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 .
Drawings
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 opening angle of reduction of the corner portion being different/greater from an opening angle of reduction of each of the first side and the second side 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 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 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.
With regards to claims 1 and 6-7, the claim 1 states “an irregularly-shaped die for producing an irregularly-shaped wire, wherein” and claims 6 and 7 state “a method for producing an irregularly shaped wire, wherein”, this renders the claims indefinite since it is not clear what the transitional phrase is for the claim. A transitional phrase defines the scope of the claim in terms of what unrecited elements or method step, if any, are excluded from the scope of the claim, as well as clearly separating the preamble from the body of the claim. Accordingly, the lack of a transitional phrase renders the claim indefinite because the scope of the claim is not clearly defined [see MPEP 2111.03]. It is further noted that the “wherein” phrase appears to serve the same purpose as the transitional phrase to further limit the structure of the apparatus, however wherein clauses are used to further define elements that have been positively recited previously within the claim, thus the wherein clause cannot be considered to be the transitional phrase of the claim. For purposes of examination the claim is being interpreted as having “comprising” as the transitional phrase.
With regards to claim 2, the claim states “is more than 100% and equal to or less than 150% of a minimum distance”, this renders the claim indefinite since the minimum distance is undefined. Specifically if the maximum distance is between the first and second sides than what structural elements is the minimum distance defined by. Clarification and/or correction is required.
With regards to claim 3, the claim states “an opening angle of reduction of the corner portion is different from an opening angle of reduction of each of the first side and the second side”, it is unclear how this limitation is met if the corner portion is defined by at an end of each of the first side and the second side. Additionally it is noted that it is unclear how the “opening angle of reduction” is being defined, i.e. what references points is the angle being defined by. It is noted that the figures are absent of any reference to opening angle of reduction of the corner portion or the first or second sides and only show an opening angle with respect to the reduction portion of the processing hole [see figure 12]. Clarification and/or correction is required. It is noted that claims 4 and 5 depend from claim 3 and fail to clarify the indefiniteness.
With regards to claims 6 and 7, the claims are directed to a method for producing an irregularly-shaped wire however the only step provided within the method is a step of using a first die and a second die. This renders the claim indefinite since it is unclear how the die is to be used to produce the irregularly-shaped wire. Clarification and/or correction is required.
Examiner notes that no art has been applied to claims 3-7 because “where there is a great deal of confusion and uncertainty as to the proper interpretation of the limitations of a claim, it would not be proper to reject such a claim on the basis of prior art” [see MPEP 2173.06.II].
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) 1-2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hampton (2,846,056).
In reference to claim 1, Hampton discloses an irregularly-shaped die for producing an irregularly-shaped wire, comprising
a processing hole (11) having a bearing portion (13) is provided,
a first side and a second side that face each other are provided in a bearing cross-section of the bearing portion perpendicular to a wire drawing direction [see figure 1], and
each of the first side and the second side has a shape that is convex toward a center side of the processing hole in the bearing cross section [see figures, 1 & 5; col. 1 lines 55-66].
In reference to claim 2, a maximum distance between the first side and the second side is more than 100% and equal to or less than 150% of a minimum distance, as seen in figure 5 [minimum distance is distance between opposing sides of surface 12 which is smaller than maximum distance between opposing sides of surface 13].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Debra Sullivan whose telephone number is (571)272-1904. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-4:30pm 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, Chris Templeton can be reached on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Debra M Sullivan/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3725