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 .
Election/Restrictions
1. Applicant's election with traverse of Species III (Fig. 38) in the reply filed on 01/20/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that elected Species III (Fig. 38) is part of the Species shown in Figs. 1 and 34-44. However, the species shown in Fig. 34-36 and 39-44 do illustrate a conductor stabilizer 210 which includes a flat surface 214 and legs 215 which are have a same length and extended all the extended all the way towards a wall of the jaw 102. See Fig. below. However, Elected Species III (Fig. 38) includes a stabilizer 310 including a flat surface 214 and two legs which do not have a same length and one of the legs 215 is shorter than other leg. See Fig. 38 below. Therefore, applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
PNG
media_image1.png
536
432
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
506
384
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
2. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it 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-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it 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.
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.
3. Claims 4, 8, 14, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112
(pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description
requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not 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 subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 4, 8, 14 and 15, the disclosure does not disclose that the first and second stabilizers of the elected Species III (Fig. 38) are coupled to the first and/or second jaw members by releasably securing a base of each stabilizer to the first or/and second jaw members. The releasable securing features of the stabilizers are disclosed only in the unelected Species I (Fig. 22). Accordingly, the disclosure fails to disclose that the stabilizers shown in elected Species (Fig. 38), which includes stabilizers having at least one leg, are releasably connected to the first jaw and/or second jaw members.
4. Claims 10, 19, and 21 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.
Regarding claim 10, “the object” lacks antecedent basis.
Regarding claims 19 and 21” “the threshold angle” is confusing as it is not clear whether it is in reference to the first threshold angle or the second threshold angle. In addition, claim 21 is redundant as recite the same subject matter as claim 19.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
5. 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.
6. Claims 1, 3, 4, 7-8, 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Pemberton (5,224,268). Regarding claim 1, Pemberton teaches a working head assembly (12, 16) for cutting an electrical conductor, the working head assembly comprising: a first jaw member 12 operatively coupled to a neck 30 of a portable, hand held hydraulic cutting tool, the first jaw member 12 having a first cutting blade that includes a first cutting edge (18-19); a second jaw member 16 operatively coupled to the neck 30 of the hydraulic cutting tool, the second jaw member having a second cutting blade that includes a second cutting edge (20-21), the second jaw member being pivotably coupled to the first jaw member so that the first and second cutting blades are movable toward and away from each other; and at least one stabilizer 22 having a substantially flat object contacting surface and at least one leg (defined by the section extending below the top flat surface of the stabilizer 22) extending from the object contacting surface, the at least one stabilizer 22 being coupled to or formed into the first jaw member12 or the second jaw member 16 such that the at least one stabilizer is spaced away from the first or second cutting edge (18-19 and 20-21) and fixed in position relative to the respective first jaw member or second jaw member, the object contacting surface extends laterally from one of the first or second jaw member (12, 16) and is positioned in alignment with one of the first or second cutting blade such that only when an electrical conductor is positioned between the first and second cutting blades and the first and second jaw members move toward each other so that the first and second cutting edges (18-19 and 20-21) are cutting the electrical conductor and causing the electrical conductor (M; Figs. 3A-3B) to rotate relative to the first and second cutting blades beyond a threshold angle does at least a portion of the object contacting surface contact the electrical conductor to limit further rotation of the electrical conductor relative to the first and second cutting blades.
It should be noted that the manner in which the workpiece is cut does not structurally further limit the shearing apparatus or the working head assembly. Rather, rotation of the workpiece during cutting is a natural and foreseeable result of the shearing interaction between the cutting blades and the electrical conductor. When such rotation occurs, the stabilizer 22 necessarily and inherently contacts the workpiece and limits further rotation.
As shown in Figures 3A–3B, when an electrical conductor (M) is positioned between the first and second cutting blades and the jaw members move toward each other, the cutting edges (18–19, 20–21) engage the conductor and may cause the conductor to rotate relative to the cutting blades. Because the stabilizer 22 is fixed in position relative to the corresponding jaw member 16 and spaced a predetermined distance from the cutting edge (20-21), continued rotation of the conductor (M) beyond a threshold angle inevitably brings the conductor into contact with the flat object-contacting surface of the stabilizer 22. This contact inherently prevents further rotation of the conductor beyond the threshold angle.
The threshold angle is inherently defined by the fixed spatial relationship between the flat object-contacting surface of the stabilizer and the cutting edge of the corresponding jaw member. Accordingly, the stabilizer’s function of contacting the workpiece and limiting rotation is an inherent result of the disclosed structure, regardless of the manner in which the cutting operation is performed.
It should be noted that while Pemberton discloses a portable hydraulic cutting tool, it does not expressly disclose a handheld configuration. Regardless, because the claim is directed to “a working head assembly” and does not positively recite a portable handheld hydraulic cutting tool, no weight should be afforded to that limitation under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim.
Regarding claim 3, Pemberton teaches everything noted above including that the threshold angle is between about 15 degrees and about 25 degrees. Pemberton teaches that the threshold angle is about 22 degrees. See col. 3, lines 26-32 and lines 56-62 in Pemberton.
Regarding claim 4, Pemberton teaches that the at least one stabilizer is coupled to the first jaw member or the second jaw member 16 by releasably securing a base (defined as the mounting plate 23 of the stabilizer that is removing connected to the jaw 16; Fig. 3A) of the at least one stabilizer 22 to the first jaw member or the second jaw member 16.
