www.uspto.gov
`
`UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
`United States Patent and TrademarkOffice
`Address; COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
`
`15/609,43 1
`
`05/31/2017
`
`Kazushige SUGITA
`
`NIIPP0193US
`
`1038
`
`MARKD. SARALINO (PAN)
`RENNER, OTTO, BOISSELLE & SKLAR, LLP
`1621 EUCLID AVENUE
`ISTH FLOOR
`
`CLEVELAND, OH 44115
`
`WORRELL, KEVIN
`
`1789
`
`06/25/2021
`
`ELECTRONIC
`
`Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
`
`The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
`
`Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
`following e-mail address(es):
`
`ipdocket @rennerotto.com
`
`PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
`
`

`

`
`
`Disposition of Claims*
`1-4,9,11-16 and 20-26 is/are pending in the application.
`)
`Claim(s)
`5a) Of the above claim(s) ___ is/are withdrawn from consideration.
`C] Claim(s)__ is/are allowed.
`Claim(s) 1-4,9,11-16 and 20-26is/are rejected.
`(1 Claim(s)__is/are objectedto.
`C} Claim(s)
`are subjectto restriction and/or election requirement
`* If any claims have been determined allowable, you maybeeligible to benefit from the Patent Prosecution Highway program at a
`participating intellectual property office for the corresponding application. For more information, please see
`http://www.uspto.gov/patents/init_events/pph/index.jsp or send an inquiry to PPHfeedback@uspto.gov.
`
`) ) ) )
`
`Application Papers
`10) The specification is objected to by the Examiner.
`11)0) The drawing(s) filedon__ is/are: a)(J accepted or b)() objected to by the Examiner.
`Applicant may not request that any objection to the drawing(s) be held in abeyance. See 37 CFR 1.85(a).
`Replacement drawing sheet(s) including the correction is required if the drawing(s) is objected to. See 37 CFR 1.121 (d).
`
`Priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119
`12)1) Acknowledgment is made of a claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119(a)-(d)or (f).
`Certified copies:
`c)Z None ofthe:
`b)() Some**
`a)C All
`1.2 Certified copies of the priority documents have been received.
`2.1.) Certified copies of the priority documents have been received in Application No.
`3.1.) Copies of the certified copies of the priority documents have been receivedin this National Stage
`application from the International Bureau (PCT Rule 17.2(a)).
`* See the attached detailed Office action for a list of the certified copies not received.
`
`Attachment(s)
`
`1)
`
`Notice of References Cited (PTO-892)
`
`2) (J Information Disclosure Statement(s) (PTO/SB/08a and/or PTO/SB/08b)
`Paper No(s)/Mail Date
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`
`3) (J Interview Summary (PTO-413)
`Paper No(s)/Mail Date
`(Qj Other:
`
`4)
`
`PTOL-326 (Rev. 11-13)
`
`Office Action Summary
`
`Part of Paper No./Mail Date 20210512
`
`Application No.
`Applicant(s)
`15/609,431
`SUGITAetal.
`
`Office Action Summary Art Unit|AIA (FITF) StatusExaminer
`Kevin Worrell
`1789
`Yes
`
`
`
`-- The MAILING DATEofthis communication appears on the cover sheet with the correspondence address --
`Period for Reply
`
`A SHORTENED STATUTORY PERIOD FOR REPLYIS SET TO EXPIRE 3 MONTHS FROM THE MAILING
`DATE OF THIS COMMUNICATION.
`Extensions of time may be available underthe provisions of 37 CFR 1.136(a). In no event, however, may a reply betimely filed after SIX (6) MONTHSfrom the mailing
`date of this communication.
`If NO period for reply is specified above, the maximum statutory period will apply and will expire SIX (6) MONTHSfrom the mailing date of this communication.
`-
`- Failure to reply within the set or extended period for reply will, by statute, cause the application to become ABANDONED (35 U.S.C. § 133}.
`Any reply received by the Office later than three months after the mailing date of this communication, evenif timely filed, may reduce any earned patent term
`adjustment. See 37 CFR 1.704(b).
`
`Status
`
`1) Responsive to communication(s) filed on 3/24/2021.
`C} A declaration(s)/affidavit(s) under 37 CFR 1.130(b) was/werefiled on
`2a)¥) This action is FINAL.
`2b) (J This action is non-final.
