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 § 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 1, 3-5, and 7-9 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 1, lines 7-9, it is unclear whether limitations in the parenthesis () are positively claimed.
Claims 3-5 and 7-9 are included in this rejection because of dependency.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Claims 1 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto (JP H01283707) in view of Cusolito et al. (2008/0206088).
Yamamoto discloses a wire conductor, wherein the wire conductor has a cross-sectional area of less than 0.13 mm2 (see abstract, diameter = 0.1 mm => cross-sectional area = 0.0079 mm2 < 0.13 mm2), wherein the wire conductor comprises a single core wire (1) made of stainless steel and a copper coating layer (2) made of copper or copper alloy and covering an outer circumferential surface of the core wire (re-claim 1).
Yamamoto does not disclose the stainless steel with CaSibMncPdSeCrfNigFeh, wherein a ≤ 0.08, b ≤ 1.00, c ≤ 2.00, d ≤ 0.045, e ≤ 0.030, f is a value from 18.0 to 20.00, g is a value from 8.00 to 10.50, and h is the remaining portion, in mass% ratios, respectively (re-claim 1).
Cusolito et al. discloses a wire conductor made of stainless steel. Cusolito et al. discloses stainless steel (1.4306 and 1.4567 types, [0038]-[0056]) with CaSibMncPdSeCrfNigFeh, wherein a ≤ 0.08, b ≤ 1.00, c ≤ 2.00, d ≤ 0.045, e ≤ 0.030, f is a value from 18.0 to 20.00, g is a value from 8.00 to 10.50, and h is the remaining portion, in mass% ratios, respectively.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to use the stainless steel taught by Cusolito et al. for the stainless steel core wire (1) of Yamamoto since such stainless steel is known in the art and has high mechanical strength.
It is noted that since the modified insulated wire of Yamamoto comprises structure and material as claimed; the wire conductor can be used as a single wire, will have an electric resistance of not more than 660 mΩ/m, a tensile strength from 950 MPa to 1180 MPa, a breaking elongation of at least 1.5% or 1.7% (re-claims 1 and 5).
Re-claim 5, it has been held that the patentability of a product claim is determined by the novelty and nonobviouness of the claimed product itself without consideration of the process for making it, heat treatment performed for 1 hour at a temperature ranging from 150°C to 400°, which is recited in the claim. In re Thorpe, 111 F. 2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966; see also In re Nordt Development Co., LLC, [2017-1445] (February 8, 2018).
Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto in view of Cusolito et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ray et al. (4430115) and Fujito et al. (2020/0373049).
Yamamoto and Cusolito et al. disclose the invention substantially as claimed except for the core wire having a hardness of at least 650 Hv and not more than 750 Hv and a tensile strength of at least 2400 MPa and not more than 2800 MPa; and the copper coating layer having a hardness of at least 80 Hv and not more than 120Hv.
Ray et al. discloses a wire (col. 1, line 34) made of stainless steel which has a hardness from 650 Hv to not more than 750 Hv (col. 6, lines 11-12, hardness from 700 to 900 Kg/mm2 = 6865 to 8826 MPa = 700 Hv to 900 Hv, see conversion link https://www.gordonengland.co.uk/hardness/hvconv.htm ) (re-claim 3). Ray et al. also discloses the stainless steel having a tensile strength from 2400 MPa to not more than 2800 MPa (col. 6, lines 11-13, tensile strength of 350,000-400,000 psi = 2413-2758 MPa) (re-claim 4).
Fujito et al. discloses a wire made of copper which has a hardness of 100 Hv ([0037]).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to provide the stainless steel (of Cusolito) in the modified wire conductor of Yamamoto with the hardness taught by Ray et al. and to use to copper taught by Fujito et al. for the copper coating layer of Yamamoto to improve the mechanical and electrical properties of the wire conductor, such as high strength (see Ray, col. 6) and reduced the increased resistance value (see Fujito, [0007]).
Claims 1 and 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Siekierka et al. (5606151) in view of Yamamoto and Cusolito et al.
Siekierka et al. discloses an insulated wire (10) comprising a plurality of wire conductors (12, 13) arranged in parallel to each other, a covering portion (14, 15) being formed by covering the outer circumferential surface of each wire conductor, wherein the covering portions are connected to each other by one or more connection portions that are formed as single bodies with the insulating sheath of the covering portions, and wherein the distance between at least two adjacent conductors of the wire conductors ranges from 0.2 mm to 1.2 mm (col. 5, lines 38-39, center-to-center conductor spacing of 0.035 inches = 0.889 mm) (re-claims 7-9).
Siekierka et al. does not disclose the wire conductor having a cross-sectional area of less than 0.13 mm2, the core wire made of stainless steel having the claimed composition, an electric resistance of not more than 660 mΩ/m, a tensile strength of at least 950 MPa and not more than 1180 MPa, and a breaking elongation of at least 1.5 % (re-claim 1).
Yamamoto and Cusolito et al., see the rejection above, disclose the wire conductor as claimed in claim 1. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to use the wire conductor as taught by Yamamoto and Cusolito et al. for the conductors of Siekierka et al. since such conductor has improved mechanical and electrical properties.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot in view of new ground of rejection.
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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHAU N NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1980. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th, 7am to 5:30pm.
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, Imani N Hayman can be reached at 571-270-5528. 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.
/CHAU N NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2841