DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 05/22/2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 1 and 3-8 are pending and presented for examination on the merits.
Claims 1 and 5 are currently amended. Claims 7 and 8 are new.
Information Disclosure Statement
One (1) information disclosure statement (IDS) was submitted on 07/28/2026. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3, 4, and 7 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 EP 3336205 (A1) to Lee et al. (“EP ʹ205”).
Regarding claims 1 and 7, EP ʹ205 discloses a high-strength steel wire configured to have a markedly increased tensile strength after a drawing process (steel wire with improved drawability). Abstract. The steel has improved ductility in addition to increased strength (improved drawability). Para. [0032], [0048].
Inventive Steel 1 contains C 0.62 wt.%, Mn 0.7 wt.%, and Si 0.2 wt.% (Table 1), which falls within the claimed ranges. The carbon content in cementite within pearlite is 19 at.% (Table 2), which falls within the claimed range.
Inventive Steel 2 contains C 0.62 wt.%, Mn 0.7 wt.%, and Si 0.2 wt.% (Table 1), which falls within the claimed ranges. The carbon content in cementite within pearlite is 17 at.% (Table 2), which falls within the claimed range.
A specific example in the prior art that falls within claimed ranges anticipates a claimed range. MPEP § 2131.03(I). Since EP ʹ205 discloses a specific example that falls within the claimed ranges, EP ʹ205 anticipates the claimed ranges.
Alternatively regarding claim 1, the claim is a product-by-process claim because it seeks to define the claimed product by its method of manufacture. The limitations directed to the drawing strain, the tensile strength before drawing, and Expression (1) are directed to a method step and properties of the steel wire rod before it has assumed its final form. The patentability of product-by-process claims is determined by characteristics of the product itself recited in the claim, not by its method of manufacture. When the prior art discloses a product appearing to be identical or substantially identical to the claimed product, the burden falls on applicant to show an unobvious difference. See MPEP § 2113. In the present instance, EP ʹ205 discloses a steel wire possessing the claimed chemical composition and structure, as noted above. Therefore, EP ʹ205 meets the limitations of the physical and final product as claimed.
Regarding claims 3 and 4, EP ʹ205 is silent regarding is silent regarding the torsion number of the steel wire and whether delamination does not occur at the claimed drawing strain. However, it is well established that when a material is produced by a process that is identical or substantially identical to that of the claims and/or possesses a structure or composition that is identical or substantially identical to that of the claims, any claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. Such a finding establishes a prima facie case of anticipation or obviousness. See MPEP § 2112.01. In the present instance, EP ʹ205 discloses a steel wire possessing the claimed chemical composition and structure, as noted above. Therefore, any claimed properties and behavior, such as torsion and delamination, would be expected in the steels of EP ʹ205.
Claims 1, 3, 4, and 7 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 KR 10-2016-0075956 (A) to Lee et al. (“KR ʹ956”).
Regarding claims 1 and 7, KR ʹ956 discloses a high-strength steel wire having an increased tensile strength after a drawing process (steel wire with improved drawability). Abstract.
Inventive Steel 1 contains C 0.62 wt.%, Mn 0.7 wt.%, and Si 0.2 wt.% (Table 1), which falls within the claimed ranges. The carbon content in cementite within pearlite is 17 at.% (Table 2), which falls within the claimed range.
Inventive Steel 2 contains C 0.62 wt.%, Mn 0.7 wt.%, and Si 0.2 wt.% (Table 1), which falls within the claimed ranges. The carbon content in cementite within pearlite is 16 at.% (Table 2), which falls within the claimed range.
A specific example in the prior art that falls within claimed ranges anticipates a claimed range. MPʹ§ 2131.03(I). Since KR ʹ956 discloses a specific example that falls within the claimed ranges, KR ʹ956 anticipates the claimed ranges.
Alternatively regarding claim 1, the claim is a product-by-process claim because it seeks to define the claimed product by its method of manufacture. The limitations directed to the drawing strain, the tensile strength before drawing, and Expression (1) are directed to a method step and properties of the steel wire rod before it has assumed its final form. The patentability of product-by-process claims is determined by characteristics of the product itself recited in the claim, not by its method of manufacture. When the prior art discloses a product appearing to be identical or substantially identical to the claimed product, the burden falls on applicant to show an unobvious difference. See MPEP § 2113. In the present instance, KR ʹ956 discloses a steel wire possessing the claimed chemical composition and structure, as noted above. Therefore, KR ʹ956 meets the limitations of the physical and final product as claimed.