`3)02 An election was madeby the applicant in responseto a restriction requirement set forth during the interview
`on
`; the restriction requirement and election have been incorporated into this action.
`4\0) Since this application is in condition for allowance except for formal matters, prosecution as to the merits is
`closed in accordance with the practice under Exparte Quayle, 1935 C.D. 11, 453 O.G. 213.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/609,431
`Art Unit: 1789
`
`Page 2
`
`DETAILED ACTION
`
`Notice of Pre-AlA or AIA Status
`
`1.
`
`The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined underthe
`
`first inventor to file provisions of the AIA.
`
`Disposition of Claims
`
`2.
`
`Claims 1-4, 9, 11-16 and 20-26 are pending in the application. Claims 5-8, 10 and 17-19
`
`have been cancelled.
`
`3.
`
`Amendments to claims 1, 13 and 20, and newclaims 21-26, filed on 3/24/2021, have
`
`been entered in the above-identified application.
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
`
`4.
`
`The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
`
`(a) INGENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the
`invention, and of the manner and process of making and usingit, in suchfull, clear, concise,
`and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to whichit pertains, or with whichit
`is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode
`contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
`
`The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AlA 35 U.S.C. 112:
`
`The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the
`manner and process of making and usingit, in suchfull, clear, concise, and exact terms as to
`enable any person skilled in the art to whichit pertains, or with whichit is most nearly
`connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the
`inventor of carrying out his invention.
`
`5.
`
`Claims 24-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AlA), first
`
`paragraph, asfailing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains
`
`subject matter which wasnot described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably
`
`convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/609,431
`Art Unit: 1789
`
`Page 3
`
`subject to pre-AlA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application wasfiled, had
`
`possessionof the claimed invention. Claim 24 recites the limitation “a tensile strength greater
`
`than or equal to 4000 (N/mm7?).” Claim 25 recites the limitation “a hardness greater than or
`
`equal to 900 (HV).” However, the specification only discloses “it has been found out that the
`
`tungsten wire (13 um) hasthe tensile strength of approximately 4000 (N/mm?) and the hardness
`
`as much as 900 (HV)” (page 8 as-filed, or [0038] of US 2017/0350044). Thus, the specification
`
`does not appearto provide support for a tungsten wire having a tensile strength greater than
`
`4000 (N/mm?) or a hardness greater than 900 (HV).
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
`
`6.
`
`The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can
`
`be found in a prior Office action.
`
`7.
`
`Claims 1-4, 9, 11-16 and 20-8are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2)
`
`as anticipatedbyor, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Kunisada
`
`(JP2012/158848A, see the machine translation attached on 9/4/2020).
`
`8.
`
`Regarding claims 1-4, 9, 11-16, 21-22 and 26, Kunisada teaches a cloth material ‘10’ (a
`
`fiber product as claimed) that is a member made of a cloth, such as a woven fabric, knitted
`
`fabric, nonwoven fabric (a random arrangementlike cotton as claimed), or a composite thereof
`
`([0013]).
`
`In the alternative, Kunisada teaches that, in an embodiment, the cloth material is used
`
`as a skin material (for example, 4S, 6S, 8S) (alternatively a fiber product as claimed) of various
`
`configurations of the vehicle seat, and Kunisada teaches that the surface material (skin material
`
`body) of the skin material may be any non-woven fabric produced by any web bonding
`
`technique (a random arrangementlike cotton as claimed) ([0012] and [0054]).
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/609,431
`Art Unit: 1789
`
`Page 4
`
`9.
`
`Kunisada teachesthat the cloth material ‘10’ has a plurality of constituent yarns such as
`
`first wire ‘20f (a metal fiber thread as claimed) and second wire ‘20s’ ([0013] and claim 1).
