle, paras 0002-0003 and 0047).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ponzio et al. (US-20190280577-A1) in view of Miller (US-5837961-A) and Yang et al. (CN-108326202-A, referencing foreign version for drawings and provided English translation for written disclosure) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Guercioni (US-7480987-B1).
Ponzio teaches the invention as described above but does not explicitly disclose wherein the wire handling coupler is located between the wire feed and the laser ablation processor and the clamp is located between the laser ablation processor and the wire take-up.
However, in the same field of endeavor of removing insulation from wires, Guercioni teaches wherein the wire handling coupler (feeder 58, fig. 3; includes grabbers 60 and 62, fig. 3) is located between the wire feed (“the wire is fed from the spool,” column 3, lines 24-25) and the laser ablation processor (stripper 32, fig. 3) and the clamp (straighteners 28 and 30, fig. 3) is located between the laser ablation processor (stripper 32, fig. 3) and the wire take-up (“ejected onto a feeder for the next operation in the assembly of a motor rotor or stator,” column 3, lines 11-13).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Ponzio to include, wherein the wire handling coupler is located between the wire feed and the laser ablation processor and the clamp is located between the laser ablation processor and the wire take-up, in view of the teachings of Guercioni, by swapping, as taught by Guercioni, the straightening unit 11 with the feeding unit 15, as taught by Ponzio, because this switching of components amounts to simple substitution of one known element for another because if the feeder is located after the stripper, as taught by Ponzio, then the wire is pulled through the stripper, but if instead the feeder is located before the stripper, as permitted by Guercioni, then the wire is pushed through the stripper and regardless of whether the wire is pulled or pushed, the same predictable result is achieved of advancing the wire through the stripper (Guercioni, column 6, lines 25-32).
Claims 6, 8-10, 14, and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ponzio et al. (US-20190280577-A1) in view of Miller (US-5837961-A) and Yang et al. (CN-108326202-A, referencing foreign version for drawings and provided English translation for written disclosure) as applied to claims 1 and 11 above and further in view of Boock et al. (US-20140343386-A1).
Regarding claim 6, Ponzio teaches the invention as described above but does not explicitly disclose further comprising a wire inspection system located between the laser ablation processor and the wire take-up.
However, in the same field of endeavor of removing insulation from wires, Boock teaches further comprising a wire inspection system (thickness measurement system 150a,b,c, fig. 1C) located between the laser ablation processor (the singulation station is construed as being located at position occupied by one of the stations 120 or 140 shown in fig. 1C, “singulation station,” para 0073) and the wire take-up (spool 175 and rollers 177, fig. 1c; “after exiting the measurement station 150, the elongated conductive body 110 engages a second guide roller 179,” para 0080).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Ponzio to include, further comprising a wire inspection system located between the laser ablation processor and the wire take-up, in view of the teachings of Boock, by placing a thickness measurement system 150a-c, as taught by Boock, between the feeding unit 15 and the bending unit 17, as taught by Ponzio in order to determine if there is an irregularity in the elongated conductive body, where after a surface irregularity has been detected, the detected surface irregularity recorded, and the recorded section can be removed in subsequent processing, for the advantage of ensuring that the wire meets the desired dimensions, shapes, and mechanical specifications (Boock, para 0096 and 0164).
Regarding claim 8, Ponzio teaches the invention as described above but does not explicitly disclose wherein the wire take-up further comprises a wire take-up spool and at least one of wire tensioning rollers, weighted rollers, springs, electromagnetics, and motors.
However, in the same field of endeavor of removing insulation from wires, Boock teaches wherein the wire take-up (spool 175 and rollers 177, fig. 1C) further comprises a wire take-up spool (spool 175, fig. 1C) and at least one of wire tensioning rollers (guide roller 177, fig. 1C; “guide rollers,” paras 0080-0081), weighted rollers, springs, electromagnetics, and motors (“motor,” para 0083).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Ponzio to include, a wire take-up spool and at least one of wire tensioning rollers, weighted rollers, springs, electromagnetics, and motors, in view of the teachings of Boock, by using the spool 175 and rollers 177, as taught by Boock, instead of using a bending unit to form a coiled member, as taught by Ponzio, in order to wound up the elongated conductive body into a take-up spool, so that it can be retrieved by an operator and loaded onto another system for further processing (Boock, para 0082).
Regarding claim 9, Ponzio teaches the invention as described above but does not explicitly disclose wherein the wire is a multilayer wire, having one, two, three, or four layers.
However, in the same field of endeavor of removing insulation from wires, Boock teaches wherein the wire is a multilayer wire, having one, two, three, or four layers (para 0169; fig. 7C).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Ponzio to include, wherein the wire is a multilayer wire, having one, two, three, or four layers, in view of the teachings of Boock, by forming an analyte sensor, as taught by Boock, instead of forming a coiled member, as taught by Ponzio, because electrochemical analyte sensors produced by batch processes often result in batch-to-batch variations, but by determining whether a thickness of a coating is within a predetermined range, a continuous analyte sensor can be obtained that is suitable for in vivo use (Boock, paras 0004 and 0021).