Regarding claims 3 and 4, KR ʹ956 is silent regarding is silent regarding the torsion number of the steel wire and whether delamination does not occur at the claimed drawing strain. However, it is well established that when a material is produced by a process that is identical or substantially identical to that of the claims and/or possesses a structure or composition that is identical or substantially identical to that of the claims, any claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. Such a finding establishes a prima facie case of anticipation or obviousness. See MPEP § 2112.01. In the present instance, KR ʹ956 discloses a steel wire possessing the claimed chemical composition and structure, as noted above. Therefore, any claimed properties and behavior, such as torsion and delamination, would be expected in the steels of KR ʹ956.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 3, 4, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP ʹ205.
Regarding claims 1 and 7, EP ʹ205 discloses a high-strength steel wire configured to have a markedly increased tensile strength after a drawing process (steel wire with improved drawability). Abstract. The steel has improved ductility in addition to increased strength (improved drawability). Para. [0032], [0048].
The steel has a composition (percent by weight) of C 0.52-0.72, Mn 0.6-0.8, and Si 0.1-0.4 (para. [0016]-[0021]), the ranges of which fall within or overlap the claimed C, Mn, and Si ranges. The balance is Fe and inevitable impurities. Abstract; para. [0010].
The carbon content of cementite in pearlite is preferably 20 at.% or less (abstract; para. [0029], [0030]), which overlaps the claimed range.
The overlap between the ranges taught in the prior art and recited in the claims creates a prima facie case of obviousness. MPEP § 2144.05(I). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to select from among the prior art ranges because there is utility over an entire range disclosed in the prior art.
The claim is a product-by-process claim because it seeks to define the claimed product by its method of manufacture. The limitations directed to the drawing strain, the tensile strength before drawing, and Expression (1) are directed to a method step and properties of the steel wire rod before it has assumed its final form. The patentability of product-by-process claims is determined by characteristics of the product itself recited in the claim, not by its method of manufacture. When the prior art discloses a product appearing to be identical or substantially identical to the claimed product, the burden falls on applicant to show an unobvious difference. See MPEP § 2113. In the present instance, EP ʹ205 discloses a steel wire possessing the claimed chemical composition and structure, as noted above. Therefore, EP ʹ205 meets the limitations of the physical and final product as claimed.
Regarding claims 3 and 4, EP ʹ205 is silent regarding is silent regarding the torsion number of the steel wire and whether delamination does not occur at the claimed drawing strain. However, it is well established that when a material is produced by a process that is identical or substantially identical to that of the claims and/or possesses a structure or composition that is identical or substantially identical to that of the claims, any claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. Such a finding establishes a prima facie case of anticipation or obviousness. See MPEP § 2112.01. In the present instance, EP ʹ205 discloses a steel wire possessing the claimed chemical composition and structure, as noted above. Therefore, any claimed properties and behavior, such as torsion and delamination, would be expected in the steels of EP ʹ205.
Claims 1, 3, 4, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR ʹ956.
Regarding claims 1 and 7, KR ʹ956 discloses a high-strength steel wire having an increased tensile strength after a drawing process (steel wire with improved drawability). Abstract.
The steel has a composition (percent by weight) of C 0.62-0.72, Mn 0.6-0.8, and Si 0.1-0.4 (para. [0012], [0023]-[0025]), the ranges of which fall within or overlap the claimed C, Mn, and Si ranges. The balance is Fe and inevitable impurities. Abstract; para. [0021].
The carbon content of cementite in pearlite is preferably 17 at.% or less (abstract; para. [0012], [0021], [0032]), which overlaps the claimed range.
The overlap between the ranges taught in the prior art and recited in the claims creates a prima facie case of obviousness. MPEP § 2144.05(I). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to select from among the prior art ranges because there is utility over an entire range disclosed in the prior art.
The claim is a product-by-process claim because it seeks to define the claimed product by its method of manufacture. The limitations directed to the drawing strain, the tensile strength before drawing, and Expression (1) are directed to a method step and properties of the steel wire rod before it has assumed its final form. The patentability of product-by-process claims is determined by characteristics of the product itself recited in the claim, not by its method of manufacture. When the prior art discloses a product appearing to be identical or substantially identical to the claimed product, the burden falls on applicant to show an unobvious difference. See MPEP § 2113. In the present instance, KR ʹ956 discloses a steel wire possessing the claimed chemical composition and structure, as noted above. Therefore, KR ʹ956 meets the limitations of the physical and final product as claimed.