`
`Kunisada teachesthat the first wire material “20f comprises a bundle of a plurality of
`
`electroconductive yarns ‘24,’ a fusible yarn ‘26’ with a fusion property and a winding yarn ‘28’
`
`made of different synthetic fiber from the fusible yarn or naturalfiber (Abstract). Kunisada
`
`teaches that a core yarn ‘22’ is obtained by arranging the fusible yarn ‘26’ along the axial core
`
`direction of the electroconductive yarns ’24,’ and the winding yarn ‘28’is spirally provided
`
`around the core yarn ‘22’ (Abstract). Kunisada teaches that examples of such conductive yarns
`
`‘24include carbonfiberfilaments, metal wires, and plated wires, wherein examples of the metal
`
`wires include wires made of gold, silver, copper, brass, platinum, iron, steel, zinc, tin, nickel,
`
`stainless steel, aluminum, tungsten, and the like ([0016]-[0017]). Kunisada teachesthat,
`
`although the wire diameter of a metal wire is not specifically limited, it is preferable thatit is 10-
`
`150 micrometers, especially 20-60 micrometers ([0018]). Kunisada teaches that the numberof
`
`twists of the winding yarn ‘28’ with respect to the core yarn ‘22’ is appropriately set by, for
`
`example, setting the twist number of the winding yarn ‘28’ to 20 to 2000 T/m (([0028)).
`
`10.
`
`11.
`
`Thus, Kunisada teachesa fiber product as claimed.
`
`In the alternative, in the event that Kunisada is found notto explicitly disclose wherein
`
`the wound yarn (winding yarn ‘28’) is false-twisted in a metal fiber core embodiment as applied
`
`above, Kunisada teaches an example in which a 330 false-twisted filament PET false twisted
`
`yarn is spirally wound around a bundle of conductive fibers made of carbon fibers at a covering
`
`twist numberof 1500 T/m ([0024]).
`
`12.
`
`It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective
`
`filing date of the invention to have similarly used a false twisted yarn as a winding yarn around
`
`conductive fibers made of metalfibers in order to provide the yarns with properties such as
`
`excellent covering property and durability, as suggested by Kunisada ([0024], [0028] and
`
`Example 1).
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/609,431
`Art Unit: 1789
`
`Page 5
`
`13.
`
`Regarding claims 20 and 23, Kunisada remains similarly as applied above to claim 1,
`
`teaching a cloth material ‘10’ (a fiber product as claimed) that is a member madeofa cloth,
`
`such as a woven fabric, knitted fabric, nonwoven fabric, or a skin material (alternatively a fiber
`
`product as claimed) that may be any non-wovenfabric produced by any web bonding technique
`
`([0012]-[0013] and [0054)).
`
`14.
`
`Regarding claims 24-25, with respect to the claimed tensile strength and hardness
`
`properties, the examiner notes that applicant has provided at page 8, as-filed, or at paragraph
`
`[0038] of the published specification (US 2017/0350044) specific structural examples which
`
`provide the structure and properties claimed. As noted above, Kunisada teaches that examples
`
`of the conductive yarns ‘24’ include wires made of gold, silver, copper, brass, platinum, iron,
`
`steel, zinc, tin, nickel, stainless steel, aluminum, tungsten, and the like, wherein the wire
`
`diameter is preferably 10-150 micrometers ([0016]-[0018]). Thus, it is the position of the Office
`
`that the tungsten wire of Kunisada would have the claimed property as the same compound
`
`necessarily has the same properties.
`
`In the alternative, it would have been obvious to one
`
`having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to expect that the claimed properties
`
`would be so provided, as the reference teaches similar materials as the claimed structure, and
`
`as the properties cannot be separated from the materials. Thus, absent an objective showing to
`
`the contrary, the examiner expects the tungsten wire taught by Kunisada to have the claimed
`
`properties.
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
`
`15.
`
`Claims 1-4, 9, 11-16 and 20-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable
`
`over Kunisada (JP2012/158848A, see the machine translation attached on 9/4/2020), as
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/609,431
`Art Unit: 1789
`
`Page 6
`
`applied above to claims 1-4, 9, 11-16 and 20 above,in view of Akaike et al. (US PGPUB
`
`2010/0258334).
`
`16.
`
`Regarding claims 1-4, 9, 11-16 and 20-26, Kunisada remains as applied above.
`
`17.
`
`In the event that Kunisadais found not to explicitly disclose wherein the fiber product
`
`comprises multiple instances of the metalfiber thread in a random arrangementlike cotton,
`
`Akaikeis relied upon as applied below.
`
`18.
`
`Akaike teaches a skin material of vehicle interior equipment, which includesa first fabric
`
`material that is formed ofa first conductive wire material and a main fiber material (see Abstract,
`
`[0068] and [0150]). Akaike teaches that when a nonwoven fabric is madeasthe fabric material,
`
`for example, a webis formed by blending the conductive wire material and the main fiber
`
`material, and then the webis interlaced to form a nonwoven fabric ([0068]; also [0062)).
