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 .
Specification
The substitute specification filed 27 November 2024 has been entered.
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 1-6 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.
Regarding Claim 1, it is unclear what is the relationship between the stainless steel core wire that is to be austenitic and the requirements that the core wire have an austenite layer and martensite layer, which martensite layer is characterized as being present as the core position. At line 2, does “made from” relate to a product-by-process limitation as opposed to a structural feature of the core wire of the steel wire article being claimed? If not, how are the austenite layer and martensite layer requirements to be reconciled with the “made from” limitation? This indefiniteness issue also pertains to Clam 6 and how to understand the specifically claimed SUS materials in the context of the “made from” language.
Regarding Claim 2, it is unclear whether the claimed diameter relates to that of the core wire of the claimed article or to that of the core wire used to make the core wire of claimed article. Note that the Specification teaches forming the austenite layer and martensite layer by wire drawing an austenitic steel (SUS 304, for example) (paragraphs 29-31).
Regarding Claims 4 and 5, it is unclear what testing methodologies are being claimed as to be used to assess these properties. The prior art recognizes different testing methodologies; the Specification does not appear to identify a particular methodology; and so it is unclear how the claimed properties are to be assessed. If applicant considers there to be only one standard for each in the prior art, it is unclear what those standards are.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 1 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Claims 2-6 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding Claims 1-6, the reviewed prior art does not teach or suggest the subject matter of these claims. Particularly, the reviewed prior art does not teach or suggest wire core of stainless steel having claimed austenite layer that constitutes outer peripheral surface and that has specified thickness in combination with martensite layer arranged on inner peripheral side of the austenite layer, wherein the article further has claimed first and second coating layer of claimed composition and configuration, in the claimed context. For example, Hauser USPN 6,440,579 teaches austenitic stainless steel wire that upon drawing induces martensitic transformation therein, but fails to teach or suggest claimed arrangements, thickness, and volumetric requirements of the claimed core wire and fails to teach or suggest claimed first and second coating layers in the claimed context. See Hauser (col. 4, lines1-8; and entire document). For example, Akada WO 2020/261564 teaches coating stainless steel wire with Ni layer and Cu layer, but fails to teach or suggest the claimed arrangements, thickness, and volumetric requirements of the claimed core wire. See Akada USPA 2022/0238248 (Claim 7; entire document) (translation of WO 2020/261564).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL E. LA VILLA whose telephone number is (571)272-1539. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. through Fri. from 9:00 a.m. ET to 5:30 p.m. ET.
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 N. 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.
/MICHAEL E. LA VILLA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1784
6 June 2026
Prosecution Insights