DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-3, 9, 12, 14-16, 20 & 22 are pending as amended on 09/18/25.
Response to Amendment
This final action is a response to the amendment filed on September 18, 2025. Claims 6-7, 13 & 21 have been cancelled. Claims 1, 9, 12 & 22 have been amended; the rejections have been redone accordingly.
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 of this title, 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 1-3, 9, 12, 14-16 & 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schanke et al., US 2004/0206449 in view of Bankuty et al., US 4,696,144 and Fries et al., US 2008/0073023 and further in view of Murgatroyd et al., WO 2020/058677.
With regard to claims 1-3, 12, 14-16 & 20, Schanke teaches a common label wrapper comprising a rotating subassembly (410) with slidable, V-shaped notched clamp assemblies (412/416) on either side, wherein the clamping assemblies are opened and closed around a tensioned elongate object aligned with the axis of said rotating subassembly, in order to retain it in place for a labeling step (throughout, e.g. abstract, [0102-0105 & FIGS. 1-43]). The prior art clamp assemblies comprise a typical intermeshing design with an upper clamp jaw (556) aligned between two coupled lower clamping jaws (580/582) spaced apart by a plate (579), mounted via slots (568) onto a structural member (404) with pins (564/589) to move linearly (wherein “bearings”, if not implicit, would at least have been prima facie obvious to incorporate therein for their well-known & inherent friction-reducing benefit) [FIG. 38].
While this reference does not expressly disclose that the notched clamps comprise elastomeric (e.g. PU) inserts coupled to the clamp assemblies, it has long been conventional to form gripper surfaces from such materials, as shown for example by Bankuty, which molds arcuate polyurethane inserts into a metal clamp assembly to absorb a portion of the clamping force via resilient deformation (throughout, e.g. [Col. 11, 1-7 & FIG. 8]). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings & suggestions of Bankuty with those of Schanke, in order to yield a notched retaining jaw with a predictably forgiving grip using a known material insert.
The teachings of Schanke & Bankuty have been detailed above, and while they do not expressly disclose that the clamping jaws have a biasing member attached to each jaw, this was also a known design in this art, as shown for example by Fries which uses a common coil spring for this purpose (throughout, e.g. [FIGS. 1, 3, 7]. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings & suggestions of Fries with those of Schanke & Bankuty, in order to yield a biasing device which can be arranged to hold jaws either together or apart (the only two possible options), thereby reducing an overall amount of motorized translation required to move the jaws between these open/closed positions, or to control a clamp force via a calibrated degree of spring tension in the conventional manner.
While Schanke does not expressly teach a system for labeling fiber optic cables (such as those of 0.040-0.250 inches in diameter, ‘configured’ to clamp with accompanying clamping pressures of about 1.5-2.5 lbs or about 6.67-11.12N), this prior art does teach labeling exemplary wires of 0.060-0.600 inches in diameter [0102], which would likely require similar clamping forces, and further still, such was combined above with a conventional elastomeric cover to the grippers which were known to help yield to this type of sensitive work and predictably reduce the necessary clamping force for a secure amount of clamping friction. Thus, it is maintained that it would been obvious for one of ordinary skill to arrive at Applicant’s claimed optimal range of clamping force in the above combination for these types of thin elongated members through the course of routine experimentation with appropriately selected biasing forces for different types of workpieces (it is again noted that an intended material worked upon does not substantially limit claimed device design; see MPEP 2115). In any event, it was well-known to make fiber optic clamps which provide elastomeric friction to a grip face & have various appropriate biasing powers of about, say, 1-10 N, as shown for example by Murgatroyd (throughout, e.g. [Pg. 7 & FIG. 7]). It would have been obvious to combine the teachings & suggestions of Murgatroyd with those of Schanke, Bankuty and Fries, in order to appropriately adjust biasing force for the clamps to other common types of delicate work with predictable success.
With regard to claim 9, Schanke also teaches these rack & pinion jaws [0131-0134 & FIGS. 37-38].
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schanke et al., US 2004/0206449 in view of Labry, US 2,766,649 and Fries et al., US 2008/0073023 and further in view of Murgatroyd et al., WO 2020/058677.
