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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-18 are pending in this application.
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.
Claim 10 is 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.
In claim 10, the phrase “a solid content of the coating is less than 50%” is deemed confusing. If the solid content of the coating is less than 50%, does that mean that the remaining content is gaseous or liquid? Can one have gas and liquid as a majority of a solid coating? Clarification is requested.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-4, 6-8, 10-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 208189235 (see English Translation) in view of CN 113166595 (see English Translation).
CN’235 teaches of using a protective layer on a copper clad aluminum composite enameled wire core having an enameled wire body, an aluminum wire core, a copper layer, a primer layer, and an insulating layer (abstract). A contact area exists between the aluminum wire core and the copper layer (p.3 5th paragraph). However, the reference fails to teach the appropriate coating material.
CN’595 teaches a surface protective film for an electronic device (title) in which the protective film may comprise polyurethane (p.5 first paragraph). It would have been obvious to utilize polyurethane in the process of CN’235 with the expectation of success because CN’595 teaches using polyurethane as a protective film.
Regarding claim 2, CN’595 teaches polyurethane (p.5 first paragraph).
Regarding claim 3, CN’595 teaches acrylic ester (p.13 last paragraph).
Regarding claim 4, CN’595 teaches polyolefin elastomer (p.13 last paragraph).
Regarding claims 6-8, the applicant requires a curing time and temperature. CN’595 teaches curing at 40oC but is not limited to this (p.15 4th paragraph). To vary time and temperature would have been obvious in the absence of a showing of criticality.
Regarding claim 10, CN’595 teaches a solid content of 48 wt% (p.17 2nd paragraph).
Regarding claims 11-13, the applicant requires a specific diameter. It is clearly noted that CN’235 teaches an enameled wire core (abstract and Figure 1) having some diameter. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to use the claimed diameter with the expectation of success in the absence of a showing of criticality.
Regarding claim 14, CN’595 teaches a solvent (p.11 2nd paragraph).
Regarding claims 15-18, CN’595 teaches acetate and toluene (p.11 2nd paragraph).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 208189235 (see English Translation) and CN 113166595 (see English Translation) and further in view of CN 102856766 (see English Translation) The combination of CN’235/CN’595 fails to teach a cold-pressed terminal.
CN’766 teaches a cold pressed terminal (title) made of copper (abstract). It would have been obvious to use a cold pressed terminal in the combination with the expectation of success because CN’766 teaches of using a cold pressed terminal made of copper.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 208189235 (see English Translation) and CN 113166595 (see English Translation) and further in view of CN 107313264 (see English Translation) The combination of CN’235/CN’595 fails to teach the claimed viscosity.
CN’264 teaches a polyurethane film having a viscosity of 2000 cps (claim 1). While the claimed ranges and the prior art ranges do not overlap, they are closed enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have similar properties. To utilize the claimed viscosity in the combination would have been obvious in the absence of a showing of criticality.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRET CHEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1417. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-8:30 MT.
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, Gordon Baldwin can be reached at (571) 272-5166. 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.
/BRET P CHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718 03/07/2026