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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters "10" and "16" have both been used to designate the “inlet” and the “wire” in Figures 3 and 4. 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. 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 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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-14, 16-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ondo, US20150336767 in view of Yamada, US5045662.
Regarding independent claim 1, Ondo discloses a method of aligning a wire with a pathway inlet (Paragraph [0002], lines 4-6), comprising: directing a feeding end of a wire toward a pathway inlet of a feed pathway (Paragraph [0006], lines 4-6); creating a pressure differential between the pathway inlet and a pathway outlet of the feed pathway thus creating a pressure-driven gas flow around the wire and into the pathway inlet (Paragraph [0021], lines 4-7); and urging the wire along the feed pathway toward the pathway outlet via a shear force of the gas flow created by the pressure differential (Paragraph [0022], lines 1-13).
Ondo does not disclose inducing one of a flutter or vibration in the wire at the feeding end of the wire via a gas flow.
Yamada teaches a method for guiding a wire by inducing one of a flutter or vibration in the wire at the feeding end of the wire via a gas flow (Column 4, lines 37-42).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the methods of Ondo and Yamada because “the tip of the wire electrode may catch on the wire guide…[and] insertion may also be impeded by friction between the wire electrode and wire guides” (Column 1, lines 41-46; Yamada). One would be motivated to combine the methods of Ondo and Yamada to ensure proper feeding of a wire having a low stiffness coefficient (Column 1, lines 52-53; Yamada).
Regarding independent claim 14, Ondo discloses a method of controlling tension in a wire directed along a pathway (Paragraph [0037], lines 20-23), comprising: positioning a feeding end of the wire inside the pathway (Paragraph [0005], lines 4-5); creating a pressure differential between a pathway inlet and a pathway outlet of the pathway thus creating a pressure-driven gas flow around the wire and into a pathway inlet of the pathway (Paragraph [0037], lines 1-5); and urging the wire along the pathway toward the pathway outlet via a shear force from the pressure-driven gas flow created by the pressure differential (Paragraph [0037], lines 1-5); wherein adjusting the pressure differential adjusts a tension of a segment of the wire between the pathway inlet and a releasing end of the wire opposite the feeding end (Paragraph [0018], lines 13-16 and Paragraph [0021], lines 9-13).
Ondo does not disclose inducing one of a flutter or vibration in the wire at the feeding end of the wire via a gas flow.
Yamada teaches a method for guiding a wire by inducing one of a flutter or vibration in the wire at the feeding end of the wire via a gas flow (Column 4, lines 37-42).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the methods of Ondo and Yamada because “the tip of the wire electrode may catch on the wire guide…[and] insertion may also be impeded by friction between the wire electrode and wire guides” (Column 1, lines 41-46; Yamada). One would be motivated to combine the methods of Ondo and Yamada to ensure proper feeding of a wire having a low stiffness coefficient (Column 1, lines 52-53; Yamada).
Regarding claims 3 and 16, modified Ondo teaches the limitations of claims 1 and 14 above, and inducing the flutter. However, Ondo does not disclose inducing the flutter prevents stiction of the wire to an interior wall of the feed pathway.
Yamada teaches a method for guiding a wire wherein inducing the flutter prevents stiction of the wire to an interior wall of the feed pathway (Column 4, lines 37-42).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the methods of Ondo and Yamada to ensure proper feeding of the wire through the guide, because “the tip of the wire electrode may catch on the wire guide…[and] insertion may also be impeded by friction between the wire electrode and wire guides” (Column 1, lines 41-46; Yamada). One would be motivated to combine the methods of Ondo and Yamada to ensure proper feeding of a wire having a low stiffness coefficient (Column 1, lines 52-53; Yamada).
Regarding claims 4 and 17, modified Ondo teaches the limitations of claims 1 and 14 above, and the pathway inlet has a larger cross-sectional area than the pathway outlet (inlet 418, 110 have larger cross-sectional areas than outlet 112, Fig. 5).
Regarding claims 5 and 18, modified Ondo teaches the limitations of claims 1 and 14 above, and the wire is formed from a polymer material (Paragraph [0026], lines 8-9) .
Regarding claims 6 and 19, modified Ondo teaches the limitations of claims 1 and 14 above, and wherein the wire has a wire diameter less than 100 µm (Paragraph [0004], lines 1-15).
Regarding claims 7 and 20, modified Ondo teaches the limitations of claims 1 and 14 above, and wherein the pressure-driven gas flow is directed from the pathway inlet along the pathway toward the pathway outlet (arrows show fluid flow from inlet 110, 418 to outlet 112, Figs. 5 and 6).
Regarding independent claim 8, Ondo discloses a method of preventing stiction of a wire with an inner wall of a thin pathway (Paragraph [0037], lines 8-13), comprising: creating a pressure differential between a pathway inlet and a pathway outlet of the pathway thus creating a pressure-driven gas flow around a feeding end of the wire and into the pathway inlet of the pathway (Paragraph [0037], lines 1-8).
Ondo does not disclose inducing one of a flutter or vibration in the wire at the feeding end of the wire via a gas flow.
Yamada teaches a method for guiding a wire by inducing one of a flutter or vibration in the wire at the feeding end of the wire via a gas flow (Column 4, lines 37-42).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the methods of Ondo and Yamada because “the tip of the wire electrode may catch on the wire guide…[and] insertion may also be impeded by friction between the wire electrode and wire guides” (Column 1, lines 41-46; Yamada). One would be motivated to combine the methods of Ondo and Yamada to ensure proper feeding of a wire having a low stiffness coefficient (Column 1, lines 52-53; Yamada).
Regarding claim 9, modified Ondo teaches the limitations of claim 8, and the method further comprising urging the wire along the pathway toward the pathway outlet via the pressure-driven gas flow created by the pressure differential (Paragraph [0037], lines 1-5).
Regarding claim 10, modified Ondo teaches the limitations of claim 8, and the pathway inlet has a larger cross-sectional area than the pathway outlet (inlet 418, 110 have larger cross-sectional areas than outlet 112, Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 11, modified Ondo teaches the limitations of claim 8, and the wire is formed from a polymer material (Paragraph [0026], lines 8-9) .
Regarding claim 12, modified Ondo teaches the limitations of claim 8, and wherein the wire has a wire diameter less than 100 µm (Paragraph [0004], lines 1-15).
Regarding claim 13, modified Ondo teaches the limitations of claim 8, and wherein the pressure-driven gas flow is directed from the pathway inlet along the pathway toward the pathway outlet (arrows show fluid flow from inlet 110, 418 to outlet 112, Figs. 5 and 6).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 8, and 14 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Examiner now relies on Yamada, US5045662 to teach the amended features of claims 1, 8, and 14.
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 KATELYNNE BURRELL whose telephone number is (703)756-1344. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00am - 6:00pm EST.
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, Victoria Augustine can be reached at (313) 446-4858. 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.
/K.R.B./Examiner, Art Unit 3654
/Victoria P Augustine/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3654
Prosecution Insights