`
`19.
`
`It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective
`
`filing date of the invention to have modified the fabric material of the skin material of Kunisada
`
`with a nonwoven webformed by blending and interlacing a conductive wire material with a main
`
`fiber material in order to obtain a skin material that can be electrically connected to a conductive
`
`memberfor use in vehicle interior equipment, and in order to vary the appearance and/or the
`
`electrical properties of the skin material (Akaike: see Abstract, [0062] and [0068)]).
`
`20.
`
`Claims 1-4, 9, 11-16 and 20-8%are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable
`
`over Watanabeet al. (WO 2013/039195 A1) in view of BakerJr. (US PGPUB 2003/0205041).
`
`21.
`
`Regarding claims 1-4, 11-16, 21-22 and 26, Watanabe teachesa radiation protective
`
`fabric that is ideal for use in radiation protective clothing, the radiation protective fabric
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/609,431
`Art Unit: 1789
`
`Page 7
`
`comprising metalfibers having a tungsten or molybdenum contentthat is 95 wt% or greater
`
`(Abstract, [0011] and [0035]). Watanabe teachesthat the lowerlimit of the diameter of the
`
`metalfiber per fiber is 5 um, and the preferable upper limit is 100 um, wherein the particularly
`
`preferable lower limit is 15 um, and particularly preferable upperlimit is 40 um ([0023)).
`
`Watanabealso teachesthat the metalfiber may be a single yarn or a composite yarn, wherein
`
`the form of the composite yarn includes multifilament yarns, monofilament yarns, staple fibers,
`
`covered yarns (for example, SCY or DCY), twisted yarns, knitting, and blade yarns (braid)
`
`([0025]). Watanabealso teachesthat the radiation protective cloth of the present invention may
`
`be composed of only the above-mentioned metalfibers, but, in order to further improve the
`
`requirementof flexibility, etc., other fibers may be mixed, examples thereof including
`
`polyurethane fibers, nylon 6, nylon 12, polyester, cotton, rayon and the like ([0033]). Watanabe
`
`teaches that the fabric for radiation protection includes a knitted fabric, a woven fabric, a braid,
`
`andthe like ([0030)).
`
`22.
`
`The examiner notes that SCY and DCY ([0025]) are abbreviations for ‘single covered
`
`yarns’ and ‘double covered yarns,’ which would comprise either one or two yarns wrapped
`
`around a core yarn.
`
`23. Watanabe doesnot explicitly disclose wherein the metal fiber thread includes a false-
`
`twisted yarn which is made of a chemicalfiber wound around a length of the tungsten wire, the
`
`tungsten wire being a coreline of the metalfiber thread, or wherein the fiber product comprises
`
`multiple instances of the metalfiber thread in a random arrangement like cotton.
`
`24.
`
`However, BakerJr. (“Baker”) teaches a composite matrix yarn that includes a cover yarn
`
`formedof a plurality of twisted fibers, a core strand positioned within the cover yarn and around
`
`whichthe fibers of the cover yarn are twisted, and an adhesive bindercarried on the core strand
`
`(Abstract). Baker teaches that the core strand may be chosen from the group consisting of wire,
`
`spun yarn, monofilament yarn and multifilament yarn ([0025], [0031], [0052], and [0096]). Baker
`
`teaches that the yarns can be madein right hand "Z"or left hand "S" twist direction ([0042]).
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/609,431
`Art Unit: 1789
`
`Page 8
`
`The examiner notes Baker also teaches use of spinning methods and equipment that include
`
`false twisting processing of the fibers (see [0042] and [0038]-[0041]; also [0011] and [0017)).
`
`Bakeralso teaches that typical applications for the matrix yarns include nonwovens,
`
`needlepunchfabrics, woven, knitted, malimo, maliwat, malipole, triaxial woven, braided, or
`
`spiraled fabric construction ([0075]-[0095]). Baker teaches that the staple cover may be
`
`composedof vegetable, organic, regenerated, newor virgin, and/or synthetic material or any
`
`combination thereof, and the binder may be thermoplastic or low melt fibers blended into the
`
`staple coveror fed parallel in sliver form ([0097]-[0098)).