Regarding claim 10, Ponzio teaches the invention as described above but does not explicitly disclose wherein the wire is a multilayer medical wire comprising a core having an outer diameter between 0.0010 inches (0.0254mm) and 0.0018 inches (0.04572mm), a first layer over the core having an outer diameter between 0.0030 inches (0.0762mm) and 0.0045 inches (0.1143mm), a second layer over the first layer having an outer diameter between 0.0045 inches (0.1143mm) and 0.0070 inches (0.1778mm), and a third layer over the second layer having an outer diameter between 0.0050 inches (0.127mm) and 0.0082 inches (0.2083mm).
However, in the same field of endeavor of removing insulation from wires, Boock teaches wherein the wire is a multilayer medical wire (paras 0015 and 0169; fig. 7C), comprising a core having an outer diameter between 0.0010 inches (0.0254mm) and 0.0018 inches (0.04572mm) (“from about 0.05 microns or less to about 200 microns,” para 0186), a first layer over the core having an outer diameter between 0.0030 inches (0.0762mm) and 0.0045 inches (0.1143mm) (“from about 0.05 microns or less to about 200 microns,” para 0207), a second layer over the first layer having an outer diameter between 0.0045 inches (0.1143mm) and 0.0070 inches (0.1778mm) (“from about 0.05 microns or less to about 200 microns,” para 0207), and a third layer over the second layer having an outer diameter between 0.0050 inches (0.127mm) and 0.0082 inches (0.2083mm) (“from about 0.05 microns or less to about 200 microns,” para 0207; multiple layers are taught in para 0169).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Ponzio to include, wherein the wire is a multilayer medical wire comprising a core having an outer diameter between 0.0010 inches (0.0254mm) and 0.0018 inches (0.04572mm), a first layer over the core having an outer diameter between 0.0030 inches (0.0762mm) and 0.0045 inches (0.1143mm), a second layer over the first layer having an outer diameter between 0.0045 inches (0.1143mm) and 0.0070 inches (0.1778mm), and a third layer over the second layer having an outer diameter between 0.0050 inches (0.127mm) and 0.0082 inches (0.2083mm), in view of the teachings of Boock, by forming an analyte sensor, as taught by Boock, instead of forming a coiled member, as taught by Ponzio, because electrochemical analyte sensors produced by batch processes often result in batch-to-batch variations, but by determining whether a thickness of a coating is within a predetermined range, a continuous analyte sensor can be obtained that is suitable for in vivo use (Boock, paras 0004 and 0021). Additionally, the Applicant appears to have placed no criticality on the claimed ranges (multiple alternative embodiments are disclosed in paragraphs [0016]-[0019] of the Specification, where the claimed ranges are not disclosed as being critical) and since it has been held that “[i]n the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists” (MPEP 2144.05.I).
Regarding claim 14, Ponzio teaches the invention as described above but does not explicitly disclose further comprising inspecting the ablations made on the wire after the laser ablation.
However, in the same field of endeavor of removing insulation from wires, Boock teaches further comprising inspecting a plurality of ablations (“portions,” para 0169) made on the wire (“in step 560, the elongated conductive body is advanced through the thickness measurement station,” para 0174) after the laser ablation (in step 510: “after the insulating and conductive layers have been deposited onto the elongated core, the elongated conductive body can then be advanced to an etching station, where portions of the coated assembly structure is stripped or otherwise removed,” para 00169; steps 510 and 560 are shown in fig. 5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Ponzio to include, further comprising inspecting the ablations made on the wire after the laser ablation, in view of the teachings of Boock, by placing a thickness measurement system 150a-c, as taught by Boock, between the feeding unit 15 and the bending unit 17, as taught by Ponzio in order to determine if there is an irregularity in the elongated conductive body, where after a surface irregularity has been detected, the detected surface irregularity recorded, and the recorded section can be removed in subsequent processing, for the advantage of ensuring that the wire meets the desired dimensions, shapes, and mechanical specifications (Boock, para 0096 and 0164).
Regarding claim 16, Ponzio teaches the invention as described above but does not explicitly disclose wherein the wire is a multilayer wire such that at least one portion of at least one layer is ablated during the laser ablating.
