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 .
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 2-33 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.
Claims 33 and 19 recites the limitation "the shape of an outer wall of the mandrel". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
Claims 2-17, 19-27, and 29-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Graveman (3,612,412) in view of Izzard (EP 0 132 106).
Regarding claim 33, Graveman teaches a device for deconstructing wire cables 4 having an inner portion or core 6) having a predetermined diameter and including strands 21 surrounding the core, the device comprising a peeling mechanism including a mandrel defining a pass-through axis and a pass-through or pulling direction along said axis and having an axial passageway or channel dimensioned for only receiving the core through an opening at an upstream inlet end of said channel, said mandrel including separating means for separating the strands from the core at said inlet end beyond said opening following passage of the core into said channel; at least one rotatable cutting wheel 84 mounted for rotation about an axis of rotation that is substantially transverse to said pass-through direction; and at least one blade 94 mounted on said rotatable cutting wheel 84 for movement in proximity to said mandrel with rotation of said cutting wheel and having a profile configured to sever strands at said mandrel that have been separated from the core by said separating means with rotation of said rotatable cutting wheel, wherein a cutting profile of the at least one blade 94 is of concave shape and is adapted to the shape of an outer wall of the mandrel or wherein the rotatable cutting wheel 84 comprises a least two blades 94 and a joint cutting profile combining the respective cutting profiles of the at least two blades due to their rotation is of concave shape and is adapted to the shape of an outer wall of the mandrel.
See Figs. 1, 6, and 7.
Graveman does not teach the device for deconstruction wire cable comprising a mandrel having a channel and separating means for separating the strands from the core at an inlet end beyond an opening following passage of the core into the channel.
Izzard teaches a device for deconstruction wire cable comprising a mandrel 8 having a channel and separating means (right end) for separating strands from a core at an inlet end beyond an opening following passage of the core into the channel for preparing the strands for cutting. See Figs. 4 and 6.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to provide a mandrel as taught by Izzard to the device of Graveman for preparing the strands for cutting.
As to the limitation “and is adapted to the shape of an outer wall of the mandrel”, the blades 94 in Graveman have a concave cutting surface in form of a semi-circle. The mandrel in Izzard has a circular cross-section which is similar to the concave surface of the cutting blades in Graveman. Therefore, the concaved cutting surface is adapted to a shape of an outer wall of the mandrel.
Regarding claim 2, the blades having a concave cutting profile 98 is best seen in Fig. 7 in Graveman.
Regarding claim 3, a U-shaped profile is best seen in Fig. 7 in Graveman.
Regarding claims 4 and 5, the blade having a base and cutting edges is best seen in Fig. 7 in Graveman.
Regarding claim 6, the cutting profile partially engaging the inner portion of the cable is best seen in Fig. 6 in Graveman.
Regarding claim 7, two cutting wheels 84 are best seen in Fig. 6 in Graveman.
Regarding claim 8, the blades passing an outer surface of the mandrel are best seen in Fig. 6 in Graveman.
Regarding claim 9, Graveman teaches the invention substantially as claimed except for the gap is smaller than 2mm. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the gap being smaller 2mm, 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.
Regarding claim 10, Izzard the mandrel having a frustoconical portion. See Fig. 4.
Regarding claim 11, the modified mandrel of Graveman teaches the invention substantially as claimed except for the mandrel having an annular element made from steel.
At the time the invention was made, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one skilled in the art to provide an annular element on the frustoconical portion since a mandrel with or without an annular element on the frustoconical would guide a cable equally well.
To select a well-known material such as steel for the annular element would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, 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.
Regarding claim 12, the modified mandrel of Graveman teaches the gap between the blade path and the mandrel.
Regarding claim 13, two cutting wheel 84 are best seen in Fig. 6 in Graveman.
Regarding claim 14, a coiling mechanism 16 is best seen in Fig. 1 in Graveman.
Regarding claims 15-16, a pulling mechanism 22 is best seen in Fig. 1 in Graveman.