`
`25.
`
`It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective
`
`filing date of the invention to have modified the covered yarns of Watanabe with a cover yarn
`
`formedof a plurality of regenerated and/or synthetic false-twisted fibers, with the fibers of the
`
`cover yarn twisted around the corestrand of wire, and with a nonwoven, needlepunchfabric
`
`malimo, maliwat or malipole structure (which include random arrangements), in order to obtain
`
`fabrics having enhanced cover factor, tear resistance, abrasion resistance, tensile strength,
`
`burst strength, bending radius, flexibility and toughness, and for use in applications such as
`
`gloves, as taught by Baker (see [0047]; also see [0038]-[0042], [0058] and [0075]-[0097] and
`
`[0099)).
`
`26.
`
`Regarding claim 9, Baker teachesthat typical applications for the matrix yarns include
`
`gloves ([0075]-[0095)).
`
`27.
`
`Regarding claims 20 and 23, Baker remains similarly as applied above to claim 1,
`
`teaching that typical applications for the matrix yarns include nonwovens, needlepunchfabrics,
`
`woven, knitted, malimo, maliwat, malipole, triaxial woven, braided, or spiraled fabric
`
`constructions ([0075]-[0095]). Baker also teaches that once braided, spiraled, woven, knitted, or
`
`otherwise made into its end product, the matrix yarns enhancethe properties and/or costof
`
`these products ([0047] and [0099]). Baker teaches that the matrix yarns may be used by
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/609,431
`Art Unit: 1789
`
`Page 9
`
`themselves as a single strand or they may beplied in multiple strands with a sufficient amount
`
`of ply twist to maximize strength and complement the end use([0058)).
`
`28.
`
`Regarding claims 24-25, with respect to the claimed tensile strength and hardness
`
`properties, the examiner notes that applicant has provided at page 8, as-filed, or at paragraph
`
`[0038] of the published specification (US 2017/0350044) specific structural examples which
`
`provide the structure and properties claimed. The examiner notes that the structure of
`
`Watanabein view of Baker discussed aboveis the same asor is substantially the same as that
`
`disclosed by applicant. Thus, it is the position of the Office that the tungsten wire of Watanabe
`
`in view of Baker would have the claimed property as the same compound necessarily has the
`
`same properties.
`
`In the alternative, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in
`
`the art at the time of the invention to expect that the claimed properties would be so provided,
`
`as the reference teaches similar materials as the claimed structure, and as the properties
`
`cannot be separated from the materials. Thus, absent an objective showing to the contrary, the
`
`examiner expects the tungsten wire taught by Watanabein view of Bakerto have the claimed
`
`properties.
`
`Response to Arguments
`
`29.
`
`Applicant's argumentsfiled 3/24/2021 have been fully considered but they are not
`
`persuasive.
`
`30.
`
`Contention (1): Applicant contends that while Kunisada generally discloses that the
`
`diameter of a metal wire is preferably 10-150 micrometers, Kunisadafails to disclose the wire
`
`diameter with sufficient specificity to constitute an anticipation of the claimed range. (MPEP
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/609,431
`Art Unit: 1789
`
`Page 10
`
`2131.03(11). Applicant also contends that the combined teachings of Kunisada and Akaike
`
`actually teach away from the claimed configuration of the metal fiber thread with a tungsten wire
`
`having a diameter less than or equal to 22 um and comprising pure tungsten.
`
`31.
`
`Regarding this contention, the examiner notes that Kunisada teaches wherein the wire
`
`diameter is preferably 10-150 micrometers, especially 20-60 micrometers ([0018]). Thus, in the
`
`examiner's view, Kunisada anticipates the claimed range of less than or equal to 22 um.
`
`In the
`
`alternative, and with regard to the obviousnessrejection over Kunisada in view of Akaike,
`
`Akaike not only teaches a similar metal wire diameter range as Kunisada (i.e. 10 to 150 um),
`
`Akaike also teaches an example wherein a metal wire (a core yarn of stainless steelfibers)
`
`comprisesfilaments having a diameter of 12 um ([0156] and [0201]). Thus, in the examiner’s
`
`view, the combined teachings of Kunisada and Akaike do not teach awayfrom the claimed
`
`range of less than or equal to 22 um.
