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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
Figure 8 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Additionally, the reference number (201) in figure 8 should be removed because a surface of the cover (200) does not apply to this figure.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the drawing of “plating layer” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term "means" or "step" or a term used as a substitute for "means" that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term "means" or "step" or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word "for" (e.g., "means for") or another linking word or phrase, such as "configured to" or "so that"; and
(C) the term "means" or "step" or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word "means" (or "step") in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word "means" (or "step") in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
If claim limitations in this application that use the word "means" (or "step"), they are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, if claim limitations in this application that do not use the word "means" (or "step"), they are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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 and 4-8 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.
Regarding claim 1, last line, it is unclear of what does “CBN” stand for.
Regarding claim 8, the limitations “20%D” and “100%D” are unclear as the claim depends upon claim 1 instead of claim 7, where “D” is recited. For clarity, if the claim is depended upon claim 1, it is suggested that the limitation, “20%D” be changed to “20 % of a diameter D of a bearing portion of the die hole”, and “100%D” be changed to “100 % of the diameter D of the bearing portion of the die hole”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1 and 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sarver et al. (hereinafter “Sarver”) (US 5,402,664).
Regarding claim 1, as best understood, Sarver discloses a wire drawing die (10) comprising:
a wear-resistant member (14) provided with a die hole (the die hole formed a converging inlet portion 30; see fig. 1) for performing a wire drawing process onto a wire material; and
a die case (12) that supports the wear-resistant member (14) (fig. 1), wherein
the wear-resistant member (14) has a thermal conductivity higher than a thermal conductivity of the die case (12). [Col. 2, lines 51-55 discloses the die case (12) is made of steel and the wear-resistant member (14) can be made of diamond. It is well known in mechanical art that diamond (the wear-resistant member 14) has a thermal conductivity higher than steel (the die case 12)], and
the wear-resistant member (14) has an upstream-side end surface (the right side of 14 in fig. 1) and a downstream-side end surface (the left side of 14 in fig. 1) in a wire drawing direction (see an arrow at the bottom of fig. 1), the die hole is provided between the upstream-side end surface and the downstream-side end surface (see fig. 1), and the downstream-side end surface is exposed from the die case (12) (see fig. 1), and
further comprising a cover (16) provided with a through hole (fig. 1) through which the wire material is able to pass, wherein the cover has a heat radiation member (18) that is in contact with the wear-resistant member (14) and that is provided with the through hole (fig. 1), and a supporting member (16, see a portion around the heat radiation member 18 in fig. 1) that supports the heat radiation member (18) (fig. 1), and the heat radiation member (18) has a thermal conductivity higher than a thermal conductivity of the supporting member [Col. 2, lines 54-55 discloses the supporting member (16) is made of steel and the heat radiation member (18) can be made of diamond. It is well known in mechanical art that diamond (the heat radiation member (18) has a thermal conductivity higher than steel (the supporting member 16)],
wherein the heat radiation member (18) includes at least one selected from a group consisting of diamond (see “diamond draw nib 18” in col. 2, line 55), CBN, and a composite material including diamond or CBN.
Regarding claim 4, the wire drawing die according to claim 1, wherein the steel supporting member (16) includes one of: at least one simple substance selected from a group consisting of copper, silver, tungsten and molybdenum. It is note that steel can include copper, tungsten, or molybdenum.
Regarding claim 5, the wire drawing die according to claim 1, wherein the heat radiation member (18) and the supporting member (16) are joined to each other by a brazing material (see “brazed” in col. 1, line 15) or screwing.
Regarding claim 6, the wire drawing die according to claim 1, Sarver discloses the heat radiating member (18) is a diamond draw member (see col. 2, line 55). A diamond draw die is type of wire-drawing die that has been coated with a layer of diamond, and thus Sarver does disclose a plating layer (i.e. a layer of diamond) is provided on a joining surface between the heat radiation member (18) and the supporting member.
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 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sarver.
Regarding claim 7, the wire drawing die according to claim 1, Sarver does not disclose the die hole as set forth above. Sarver does not expressly disclose a diameter of a bearing portion of the die hole is 10 µm or more and 1.0 mm or less. It would have been an obvious design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make a diameter of a bearing portion of the die hole 10 µm or more and 1.0 mm or less, because such selection or determination would be the result of routine optimization and does not itself warrant patentability, as one would arrive at such optimization through routine engineering and design practice.
Regarding claim 8, as best understood, the wire drawing die according to claim 1, Sarver appears to disclose a length L of a bearing portion (i.e. a portion that contact the wire (50) as shown in fig. 1) of the die hole (see fig. 1) is 20% of a diameter of the bearing portion of the die hole or more and 100% of the diameter or less. However, if the Applicant disagreed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the length of a bearing portion of the die hole 20% of a diameter of the bearing portion of the die hole or more and 100% of the diameter or less, because such selection or determination would be the result of routine optimization and does not itself warrant patentability, as one would arrive at such optimization through routine engineering and design practice.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2016/0199895 A1, US 2008/0173063 A1, US 10,406,576, US 5,916,323, and US 1,954,961 disclose wire drawing dies.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JIMMY T NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-4520. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30am-5pm.
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, CHRISTOPHER L TEMPLETON can be reached at 571-270-1477. 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.
JIMMY T. NGUYEN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3725
/JIMMY T NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3725
Prosecution Insights