Regarding claims 3 and 4, KR ʹ956 is silent regarding is silent regarding the torsion number of the steel wire and whether delamination does not occur at the claimed drawing strain. However, it is well established that when a material is produced by a process that is identical or substantially identical to that of the claims and/or possesses a structure or composition that is identical or substantially identical to that of the claims, any claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. Such a finding establishes a prima facie case of anticipation or obviousness. See MPEP § 2112.01. In the present instance, KR ʹ956 discloses a steel wire possessing the claimed chemical composition and structure, as noted above. Therefore, any claimed properties and behavior, such as torsion and delamination, would be expected in the steels of KR ʹ956.
Claims 1 and 3-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2014-055316 (A) to Ishida et al. (“Ishida”) (abstract and computer-generated translation are attached).
Regarding claim 1, Ishida discloses a high-strength steel wire that can be drawn with good toughness and no observed longitudinal cracks (improved drawability). Abstract; p. 1 – lines 10-13; p. 8 – lines 26-27.
The steel contains C 0.2-0.6% by mass, Mn 0.2-2.0% by mass, and Si 0.1-2.0% by mass, the balance being iron and unavoidable impurities (p. 2 – lines 34-42; p. 3 – lines 19-41), which overlap or encompass the claimed ranges.
The steel is primarily pearlite at 60% or more by area and can be 100% pearlite. Page 5 – lines 42-47. The steel contains cementite (cementite in pearlite). Page 6 – lines 9-18. Cementite, by definition, is Fe3C, which is 25 at.% carbon (C), which falls within the claimed range.
The overlap between the ranges taught in the prior art and recited in the claims creates a prima facie case of obviousness. MPEP § 2144.05(I). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to select from among the prior art ranges because there is utility over an entire range disclosed in the prior art.
It is noted that the claim is a product-by-process claim because it seeks to define the claimed product by its method of manufacture. The limitations directed to the drawing strain, the tensile strength before drawing, and Expression (1) are directed to a method step and properties of the steel wire rod prior to its final form. The patentability of product-by-process claims is determined by characteristics of the product itself recited in the claim, not by its method of manufacture. When the prior art discloses a product appearing to be identical or substantially identical to the claimed product, the burden falls on applicant to show an unobvious difference. See MPEP § 2113. In the present instance, Ishida discloses a steel wire possessing the claimed chemical composition and structure, as noted above. Therefore, Ishida meets the limitations of the physical and final product as claimed.
In any case, it is noted that Ishida discloses that the wire is drawn at a true strain (ε) of 4.0 or more (p. 2 – lines 50-60; p. 8 – lines 26-27), which overlaps the claimed drawing strain range. True strain (ε) is defined as 2xln(D0/D), where D0 is the initial wire diameter and D is the wire diameter after drawing (p. 2 – lines 13-14; Table 3 – fifth column), which is identical to the claimed definition.
When the wire diameter is about 4 mm to 8 mm, the tensile strength of the wire is about 700-950 MPa (tensile strength before drawing) (p. 6 – lines 20-25; Table 3 – second, third, fourth, and sixth columns), which falls within the claimed range.
Using the lower limit of true strain (ε=4.0) and tensile strength before drawing (TS=700 MPa), Expression (1) is 1246 MPa, which falls within the claimed range. Thus, Ishida’s steel wires have an Expression (1) value of 1246 MPa or more, which overlaps the claimed range.
Regarding claim 3, Ishida discloses torsion test results in which some samples meet or exceed 27. Table 3 – seventh column.
Regarding claim 4, Ishida teaches that longitudinal cracks are associated with delamination. Page 1 – lines 20-22. Ishida teaches that no longitudinal cracks were observed in inventive test examples. Page 8 – lines 26-27. These test examples were drawn at strains exceeding 4.0; therefore, no delamination is expected at drawing strains of 4.02 or less.
Regarding claim 7, Ishida teaches that the wire is drawn at a true strain (ε) of 4.0 or more (p. 2 – lines 50-60; p. 8 – lines 26-27), which overlaps the claimed range.