However, in the same field of endeavor of removing insulation from wires, Boock teaches wherein the wire is a multilayer wire (fig. 7C) such that at least one portion of at least one layer is ablated during the laser ablating (para 0108; “rotation” to remove an entire circumference of a layer is taught in para 0168).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Ponzio to include, wherein the wire is a multilayer wire such that at least one portion of at least one layer is ablated during the laser ablating, in view of the teachings of Boock, by forming an analyte sensor, as taught by Boock, instead of forming a coiled member, as taught by Ponzio, because electrochemical analyte sensors produced by batch processes often result in batch-to-batch variations, but by determining whether a thickness of a coating is within a predetermined range, a continuous analyte sensor can be obtained that is suitable for in vivo use (Boock, paras 0004 and 0021).
Regarding claim 17, Ponzio teaches the invention as described above but does not explicitly disclose wherein the wire is a multilayer wire such that at least one portion of at least two layers is ablated during the laser ablating.
However, in the same field of endeavor of removing insulation from wires, Boock teaches wherein the wire is a multilayer wire (fig. 7C) such that at least one portion of at least two layers is ablated during the laser ablating (para 0108; “rotation” to remove an entire circumference of a layer is taught in para 0168).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Ponzio to include, wherein the wire is a multilayer wire such that at least one portion of at least two layers is ablated during the laser ablating, in view of the teachings of Boock, by forming an analyte sensor, as taught by Boock, instead of forming a coiled member, as taught by Ponzio, because electrochemical analyte sensors produced by batch processes often result in batch-to-batch variations, but by determining whether a thickness of a coating is within a predetermined range, a continuous analyte sensor can be obtained that is suitable for in vivo use (Boock, paras 0004 and 0021).
Regarding claim 18, Ponzio teaches the invention as described above but does not explicitly disclose wherein the wire is a multilayer medical wire comprising a core having an outer diameter between 0.0010 inches (0.0254mm) and 0.0018 inches (0.04572mm), a first layer over the core having an outer diameter between 0.0030 inches (0.0762mm) and 0.0045 inches (0.1143mm), a second layer over the first layer having an outer diameter between 0.0045 inches (0.1143mm) and 0.0070 inches (0.1778mm), and a third layer over the second layer having an outer diameter between 0.0050 inches (0.127mm) and 0.0082 inches (0.2083mm).
However, in the same field of endeavor of removing insulation from wires, Boock teaches the invention as described above as well as wherein the wire is a multilayer medical wire (paras 0015 and 0169; fig. 7C) comprising a core having an outer diameter between 0.0010 inches (0.0254mm) and 0.0018 inches (0.04572mm) (“from about 0.05 microns or less to about 200 microns,” para 0186), a first layer over the core having an outer diameter between 0.0030 inches (0.0762mm) and 0.0045 inches (0.1143mm) (“from about 0.05 microns or less to about 200 microns,” para 0207), a second layer over the first layer having an outer diameter between 0.0045 inches (0.1143mm) and 0.0070 inches (0.1778mm) (“from about 0.05 microns or less to about 200 microns,” para 0207), and a third layer over the second layer having an outer diameter between 0.0050 inches (0.127mm) and 0.0082 inches (0.2083mm) (“from about 0.05 microns or less to about 200 microns,” para 0207; multiple layers are taught in para 0169).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Ponzio to include, wherein the wire is a multilayer medical wire comprising a core having an outer diameter between 0.0010 inches (0.0254mm) and 0.0018 inches (0.04572mm), a first layer over the core having an outer diameter between 0.0030 inches (0.0762mm) and 0.0045 inches (0.1143mm), a second layer over the first layer having an outer diameter between 0.0045 inches (0.1143mm) and 0.0070 inches (0.1778mm), and a third layer over the second layer having an outer diameter between 0.0050 inches (0.127mm) and 0.0082 inches (0.2083mm), in view of the teachings of Boock, by forming an analyte sensor, as taught by Boock, instead of forming a coiled member, as taught by Ponzio, because electrochemical analyte sensors produced by batch processes often result in batch-to-batch variations, but by determining whether a thickness of a coating is within a predetermined range, a continuous analyte sensor can be obtained that is suitable for in vivo use (Boock, paras 0004 and 0021). Additionally, the Applicant appears to have placed no criticality on the claimed ranges (multiple alternative embodiments are disclosed in paragraphs [0016]-[0019], where the claimed ranges are not disclosed as being critical) and since it has been held “[i]n the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists” (MPEP 2144.05.I).
Response to Argument
Applicant's arguments filed 16 October 2025 have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
Claim Rejections under 35 USC § 103
On page 6 of the arguments, the Applicant states the following:
“As previously discussed in an interview and also stated on page 7 of the Office Action, the Examiner has conceded that the limitation "thereby minimizing the oscillation of the wire to less than 0.002 inches," is not taught or suggested in either the Ponzio et al. or the Miller references.”
