DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group I, Species A, in the reply filed on February 10, 2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)). Claims 1-9, 13 and 17 are withdrawn as directed to non-elected subject matter.
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.
Claims 10-12 and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lim et al. (KR20000074213A, references herein made to the English language translation form Google Patents dated May 30, 2026) in view of Radtke et al. (US Patent 4,448748) and Shigeru et al. (US Patent 6,509,057).
Regarding applicants’ claims 10 and 11, Lim et al. disclose passing a wire rod through a galvanizing bath to form a zinc plated wire (page 7 lines 5-11), but do not appear to explicitly disclose the composition of the zinc plating. Radtke et al. disclose an alloy for use in a zinc galvanizing bath that includes additions to achieve improved results (col. 2 lines 9-15). One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicants’ claimed invention would have found it obvious to use the galvanizing bath of Radtke et al. as the galvanizing bath of Lim et al. in order to provide the steel wire with an improved galvanized coating. Where the galvanizing bath of Radtke et al. is used it provides of a zinc-aluminum plating (col. 2 lines 15-19).
Lim et al. do not appear to disclose the doping of the plated wire with a metal in colloidal form, however Shigeru et al. disclose distribution of colloidal particles in surfaces to form antibacterial articles, where the particles may comprise copper (col. 1 lines 9-17, col. 2 lines 20-26, and col. 3 line 60 - col. 4 line 16). One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicants’ claimed invention would have fond it obvious to apply the colloidal copper particles to the surface of the plated steel wire of Lim et al. in order to provide the wire with antibacterial properties. Where the colloidal particles are applied to the plated wire the surface of the Zn-Al plating layer is doped with a metal in colloidal form (claim 10), where the metal may be copper (claim 11).
Regarding applicants’ claim 12, Radtke et al. disclose a typical zinc composition to comprise 3 to 15% aluminum, 0.02 to 0.15 magnesium, 0.02 to 0.15 lead, 0.1 to 0.03 copper and a balance of zinc (col. 2 line 60-col. 3 line 2). One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicants’ claimed invention would have found it obvious to select compositional proportions from within the typical ranges disclosed, including values which fall within the presently claimed ranges.
Regarding applicants’ claim 14, Shigeru et al. disclose application of the colloid particles by a coating liquid, the coating carried out by brushing, dipping, or spraying (col. 3 lines 65-67), which are electroless plating processes.
Regarding applicants’ claim 15, after plating Lim et al. disclose drawing the plated wire at a reduction ratio of 5 to 95% (page 8 lines 4-8), which overlaps applicants’ claim range of 60 to 99%. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicants’ claimed invention would have found it obvious to draw the plated wire at a reduction ratio within the disclosed range including values which fall within the claimed range.
Regarding applicants’ claim 16, the application of the colloidal copper occurs after plating of the steel wire and can be performed before or after the drawing step. Regardless of the timing the result is an antibacterial plated steel wire. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicants’ claimed invention would have found it obvious to apply the colloidal copper to the plated wire after the plating is formed regardless of whether it is before or after the drawing step.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM C KRUPICKA whose telephone number is (571)270-7086. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8-5pm 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, Humera Sheikh can be reached at (571)272-0604. 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.
/Adam Krupicka/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1784
Prosecution Insights