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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: Paragraphs [0005], [0006], and [0007] contain equations and reference characters which are illegible.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-7 and 14-20 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.
Independent claims 1 and 14 recite the limitation "the shear force" in lines 8 and 7-8, respectively. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 2-7 and 15-20 are rejected because they depend from rejected base claims 1 and 14.
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, 4-7, 14, 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ondo, US20150336767.
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 the shear force of the gas flow created by the pressure differential (Paragraph [0022], lines 1-13).
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 the 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).
Regarding claims 4 and 17, Ondo discloses 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, Ondo discloses the wire is formed from a polymer material (Paragraph [0026], lines 8-9) .
Regarding claims 6 and 19, Ondo discloses wherein the wire has a wire diameter less than 100 µm (Paragraph [0004], lines 1-15).
Regarding claims 7 and 20, Ondo discloses 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).
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) 2-3, 8-13, and 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ondo, US20150336767, in view of Miyake et al., US7518081.
Regarding claims 2 and 15, Ondo discloses the method as described above, however Ondo does not disclose inducing one of a flutter or vibration in the wire at the feeding end of the wire. Miyake et al., teaches a method of aligning and tensioning a wire comprising inducing a vibration in the wire at the feeding end of the wire (Column 12, lines 30-36; vibration of 7 would cause vibration of wire 8). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to induce a vibration in the wire of Ondo as taught by Miyake et al. because the wire can “during delivery be prevented by the vibration from being caught in the inner wall of the guide…because of friction or the like” (Column 12, lines 31-33; Miyake et al.).
Regarding claims 3 and 16, Ondo discloses the method as described above, however Ondo does not disclose inducing the flutter prevents stiction of the wire to an interior wall of the feed pathway. However, Miyake et al. teaches a method of aligning and tensioning a wire wherein the inducing the flutter prevents stiction of the wire to an interior wall of the feed pathway (Column 12, lines 30-36). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to induce a vibration in the wire of Ondo as taught by Miyake et al. because the wire can “during delivery be prevented by the vibration from being caught in the inner wall of the guide…because of friction or the like” (Column 12, lines 31-33; Miyake et al.).
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 fails to disclose inducing one of a flutter or vibration in the wire at the feeding end of the wire.
Miyake et al., teaches a method of preventing stiction of a wire with an inner wall of a thin pathway by and inducing a vibration in the wire at the feeding end of the wire (Column 12, lines 30-36; vibration of 7 would cause vibration of wire 8). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to induce a vibration in the wire of Ondo as taught by Miyake et al. because the wire can “during delivery be prevented by the vibration from being caught in the inner wall of the guide…because of friction or the like” (Column 12, lines 31-33; Miyake et al.).
Regarding claim 9, Ondo modified teaches 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, Ondo modified teaches 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, Ondo discloses the wire is formed from a polymer material (Paragraph [0026], lines 8-9) .
Regarding claim 12, Ondo modified teaches wherein the wire has a wire diameter less than 100 µm (Paragraph [0004], lines 1-15).
Regarding claim 13, Ondo modified teaches 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).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATELYNNE R. BURRELL whose telephone number is (703)756-1344. The examiner can normally be reached 12:00pm - 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, Anna Momper can be reached at 571-270-5788. 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
/ANNA M MOMPER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3654