`
`In this regard, the examiner further notes that Akaike
`
`doesnot teach a lower limit of 10 um, but instead teaches that the diameter of each metal wire
`
`is not specifically limited ((0156]).
`
`In the examiner’s view, therefore, Akaike is interpreted as
`
`teaching that the disclosed range of 10 to 150 um is significant for a combination of strength
`
`andflexibility ([(0156]), similarly to Kunisada’s disclosure ([0018)).
`
`32.
`
`Contention (2): Applicant contends that the experimentation carried out by the inventors
`
`of the present application has surprisingly found advantageous effects associated with "a
`
`tungsten wire having a diameterless than or equal to 22 um and comprising pure tungsten.
`
`Applicant also contends that Watanabefails to disclose the wire diameter with sufficient
`
`specificity to constitute an anticipation of the claimed range.
`
`33.
`
`Regarding this contention, as noted above, Kunisada teaches wherein the wire diameter
`
`is preferably 10-150 micrometers, especially 20-60 micrometers ([0018]). Watanabe teaches
`
`that the lower limit of the diameter of the metal fiber perfiber is 5 um, and the preferable upper
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/609,431
`Art Unit: 1789
`
`Page 11
`
`limit is 100 um, wherein a particularly preferable upper limit is 40 um ([0023]). Thus, in the
`
`examiner's view, both Kunisada and Watanabeteach rangeswith sufficient specificity to
`
`anticipate the claimed range of less than or equal to 22 um.
`
`In the alternative, with respect to
`
`obviousnessof the claimed range, the examiner notes that applicant has not presented any
`
`specific data that demonstrates that diameters within the claimed range would unexpectedly
`
`lead to superior properties comparedto those outside of the claimed range. For instance, it is
`
`unclear from applicant’s disclosureif there is a significant shift (e.g. a change in trend) in
`
`properties that occurs below 22 um comparedto the properties of tungsten wires with diameters
`
`above 22 ym.
`
`34.
`
`Contention (3): Applicant contends that the combined teachings of Watanabe and Baker
`
`also fail to specifically disclose or suggest a tungsten wire having a diameter less than or equal
`
`to 22 um and comprising pure tungsten, wherein the tungsten wire comprises pure tungsten.
`
`35.
`
`Regarding this contention, the examiner notes that claims 1, 13 and 20 include
`
`limitations of a tungsten wire that “comprises” pure tungsten. Thus, in the examiner's view the
`
`claims do not require tungsten wires that are made only of tungsten.
`
`Conclusion
`
`36.
`
`The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's
`
`disclosure.
`
`37.
`
`(JP 2013/253337A) teaches a sewing thread comprising an inorganic fiber such as a
`
`metalfiber and a glass fiber having a covering of a winding thread of a synthetic fiber, wherein
`
`examplesof the inorganic thread include metals such as Tungsten and the thickness per single
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/609,431
`Art Unit: 1789
`
`Page 12
`
`fiber of the inorganic fiber yarn is usually 3 to 100 um, preferably 3 to 20 um. (Abstract and page
`
`2).
`
`38.
`
`39.
`
`(JP55-09824 B2) teacheslimitations somewhatsimilar to Kunisada.
`
`US 2012/0285008 A1 teacheslimitations somewhat similar to Akaike.
`
`40.
`
`US 2011/0297667 A1 teaches limitations somewhat similar to Akaike.
`
`41.
`
`THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ofthe mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not
`
`mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortenedstatutory period, then the shortened
`
`statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee
`
`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.
`
`42.
`
`Anyinquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner
`
`should be directed to Kevin Worrell whose telephone numberis (571)270-7728. The examiner
`
`can normally be reached on Monday-Friday.
`
`Examinerinterviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing
`
`using a USPTO supplied web-basedcollaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicantis
`
`encouraged to use the USPTO AutomatedInterview Request (AIR)at
`
`http:/Awww.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
`
`If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s
`
`supervisor, Marla McConnell can be reached on 571-270-7692. The fax phone numberfor the
`
`organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/609,431
`Art Unit: 1789
`
`Page 13
`
`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 accessto the Private
`
`PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you
`
`would like assistance from a USPTO CustomerService Representative or access to the
`
`automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA)or 571-272-1000.
`
`/Kevin Worrell/
`Examiner, Art Unit 1789
`
`/ELIZABETH C IMANI/
`Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1789
`
`