This argument was not found to be persuasive because the Applicant does not describe how either the Ponzio reference or the Miller reference fail to teach the limitation: “thereby minimizing the oscillation of the wire to less than 0.002 inches.” The Applicant’s arguments would have been more persuasive if was explained how the Ponzio and Miller references teach an oscillation of the wire that is not minimized to an oscillation that is less than 0.002 inches (presumably an oscillation that is not minimized to a range that is greater than 0.002 inches).
On pages 6-8 of the arguments, the Applicant argues that the Yang reference (CN108326202A) fails to teach the limitation: “thereby minimizing the oscillation of the wire to less than 0.002 inches.”
The Applicant’s main argument is that although Yang teaches a “feeding error range,” Yang does not teach “wire oscillation.” As explained on page 8 of the Office action filed 16 July 2025, the examiner is relying on paragraph 0026 of the Specification and fig. 3B of the Drawings in the Instant Application to understand what is meant by the claimed “wire oscillation.”
Paragraph 0026 of the Specification discloses: “when wire 11 is configured of very small diameter, however, rapid acceleration followed by abrupt stopping of the advancement of wire 11 also leads to wire oscillation in the direction of the length of the wire.” Figure 3B shows this wire oscillation O12’-14’ as taking place along the length of the wire. Thus, the examiner understands the limitation “minimizing oscillation of the wire to less than 0.002 inches” to mean, in view of the Specification, as minimizing movement of the wire back and forth along the length of the wire to a range that is less than 0.002 inches.
Yang teaches a clamp that is able to keep a feeding movement within a range that is less than ±0.01 mm (approximately 0.0004 inches). Although the Applicant’s position is that Yang fails to teach the claimed “wire oscillation,” it is unclear how one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize Yang’s “feeding error range” of less than 0.0004 inches as failing to meet the limitation: “minimizing oscillation of the wire to less than 0.002 inches.” For example, the Applicant appears to argue that in order for this limitation to be met, Yang must teach wire oscillation. What limitation in the claim requires “wire oscillation?” What if there was no oscillation of the wire (which presumably Yang teaches based on the Applicant’s arguments)? In this situation, there would be zero inches of “oscillation of the wire,” which would appear to meet the requirements of the claim. In other words, the scope of the claim does not require wire oscillation. Instead, the claim only requires minimizing wire oscillation.
Page 7 of the arguments stats that the “quickness of the wire advancing and stopping is a key feature” and that with respect to Yang, “there is no quick advance and stop.” However, it is not clear what structure is responsible for this quickness feature, how this quickness feature is captured in the claims, and how this quickness feature differentiates the claimed invention over the prior art references (e.g., what wire feed speed is considered to be “quick?”).
In response to Applicant's argument on page 7 that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
The examiner agrees with the Applicant that Yang’s “feeding error…relates to an error that is encountered when ‘feeding’ a wire.” Yang’s goal is to obtain a “high positioning accuracy of the equipment” when a wire is cut (paragraph 0019). As explained earlier, the examiner is trying to understand what is meant by the claimed “oscillation of the wire” according to the Specification in the Instant Application. Based on what is disclosed, this “oscillation of the wire” appears to be the same “feeding error” taught by Yang. For example, the oscillation of the wire O12’-14’ in fig. 3B from the Instant Application appears to be a feeding error of the wire.
On page 8 of the arguments, the Applicant states that the examiner is using hindsight because on page 7 of the Office action, the examiner used the term “quickly” in the phrase: “However, reasonably pertinent to the same problem of accurately feeding wires quickly, Yang teaches…”
This phrase is used by the examiner to indicate that Yang has been determined to be analogous art. A test that can be used to determine if a prior art reference is analogous art is a “reasonably pertinent” test. In determining whether a reference is “reasonably pertinent,” the examiner must consider the Applicant’s Specification (MPEP 2141.01.a). The Specification in the Instant Application uses the term “quickly.” Similarly, Yang teaches “improving production efficiency and product yield” (paragraph 0022) in an “accurate” manner (repeatedly mentioned in Yang). Yang also teaches a feeding mechanism that clamps, drives the wire, and releases the wire in order to obtain a “continuous and accurate feeding of the wire” (paragraph 0045). Although Yang does not use the term “quickly,” in order to improve production efficiency and to improve product yield in a continuous process, respectfully submit that the wire would need to be advanced more quickly. Further, Yang further teaches “small-diameter wires” for “medical devices.” In a similar way, the Specification of the Instant Application discloses “small diameter wires” for “medical device applications” (paragraph 0003). Thus, the examiner maintains that Yang is analogous art for the Instant Application that is under review.
For the above reasons, rejections to the pending claims are respectfully sustained by the examiner.
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 ERWIN J WUNDERLICH whose telephone number is (571)272-6995. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30-5:30.
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, Edward Landrum can be reached on 571-272-5567. 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.
/ERWIN J WUNDERLICH/Examiner, Art Unit 3761 15 December 2025
/EDWARD F LANDRUM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761