Regarding claim 5, Ishida discloses a high-strength steel wire and method of manufacturing the steel wire (method for manufacturing a steel wire). Abstract; p. 1 – lines 10-13. The wires can be drawn with good toughness and no observed longitudinal cracks (improved drawability). Page 8 – lines 26-27.
The steel contains C 0.2-0.6% by mass, Mn 0.2-2.0% by mass, and Si 0.1-2.0% by mass, the balance being iron and unavoidable impurities (p. 2 – lines 34-42; p. 3 – lines 19-41), which overlap or encompass the claimed ranges.
The method includes the step of forming and hot rolling a billet to produce a wire rod (hot-rolling a billet to obtain a wire rod). Page 6 – lines 27-32; p. 7 – lines 29-30. The wire rod is subjected to rapid quenching at a cooling rate of 10°C/s or more, such as 10-30°C/s (cooling the hot-rolled wire rod at a cooling rage of 3-20°C/s) (p. 6 – lines 27-60; p. 7 – lines 1-36), which overlaps the claimed range.
The wire is drawn at a true strain (ε) of 4.0 or more (obtaining a steel wire by drawing the cooled wire rod) (p. 2 – lines 50-60; p. 8 – lines 26-27), which overlaps the claimed drawing strain range. True strain (ε) is defined as 2xln(D0/D), where D0 is the initial wire diameter and D is the wire diameter after drawing (p. 2 – lines 13-14; Table 3 – fifth column), which is identical to the claimed definition.
When the wire diameter is about 4 mm to 8 mm, the tensile strength of the wire is about 700-950 MPa (tensile strength before drawing) (p. 6 – lines 20-25; Table 3 – second, third, fourth, and sixth columns), which falls within the claimed range.
Using the lower limit of true strain (ε=4.0) and tensile strength before drawing (TS=700 MPa), Expression (1) is 1246 MPa, which falls within the claimed range. Thus, Ishida’s steel wires have an Expression (1) value of 1246 MPa or more, which overlaps the claimed range.
The overlap between the ranges taught in the prior art and recited in the claims creates a prima facie case of obviousness. MPEP § 2144.05(I). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to select from among the prior art ranges because there is utility over an entire range disclosed in the prior art.
Regarding claim 6, Ishida teaches that longitudinal cracks are associated with delamination. Page 1 – lines 20-22. Ishida teaches that no longitudinal cracks were observed in inventive test examples. Page 8 – lines 26-27. These test examples were drawn at strains exceeding 4.0; therefore, no delamination is expected at drawing strains of 4.02 or less.
Regarding claim 8, Ishida teaches that the wire is drawn at a true strain (ε) of 4.0 or more (p. 2 – lines 50-60; p. 8 – lines 26-27), which overlaps the claimed range.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/22/2026 have been fully considered.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to Lee (EP 3336205 (A1)) as they apply to independent claim 5 and all claims dependent thereupon are moot because Lee is not relied upon to reject those claims.
Applicant’s argument with respect to Lee as they apply to claim 1 and all claims dependent thereupon is not persuasive. Applicant argues that Lee does not teach the claimed strain rate and claimed process.
In response, the argument is not commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. The argument assumes that the strain rate and tensile strength are given patentable weight. However, the strain rate and tensile strength are processing steps and properties used to make the claimed product. They are not attributes of the final product. As noted above, the patentability of product-by-process claims are determined on the product as claimed, not on intermediate properties or intermediate steps relied upon to fabricate the final claimed product. The scope of claim 1 is limited to the chemical composition and the carbon content of cementite in pearlite, and these features are taught by Lee (EP ʹ205). Thus, the invention is anticipated by and obvious over the cited art.
Pertinent Prior Art
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
JP 2016-183408 (A) to Sakamoto et al. (abstract and computer-generated translation) discloses a high-strength steel wire containing C 0.50-0.75, Mn 0.10-1.00, and Si 0.10-0.50 in percent by mass. Abstract; p. 3 – lines 14-28. A steel billet is hot rolled, cooled at a rate of 5-20°C/s, and drawn at a true strain rate of 4.0. Page 5 – lines 23-44; p. 7 – lines 24-25.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VANESSA T. LUK whose telephone number is (571)270-3587. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:30 AM - 4:30 PM 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, Keith D. Hendricks, can be reached at 571-272-1401. 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.
/VANESSA T. LUK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1733
September 28, 2026
