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 .
Status of the Rejection
All 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) rejections from the previous office action are withdrawn in view of the Applicant’s amendments. However, new grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) are necessitated by the amendments as outlined below.
All 35 U.S.C. § 102 and 103 rejections from the previous office action are withdrawn in view of the Applicant’s amendment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 2 and 4-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 2, the amended limitation reciting “the blank wire has a code 0 or 1 in an A&B test” is deemed to be new matter because the specification does not fully support the blank wire having a code 0 or 1 for the entire thickness range of 1.5 µm to 15 µm of a silver plated layer. On the contrary, numerous examples in Table 5, 7 and 8 of the Applicant’s specification on pages 25-27 show that code 0 and 1 are for wires having a silver thickness of less than 1.5 µm. Therefore, the amended limitation does not fully support the full scope of the claim of the silver-plated copper wire having a thickness of 1.5 µm to 15 µm with a code 0 or 1 in an A&B test.
Claims 4-11 are further rejected for their dependency on the rejected base claim.
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 2 and 4-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as failing to set forth 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 2, the terms “bright,” “dense,” and “large grains” are relative terms which render the claim indefinite. These terms not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
The phrase “the blank wire has a code 0 or 1 in an A&B test according to standard ECSS-Q-ST-70-20C” also renders the claim indefinite because it is not clear what properties of the silver-plated copper wire are defined by the codes based on the A&B test according to standard ECSS-Q-ST-70-20C. Applicant’s Table 1 on page 2 of the Specification describes the code relating to defects of corrosion by oxidation of the copper wire. However, Applicant’s specification does not disclose any definitive measure of a defect. Therefore, it is not clear what is considered a defect and what properties on the wire is required to satisfy code 0 or 1 in an A&B test according to standard ECSS-Q-ST-70-20C.
Regarding claim 8, the claim recites “the insulating layer”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 10, the claim is indefinite because claim 10 depends from claim 9 which depends from claim 7 but claim 10 is further limiting the electric cable based on claim 6. It appears that claim 10 is dependent on two separate claims at the same time.
Regarding claim 11, the claim recites “the sheath”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 4-7 and 9 are further rejected for their dependency on the rejected base claim.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1 and 3 are allowed.
The reasons for allowance are stated in the previous nonfinal rejection, filed on 4/20/2026, and are incorporated herein.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed July 10, 2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. § 102 and 103 rejection have been fully considered. All 35 U.S.C. § 102 and 103 rejections from the previous office action are withdrawn in view of the Applicant’s amendment. However, applicant’s arguments are moot in view of the new grounds of rejections under 112(a) and 112(b).
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 LUAN V VAN whose telephone number is (571)272-8521. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30-5:00.
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, Patricia Mallari can be reached at (571) 272-4729. 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.
/LUAN V VAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1795
Prosecution Insights