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 .
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 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.
Examiner's Note.
Examiner has cited particular paragraphs and/or columns and line numbers and/or figures in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
The Examiner notes that it has been held that a recitation that a structural element is "adapted to", “configured to”, “capable of”, “arranged to”, “intended to”, "so as" or “operable to” perform a function does not limit the claim to a particular structure and thus only requires the ability to so perform the function. (See In re Hutchison, 69 USPQ 138. See also, MPEP 2111.04) As such, under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims and the prior art, the recitations of "adapted to", “configured to”, “capable of”, “arranged to”, “intended to”, "so as" or “operable to” will be deemed met by an element in the prior art capable of performing the function recited in connection with "adapted to", “configured to”, “capable of”, “arranged to”, “intended to”, "so as" or “operable to”.
The Examiner has cited particular paragraphs or columns and line numbers in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested of the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner. SEE MPEP 2141.02 [R-07.2015] VI. PRIOR ART MUST BE CONSIDERED IN ITS ENTIRETY, INCLUDING DISCLOSURES THAT TEACH AWAY FROM THE CLAIMS: A prior art reference must be considered in its entirety, i.e., as a whole, including portions that would lead away from the claimed invention. W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 220 USPQ 303 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert, denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984). See also MPEP §2123.
Specification objections
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
Claims 3, 12-14, 16-20 is objected to because of the following informalities: typographical error (according to), no dependency was recited in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
The above are only examples of such informalities. The Applicant is required to review the entire claims and correct all such informalities.
Reference of prior art
Keiichiro et al. (WO 2022004298, TETHERED AERIAL DRONE SYSTEM).
Hitoshi et al. (JP 2021002458, HEAT-SHRINKABLE TUBING FOR FORMING RECTANGULAR MAGNET WIRE COATING LAYER, RECTANGULAR MAGNET WIRE AND MANUFACTURING METHOD THEREOF, AND COIL).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 10-13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1), (a)(2) as being anticipated by Keiichiro.
Re claim 1 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description, Keiichiro discloses:
A flat wire comprising a flat conductor (¶ 0014, item 3) having at least one bent portion bent in an edgewise direction and a covering layer formed on the outer periphery of the flat conductor (¶ 0056, item 4b), wherein the covering layer is formed by covering the flat conductor having the bent portion with a heat-shrinkable tube and shrinking the heat-shrinkable tube (¶ 0057 item L2 covering item 3).
Re claim 2 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description, Keiichiro discloses:
The flat wire according to claim 1, wherein the bent portion of the flat conductor and the covering layer are in close contact without a gap (¶ 0057 item L3 covering item 3).
Re claim 3 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description, Keiichiro discloses:
The flat wire according to The flat wire according to wherein the flat conductor has an approximately U-shape, and wherein the covering layer is formed by blowing hot air to the flat conductor covered with the heat-shrinkable tube in a state suspended from the top of the flat conductor, in a direction from the top side toward the end side of the flat conductor so as to shrink the heat-shrinkable tube (items 3, L2).
Re claim 10 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description, Keiichiro discloses:
A coil comprising the flat wire according to claim 1 (item 1).
Re claim 11 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description, Keiichiro discloses:
A method for producing the flat wire according to claim 1, comprising: bending the flat conductor in an edgewise direction to form the flat conductor having the bent portion; and covering the flat conductor having the bent portion with the heat-shrinkable tube and shrinking the heat-shrinkable tube to form the covering layer.
(Claim 11 is similar in scope to Claim 1; therefore, Claim 11 is rejected under the same rationale as Claim 1).
Re claim 12 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description, Keiichiro discloses:
The production method according to The production method according to wherein the flat conductor in an approximately U-shape having the bent portion is formed by bending the flat conductor in an edgewise direction, and wherein the covering layer is formed by covering the flat conductor in an approximately U-shape having the bent portion with the heat-shrinkable tube, and blowing hot air to the flat conductor covered with the heat-shrinkable tube in a state suspended from the top of the flat conductor, in a direction from the top side toward the end side of the flat conductor so as to shrink the heat-shrinkable tube.
(Claim 12 is similar in scope to Claim 3; therefore, Claim 12 is rejected under the same rationale as Claim3).
Re claim 13 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description, Keiichiro discloses:
The production method according to The production method according to further comprising heat-treating the covering layer formed (¶ 0036).
Re claim 15 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description, Keiichiro discloses:
A heat-shrinkable tube for use in forming a covering layer that covers a flat conductor having at least one bent portion bent in an edgewise direction (L2).
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) 4-9, 14 and 16-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keiichiro in view of Hitoshi.
Re claims 4 and 16 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description, Keiichiro fails to teach as disclosed by Hitoshi: : The flat wire, wherein the heat-shrinkable tube comprises at least one fluororesin selected from the group consisting of a copolymer containing tetrafluoroethylene unit and a fluoroalkyl vinyl ether unit and a copolymer containing tetrafluoroethylene unit and hexafluoropropylene unit (¶ 0063-0064).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to add the Hitoshi teachings of the heat-shrinkable tube comprises at least one fluororesin selected from the group consisting of a copolymer containing tetrafluoroethylene unit and a fluoroalkyl vinyl ether unit and a copolymer containing tetrafluoroethylene unit and hexafluoropropylene unit into the Keiichir, to obtain best suitable material for the required performance.
Re claims 5 and 17 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description, Keiichir discloses the claimed invention except for the heat-shrinkable tube comprises a copolymer containing tetrafluoroethylene unit and a fluoroalkyl vinyl ether unit as a fluororesin, and the copolymer has a fluoroalkyl vinyl ether unit content of 0.4 to 4.0 mol% relative to all monomer units. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include the heat-shrinkable tube comprises a copolymer containing tetrafluoroethylene unit and a fluoroalkyl vinyl ether unit as a fluororesin, and the copolymer has a fluoroalkyl vinyl ether unit content of 0.4 to 4.0 mol% relative to all monomer units to obtain best suitable material for the required performance, 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 obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. See also Ballas Liquidating Co. v. Allied industries of Kansas, Inc. (DC Kans) 205 USPQ 331.
Re claims 6-8 and 18-20 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description, Keiichir discloses the claimed invention except for the fluororesin has a melt flow rate of 0.1 to 70 g/10 minutes, the fluororesin has a melt flow rate of less than 10 g/10 minutes and the fluororesin has a melt flow rate of less than 10 g/10 minutes and the fluororesin has a functional group, and the number of functional groups of the fluororesin is 5 to 1,300 per 1,000,000 carbon atoms. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include the fluororesin has a melt flow rate of 0.1 to 70 g/10 minutes, the fluororesin has a melt flow rate of less than 10 g/10 minutes and the fluororesin has a melt flow rate of less than 10 g/10 minutes and the fluororesin has a functional group, and the number of functional groups of the fluororesin is 5 to 1,300 per 1,000,000 carbon atoms to obtain best suitable to the required performance, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Re claims 9, 14 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description, Keiichir fails to teach as disclosed by Hitoshi: The flat wire, further comprising a PAEK layer containing a polyaryl ether ketone (PAEK) resin on the outer periphery of the covering layer formed of the heat-shrinkable tube (¶ 0082).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to add the Hitoshi teachings of a PAEK layer containing a polyaryl ether ketone (PAEK) resin on the outer periphery of the covering layer formed of the heat-shrinkable tube into the Keiichir, to increase the outer periphery of the covering layer rigidity.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MEDHAT BADAWI whose telephone number is (571)270-5983. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri during office hours. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, JOSHUA MICHENER can be reached on 571-272-1467. 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.
/MEDHAT BADAWI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3642
Prosecution Insights