DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
Claims 1-6 are pending and presented for examination on the merits.
Claims 1, 5, and 6 are currently amended.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/11/2025 was filed after the mailing date of the non-final Office action on 09/04/2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS is being considered by the examiner.
Status of Previous Objection to the Specification
The previous objection to the specification for failing to provide proper antecedent basis for claimed subject matter is withdrawn in view of the amendment to claim 6.
Status of Previous Claim Rejections Under 35 USC § 112
The previous rejection of claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) is withdrawn in view of the amendment to the claim.
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 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP 3336205 (A1) to Lee et al. (“Lee”).
Regarding claim 5, Lee teaches a method of manufacturing a steel wire. Title; abstract; para. [0002]. The method includes the following steps:
(a) performing hot rolling on a steel billet to form a wire rod (hot rolling a billet) (para. [0037], [0038]);
(b) cooling the wire rod at a rate of 5oC/s to 20oC/s (cooling the hot rolled wire rod at a cooling rate of 3 to 20oC/s) (para. [0039], [0040]); and
(c) performing a drawing process on the cooled wire rod, thereby forming the steel wire (obtaining a steel wire by drawing the cooled wire rod) (para. [0041], [0043]).
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 steel has improved ductility in addition to increased strength (improved drawability). Para. [0032], [0048].
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.
Lee discloses that the drawing process is performed at a strain of 60-90% (para. [0041], [0042]), but is silent regarding the tensile strength of the wire rod before drawing and is therefore silent regarding whether claimed Expression (1) is satisfied.
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, Lee teaches performing a process that matches the claimed method on a steel falling within or overlapping the claimed composition, as noted above. Therefore, any claimed properties or behavior, such as possessing the claimed pre-drawing tensile strength when subjected to the disclosed drawing strain such that Expression (1) is satisfied, would be expected in Lee’s steels given that the prior art composition and method of manufacture satisfy that of the present invention.
Regarding claim 6, Lee is silent regarding whether delamination does not occur at the claimed strain rate. However, any claimed properties or behavior would be expected given that the prior art composition and method of manufacture satisfy that of the present invention, as noted above. It is further noted that Lee teaches that delamination is intentionally avoided by keeping the strain no higher than 90%. Para. [0042].
Regarding claims 1 and 2, Lee teaches a steel wire. Title; abstract; para. [0002]. 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 steel has improved ductility in addition to increased strength (improved drawability). Para. [0032], [0048].
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.
Lee discloses that the drawing process is performed at a strain of 60-90% (para. [0041], [0042]), but is silent regarding the tensile strength of the wire rod before drawing and is therefore silent regarding whether claimed Expression (1) is satisfied.
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, Lee teaches performing a process that matches the claimed method on a steel falling within or overlapping the claimed composition, as noted above. Therefore, any claimed properties or behavior, such as possessing the claimed pre-drawing tensile strength when subjected to the disclosed drawing strain such that Expression (1) is satisfied, would be expected in Lee’s steels given that the prior art composition and method of manufacture satisfy that of the present invention.
Regarding claims 3 and 4, Lee is silent regarding the torsion number of the steel wire and whether delamination does not occur at the claimed drawing strain. However, any claimed properties or behavior would be expected given that the prior art composition and method of manufacture satisfy that of the present invention, as noted above. It is further noted that Lee teaches that delamination is intentionally avoided by keeping the strain no higher than 90%. Para. [0042].
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/25/2025 have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the claims are patentable over the prior art because Lee neither discloses any quantitative relationship or formula defining a correlation between the tensile strength of the wire rod and the drawing strain nor any numerical limit related to delamination.
In response, Lee discloses that the strain should not exceed 90% in an effort to avoid delamination and decrease the possibility of product defects (para. [0042]). This directly teaches the desire to minimize or eliminate delamination as an object of the prior art invention.
With respect to tensile strength of the wire prior to drawing, Lee does not explicitly teach particular values, but they are suggested. Lee discloses the final tensile strength values of 1450 MPa or more (para. [0032]) and shows specific final tensile strength values in Table 2. Lee also acknowledges that the tensile strength values of steel wires are “markedly increased” after drawing is performed (para. [0009]). It therefore follows that the tensile strength prior to drawing must be well below 1450 MPa. A relatively low tensile strength combined with limiting the strain to between 60% and 90% implies the need to meet claimed Expression (1), which seeks to minimize the sum of tensile strength (before drawing) and an exponential value related change in wire rod diameter before and after drawing (strain).
Furthermore, the steps in Lee’s method of manufacture are identical or substantially identical to the steps in the claimed method of manufacture and Lee’s method is applied to a steel having compositional ranges covering substantial portions of the claimed ranges. Therefore, any claimed properties would also be overlapped and expected, absent evidence to the contrary.
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 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
February 24, 2026