Regarding claims 17 and 23, Graveman teaches the invention substantially as claimed except for the pulling speed being controllable or other words, an adjustment device. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to make the pulling speed being controllable so that the cable can be pulled with a proper speed without breaking the cable. Furthermore, it has been held that the provision of adjustability, where need, is not a patentable advance. In re Brandt, 20 CCPA (Patents) 1005, 64 F.2d 693, 17 USPQ 295.
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Graveman and Izzard teaches method for deconstructing wire cables using the device as defined in claim 33,comprising the steps of conducting a wire cable 4 through the peeling mechanism; directing an inner portion or core 6 through the opening along the pass-through axis in the mandrel; peeling away or separating at least part of an outer portion from an outer surface at the inlet end of the mandrel; cutting off the outer portion 21 or strands via an outer surface at the inlet end of the mandrel by at least one blade 94 on at least one rotatably mounted cutting wheel 84 having an axis of rotation transverse to the pass-through axis, which blade forms a concave cutting profile that cuts the strands along said mandrel after they have been separated from the.
See Figs. 1, 6, and 7 in Graveman and Figs. 4 and 6 in Izzard.
Regarding claim 20, a joint cutting profile of two blades is best seen in Fig. 7 in Graveman.
Regarding claims 21 and 22, a pulling mechanism 22 is best seen in Fig. 6 in Graveman.
Regarding claim 24, Graveman teaches the invention substantially as claimed except for the cut-off portions having a length smaller 60mm. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the cut-off portions having a length smaller 60mm, 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.
Regarding claim 25, Graveman teaches the invention substantially as claimed except for the rotational speed greater 500 min-1. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the rotational speed greater 500 min-1, 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.
Regarding claim 26, the cutting wheels 84 rotating in a direction of a pass-through direction is best seen in Fig. 6 in Graveman.
Regarding claim 27, a coiling mechanism 22 is best seen in Fig. 1 in Graveman.
Regarding claim 29, the combination of Graveman and Izzard teaches a method for removing a power line, comprising the steps of releasing a wire cable 4 or part of a wire cable from its anchorages 16; removing the wire cable from its anchorages deconstructing the wire cable using the method according to claim 19; and rolling up the inner portion on a coiling mechanism 22.
See Figs. 1, 6, and 7 in Graveman and Figs. 4 and 6 in Izzard.
Regarding claim 30, the steps of deconstruction and coiling being carried in a continuous operation is best seen in in Fig. 1.
Regarding claim 31, it is known in the art that unused cable is removed from its anchorages in a roll 10.
Regarding claim 32, a new cable can be attached to a side of a cable 10.
Claims 18 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Graveman (3,612,412) in view of Izzard (EP 0 132 106) as applied to claims 19 and 33 above, and further in view of Yoshimura et al. (2019/0165555), hereinafter Yoshimura.
Regarding claims 18 and 28, Graveman teaches the invention substantially as claimed except for two peeling mechanisms arranged in series.
Yoshimura teaches two peeling mechanisms arranged in series for gradually stripping down a cable. See Fig. 1.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the of the claimed invention to arrange two peeling mechanisms in Graveman as taught by Yoshimura for gradually stripping down a cable.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/15/2024 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s argument with respect to the limitation “and is adapted to the shape of an outer wall of the mandrel” is not persuasive. Claim 33 calls for the shape of the concaved portion of the blade. Claim 33 does not describe how close the blades and the mandrel relative to each other so that the concaved portion of the blades provides a clearance between the mandrel and the blades as argued by the Applicant. The concaved portion of the blades has a semi-circular cross-section. The tip of the mandrel has a circular cross-section. Therefore, the semi-circular cross-section of the blades is adapted to the shape of an outer wall (circular cross-section) of the mandrel. Therefore, the combination of Graveman and Izzard reads on claim 33. The Applicant should clarify the position of the blades and the mandrel, and the purpose of the concaved portion of the blades to overcome the combination of Graveman and Izzard.
Regarding the method claims 19, claim 19 should be re-written according the U.S practice such that the term “the device of claim 33” is placed after the term “comprising the steps of”.
Regarding claim 29, claim 29 should be re-written to avoid the confusion since it refers back to two independent claims 19 and 33.
Conclusion
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 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 PHONG H NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-4510. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8-5.
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, Boyer Ashley can be reached on 571-272-4502. 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.
/PHONG H NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724