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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-10 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.
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, 3-5, 8 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Melikov et al (RU 2236921).
In reference to claim 1, Melikov discloses a die for producing a wire, comprising
a processing hole having a bearing portion [end portion of 1] 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 2], and
each of the first side and second side has a shape that is convex toward a center of the processing hole in the bearing cross section [see figure 2],
wherein, in a planar cross section perpendicular to the wire drawing direction, a maximum distance between the first side and the second side of the bearing portion is more than 100% of a minimum distance between the first side and the second die of the bearing portion and equal to or less than 150% of the minimum distance between the first side and the second side of the bearing portion.
In reference to claim 3, Melikov et al further discloses a reduction portion (remaining portion of 1) is provided upstream of the bearing portion in the wire drawing direction, the first side and the second side are provided in a reduction cross section of the reduction portion perpendicular to the wire drawing direction and the bearing cross section, a corner portion of the processing hole is provided at an end of each of the first side and the second side in the reduction cross section, and
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 [see figure 2],
wherein each opening angle of reduction is formed by a tangent line of a wall surface and a center line in the reduction portion wherein the tangent line and reduction portion are in contact with each other at a center portion in the wire drawing direction in the reduction portion.
In reference to claim 4, the opening angle of reduction of the corner portion is greater than the opening angle of reduction of each of the first side and second side, as seen in figure 2.
In reference to claim 5, the opening angle of reduction of the corner portion becomes greater with increasing distance from the first side and the second side and toward a top of the corner portion, as seen in figure e2.
In reference to claim 8, the bearing portion has a quadrangular shape when viewed from in the wire drawing direction.
In reference to claim 10, Melikov et al further discloses a surface roughness Sa of the bearing portion is equal to or less than 0.05μm [see pg. 3 of machine translation].
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.
Claim(s) 6-7 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Melikov et al.
In reference to claims 6 and 7, Melikov et al discloses a method for producing a wire comprising drawing a wire through a first die, the die as recited in claim 1 or 3.
Melikov et al discloses the invention substantially as claimed except for wherein the wire passes through a second die following the first die.
However, it is well known within the drawing art to have a wire pass through multiple dies to gradually reduce the diameter of the wire in a continuous processing operation. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Melikov et al such that the wire is passed through multiple dies in order to gradually reduce the diameter sizing since such a method is well known and common in the drawing art.
In reference to claim 9, Melikov et al discloses the invention substantially as claimed except for wherein a portion that processes the wire is made of diamond. However, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to provide a portion that processes the wire with a diamond material, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of mechanical efficiency [see In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416].
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the die of Melikov et al, such that a portion that processes the wire is made of a diamond material, since it is well known in the drawing art to use diamond material due to its hardness and wear resistance properties.
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 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
Prosecution Insights