Schanke teaches a common label wrapper comprising a rotating subassembly (410) with slidable, V-shaped notched clamp assemblies (412/416) on either side, wherein the clamping assemblies are opened and closed around a tensioned elongate object aligned with the axis of said rotating subassembly, in order to retain it in place for a labeling step (throughout, e.g. abstract, [0102-0105 & FIGS. 1-43]). The prior art clamp assemblies comprise a typical intermeshing design with an upper clamp jaw (556) aligned between two coupled lower clamping jaws (580/582) spaced apart by a plate (579), mounted via slots (568) onto a structural member (404) with pins (564/589) to move linearly (wherein “bearings”, if not implicit, would at least have been prima facie obvious to incorporate therein for their well-known & inherent friction-reducing benefit) [FIG. 38].
While this reference does not expressly disclose that the clamps comprise overmolded elastomer surfaces which also extend across two opposing surfaces, it has long been conventional to form gripper surfaces from such materials, as shown for example by Labry, which teaches a resilient cover of rubber or the like which can be molded over clamping jaws and extend down opposing sides of said jaws, reliably helping them to absorb a portion of the clamping force via resilient deformation (throughout, e.g. [Col. 2, 3-17 & FIGS. 1-6]). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings & suggestions of Labry with those of Schanke, in order to yield a notched retaining jaw with a predictably forgiving grip using a known material covering.
The teachings of Schanke & Labry have been detailed above, and while they do not expressly disclose that the clamping jaws have a biasing member attached to each jaw, this was also a known design in this art, as shown for example by Fries which uses a common coil spring for this purpose (throughout, e.g. [FIGS. 1, 3, 7]. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings & suggestions of Fries with those of Schanke & Labry, in order to yield a biasing device which can be arranged to hold jaws either together or apart (the only two possible options), thereby reducing an overall amount of motorized translation required to move the jaws between these open/closed positions, or to control a clamp force via a calibrated degree of spring tension in the conventional manner.
While Schanke does not expressly teach labeling fiber optic cables (such as those of 0.040-0.250 inches in diameter, ‘configured’ to clamp with accompanying clamping pressures of about 1.5-2.5 lbs or about 6.67-11.12N), this prior art does teach labeling exemplary wires of 0.060-0.600 inches in diameter [0102], which would likely require similar clamping forces, and further still, such was combined above with a conventional elastomeric cover to the grippers which were known to help yield to this type of sensitive work and predictably reduce the necessary clamping force for a secure amount of clamping friction. Thus, it is maintained that it would been obvious for one of ordinary skill to arrive at Applicant’s claimed optimal range of clamping force in the above combination for the claimed types of thin elongated members through the course of routine experimentation with appropriate biasing forces for different types of workpieces (it is again noted that an intended material worked upon does not substantially limit claimed device design; see MPEP 2115). In any event, it was well-known to make fiber optic clamps which provide elastomeric friction to a grip face & have an appropriate biasing power of say, 1-10 N, as shown for example by Murgatroyd (throughout, e.g. [Pg. 7 & FIG. 7]). It would have been obvious to combine the teachings & suggestions of Murgatroyd with those of Schanke, Labry and Fries, in order to appropriately adjust biasing force for the clamps to other common types of work with predictable success.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments and declaration, see response, “Remarks,” filed September 18, 2025 with respect to the prior art rejections of the claims have been fully considered and are directed toward the claims as amended but are not persuasive. As noted previously, Schanke teaches essentially the same type of wrapping device, and Bankuty & Labry are examples of well-known modifications for elastomeric gripping, while Fries depicts a conventional ‘spring-biased linearly moving jaws’ design (these prior art references were referenced in the PTAB decision on March 1, 2024). All such devices are obviously appropriately calibrated for a proper degree of jaw gripping force, depending on the desired workpieces therein, and substituting common thin fiber optics for the similarly thin wires of Schanke would require only routine experimentation to find the proper gripping force for a given size of this fiber optic work (as per the elastomeric grippers of the above combination). Further still, it was already known to clamp fiber optic strands in place with elastomeric gripping elements & appropriately calibrated clamping forces for this gentle work, as shown for example by Murgatroyd, or by US 4,017,013. Thus, the instant claims as written are still not considered to be patentably distinguishable over the teachings & suggestions of the prior art.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN BLADES whose telephone number is (571)270-7661. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5 PST.
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, Michael Orlando can be reached at (571)270-5038. 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.
/JOHN BLADES/
Examiner
Art Unit 1746
/PHILIP C TUCKER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1745