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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on January 29, 2026 has been entered.
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 applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 15 and 17 are 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 15 recites the limitation “... during drawing of the drawn wire through the die” in the first paragraph of the body of the claim. It is unclear as to whether Applicant intends the ‘drawing’ of the limitation to refer to the step of ‘drawing a stainless steel wire through a die’ previously set forth in the claim, or whether Applicant intends to set forth a second step of ‘drawing’ which is separate and independent from the ‘drawing’ previously set forth. For the purposes of this Office Action, Examiner will interpret the limitation as “... during a second drawing of the drawn wire through the die.”
Claim 15 further recites the limitation “forming in the resulting cold drawn wire the internal channel having ...” in the second paragraph of the body of the claim. The limitation is indefinite for several reasons. First, there is insufficient antecedent basis for “the resulting cold drawn wire.” Secondly, the claim previously sets for a step of “closing an internal channel.” Therefore, it is unclear as to how the step of ‘forming the internal channel’ can be performed after the ‘internal channel’ has been previously formed and closed in the previously step. Alternatively explained, the claim first sets forth a step of ‘closing an internal channel’ and then a second step of ‘forming the internal channel.’ Because the ‘internal channel’ must be ‘formed’ prior to it being closed in the first step, it is unclear as to how the ‘internal channel’ can be ‘formed’ after it has already been ‘closed.’
Claim 15 further recites the limitation “the drawn wire” in the third paragraph of the body of the claim. It is unclear as to whether Applicant intends the limitation to refer to the ‘wire’ after the first step of ‘drawing’ or whether Applicant intends the limitation to refer to the ‘wire’ after the second step of ‘drawing.’
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 15 recites the limitation “closing an internal channel using a metal strip bonded to the drawn wire during [a second] drawing of the drawn wire through the die” in the first paragraph of the body of the claim. Examiner notes that the limitation recites several requirements which are not described in the specification. First, the limitation requires a step of “closing an internal channel using a metal strip bonded to the drawn wire.” This requires that the internal channel be closed using a metal strip which is already “bonded” to the wire. Examiner has been unable to find support for this limitation in the Specification. The elected invention (Species A, figures 6 – 7) expressly teaches that the metal strip is a separate element from the drawn wire (figures 6b and 7a, element 62 being the ‘metal strip’ and element 61 being the ‘drawn wire’; paragraph 60). Then, the metal strip is bonded to the drawn wire, at which time, the metal strip acts to close a channel of the drawn wire, so as to form an internal channel in the drawn wire (figures 7a and 7b, element 62 being the ‘metal strip’ and element 41 being the ‘internal channel’; paragraph 60). Therefore, the Specification teaches that the steps of ‘closing the channel to form an internal channel’ and ‘bonding the metal strip to the drawn wire’ are performed simultaneously, rather than concurrently. Because the limitation first requires ‘bonding the metal strip to the drawn wire’ and then ‘closing the internal channel,’ the limitation is not taught by the Specification. Examiner further notes that the Specification teaches that the ‘internal channel’ is not formed until the metal strip is bonded to the drawn wire (figure 7b, elements 24 and 41; paragraph 60). Until the ‘bonding’ occurs, the drawn wire has an outer channel, rather than an inner channel (figure 7a, element 71 being the ‘outer channel’).
The limitation further requires “closing an internal channel using a metal strip ... during [a second] drawing of the drawn wire through the die.” This requires that the step of ‘closing the internal channel’ be performed by a ‘second step of drawing,’ wherein the metal strip is drawn with the wire. Examiner has been unable to find support for this limitation in the Specification. The Specification expressly teaches that the metal strip is bonded to the metal strip, so as to form the ‘internal channel,’ by welding, soldering, or adhesive (figures 7a and 7b, elements 62, 61, and 41; paragraphs 60 and 56). Examiner has been unable to find support for the limitation of the metal strip being bonded to the drawn wire via drawing.
Examiner notes that the Specification teaches that the stainless steel wire is first drawn, then the drawn wire is processed to include the outer channel, then a conducting wire is fed into the outer channel, and finally the outer channel is closed by bonding the metal strip to the drawn wire, so as to form the inner channel (figures 6a, 6b, 7a, and 7b, elements 61, 71, 31, 62, and 41; paragraph 60).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed January 29, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant states, on pages 4 – 5, that paragraph 45 and Figures 7a and 7b of the Specification provides proper basis for the limitations of the claims. Examiner disagrees and refers to the above rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER BESLER whose telephone number is (571)270-5331. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 10:30 am - 7:30 pm (EST).
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, Thomas Hong can be reached at (571) 272-0993. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER J. BESLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3726