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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (Claims 1-6) in the reply filed on 6/9/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 7-16 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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 1-6 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 recites the limitation "(in a clamping direction)" in line 11. It is not clear whether this limitation is part of the claimed invention as brackets are commonly used in a sentence to include additional information that is not essential to the main sentence. For examination purpose, it is considered a part of the claimed invention.
Similarly, claim 2 recites the limitation "the (axial) position" in line 1. It is not clear whether this limitation is part of the claimed invention as brackets are commonly used in a sentence to include additional information that is not essential to the main sentence. For examination purpose, it is considered a part of the claimed invention.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “a clamping direction” in line 3. It is not clear whether it refers to “a clamping direction” recited in Claim 1 or a new limitation. For examination purpose, both limitations are considered the same.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shigematsu et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2018/0083428).
Regarding Claim 1, Shigematsu teaches a method of producing straight shaped parts from insulated flat material (Fig. 1, 2) having an electrically conducting carrier material (Fig. 2, 7) sheathed by an electrically insulating insulation layer (Fig. 2, 8), comprising:
a) drawing the insulated flat material (Fig. 1, 2) from a material supply ([0027]: a conductive wire material wind-up machine) by a draw-in device (Fig. 1, 10) and processing in a wire processing machine to form a straight shaped part of insulated flat material (Fig. 1, 2) ([0027]),
b) separating the shaped part (Fig. 1, 32) from the supplied insulated flat material (Fig. 1, 2) in a cutting operation ([0035]),
wherein
before the shaped part is separated from the supplied flat material, a portion of the flat material (Fig. 1, 2) is fixed at a first clamping point (Fig. 1, 16 & 17) on the feed side and at a second clamping point (Fig. 1, 20) located at a distance therefrom by clamping (in a clamping direction), and in an intermediate region (Fig. 1, a region between 16/17 and 20) between the clamping points, part of the insulation layer (Fig. 2, 8) is removed from the electrically conducting carrier material (Fig. 2, 7) over a stripping length in a stripping operation ([0027] & [0030]),
the distance between the clamping points is adapted to parameters of the stripping operation ([0029]; the second clamping point (20) must be located downstream of the coat peeling section (12) and its position must account for a predetermined feed amount in order to accurately position the first and second peeling positions (P1 & P2).), and
one of the clamping points (Fig .1, 16 & 17) remains fixed relative to the machine (Fig. 1, 1) and only the other clamping point (Fig. 1, 20) is moved to change the distance between the clamping points ([0029]: a traveling stage 19 that travels on a rail 18 along the feed path 9).
Regarding Claim 2, Shigematsu teaches the method according to claim 1, further comprising automatic control of the (axial) position of the second clamping point (Fig. 1, 20) such that a minimum distance between the clamping points is set for each stripping operation ([0029]: The conductive wire material feed section 10 repeats a feed operation … put the traveling stage 19 back in the upstream direction…) (The clamp unit 20 is automatically returned to its upstream position which is considered a minimum distance between the clamping points.).
Regarding Claim 3, Shigematsu teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the first clamping point (Fig .1, 16 & 17) remains static and only the second clamping point (Fig. 1, 20) is displaced in dependence on the stripping length ([0029]; the position of the second clamping point (20) is dictated by the position of the coat peeling section (12) which is determined by various factors including the stripping length and a predetermined feed amount.).
Regarding Claim 6, Shigematsu teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein, before a stripping operation, the flat material (Fig. 1, 2) is first centered in a transverse direction ([0028]: a width direction) relative to a passage axis (Fig. 1, 9) and then the centered flat material (Fig. 1, 2) is clamped in a clamping direction (Fig. 1 shows a pair of clamps (20) in a vertical direction) oriented perpendicular to the transverse direction.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shigematsu et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2018/0083428) in view of Single et al. (DE102019213976).
Regarding Claim 4, Shigematsu teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the insulation layer (Fig. 2, 8) is mechanically removed in the stripping operation predominantly or solely by the action of at least one mechanical stripping tool (Fig. 1, 23 & 26), but does not teach the stripping operation comprises a milling operation.
Single teaches the stripping operation comprises a milling operation (Abstract: milling operation).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to strip the insulation layer of Shigematsu using the milling operation of Single instead of the peeling operation of Shigematsu in order to promote precise stripping of the insulation layer without or with only a slight removal of the electrically conductive carrier material as suggested in Single page 3, lines 1-32.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 5 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Nakamura (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2014/0033875). Nakamura teaches drawing the insulated flat material (Fig. 9A, 63a) and separating the shaped part from the supplied insulated flat material (Fig. 9A, 63a) (see Fig. 9(B)) and a first clamping point (Fig. 9A, 91) and the second clamping point (Fig. 9A, 92) and part of the insulation layer is removed in an intermediate region between the clamping points (Fig. 9A, 91 & 92). However, it fails to teach only the other clamping point is moved to change the distance between the clamping points.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUN S YOO whose telephone number is (571)270-7141. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-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, SUNIL SINGH can be reached at (571) 272-3460. 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.
/JUN S YOO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3726 8/22/2026
Prosecution Insights