Regarding claim 7, Pemberton teaches a working head assembly (12, 16) for cutting an electrical conductor (M) a, the working head assembly comprising: a first jaw member 12 operatively coupled to a neck portion 30 of a portable, hand held hydraulic cutting tool and having a first cutting blade that includes a first cutting edge (18-19); a second jaw member 16 operatively coupled to the neck portion 30 of the hydraulic cutting tool and having a second cutting blade that includes a second cutting edge (20-21), the second jaw member 16 being pivotably coupled to the first jaw member 12 so that the first and second cutting blades are movable toward and away from each other; and at least one stabilizer 22 having a substantially flat object contacting surface and a pair of legs (a first leg s defined by the square portion of the vertical mounting plate 26, and the second leg is defined by the triangular shaped portion of the vertical mounting plate; Fig. 1) extending from the object contacting surface, the at least one stabilizer being coupled to or formed into the first jaw member or the second jaw member 16 such that the at one stabilizer is spaced away from the first or second cutting edge (20-21) and fixed in position relative to the respective first jaw member 12 or second jaw member 16, the object contacting surface extends laterally from one of the first or second jaw member and is positioned in alignment with one of the first or second cutting blade such that only when an electrical conductor (M; Figs. 3A-3B) is positioned between the first and second cutting blades and the first and second jaw members move toward each other so that the first and second cutting edges are cutting the electrical conductor and causing the electrical conductor to rotate relative to the first and second cutting blades beyond a threshold angle does at least a portion of the object contacting surface contact the electrical conductor to limit further rotation of the electrical conductor.
It should be noted that the manner in which the workpiece is cut does not structurally further limit the shearing apparatus or the working head assembly. Rather, rotation of the workpiece during cutting is a natural and foreseeable result of the shearing interaction between the cutting blades and the electrical conductor. When such rotation occurs, the stabilizer 22 necessarily and inherently contacts the workpiece and limits further rotation.
As shown in Figures 3A–3B, when an electrical conductor (M) is positioned between the first and second cutting blades and the jaw members move toward each other, the cutting edges (18–19, 20–21) engage the conductor and may cause the conductor to rotate relative to the cutting blades. Because the stabilizer 22 is fixed in position relative to the corresponding jaw member 16 and spaced a predetermined distance from the cutting edge (20-21), continued rotation of the conductor (M) beyond a threshold angle inevitably brings the conductor into contact with the flat object-contacting surface of the stabilizer 22. This contact inherently prevents further rotation of the conductor beyond the threshold angle.
The threshold angle is inherently defined by the fixed spatial relationship between the flat object-contacting surface of the stabilizer and the cutting edge of the corresponding jaw member. Accordingly, the stabilizer’s function of contacting the workpiece and limiting rotation is an inherent result of the disclosed structure, regardless of the manner in which the cutting operation is performed.
It should be noted that while Pemberton discloses a portable hydraulic cutting tool, it does not expressly disclose a handheld configuration. Regardless, because the claim is directed to “a working head assembly” and does not positively recite a portable handheld hydraulic cutting tool, no weight should be afforded to that limitation under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim.
Regarding claim 8, Pemberton teaches that the at least one stabilizer is coupled to the first jaw member or the second jaw member 16 by releasably securing a base (defined as the mounting plate 23 of the stabilizer that is removing connected to the jaw 16; Fig. 3A) of the at least one stabilizer 22 to the first jaw member or the second jaw member 16.
Regarding claim 10, as best understood, Pemberton teaches everything noted above including that the object contacting surface is configured to contact the object (M) after rotation of the object relative to the first and second cutting blades to or beyond the threshold angle.
Regarding claim 11, Pemberton teaches everything noted above including that the threshold angle is between about 15 degrees and about 25 degrees. Pemberton teaches that the threshold angle is about 22 degrees. See col. 3, lines 26-32 and lines 56-62 in Pemberton.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
7. 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.
8. Claims 5 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pemberton. Regarding claim 5, it could be argued that Pemberton does explicitly teach that the at least one stabilizer is formed into the first jaw member or the second jaw member by forming at least the object contacting surface of the at least one stabilizer into the first jaw member as a single piece or forming at least the object contacting surface of the at least one stabilizer into the second jaw member as a single piece. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to form the stabilizer with the first jaw or the second jaw as a single piece, since it has been held that forming in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art. Howard v. Detroit Stove Works, 150 U.S. 164 (1893).
9. Claims 12-17, 19, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pemberton in view of Kinsella et al. (WO 2011128414 A1), hereinafter Kinsella. Regarding claim 12, Pemberton teaches a working head assembly (12, 16) for cutting an electrical conductor, the working head assembly comprising: a first jaw member 12 operatively coupled to a neck 30 of a portable, hand held in-line hydraulic of the in-line hydraulic cutting tool and having a first cutting blade that includes a first cutting edge (18-19); a second jaw member 16 operatively coupled to the neck 30 of the in line-hydraulic cutting tool and having a second cutting blade that includes a second cutting edge (20-21), wherein the first and second cutting blades are movable toward and away from each other; and a second stabilizer 22 having a substantially flat surface object contacting surface and at least one leg (defined by the section extending below the top flat surface of the second stabilizer 22; Fig. 1) extending from the object contacting surface of the stabilizer, the at least one stabilizer being coupled to or formed into the second jaw 16 member such that the second stabilizer is spaced away from the second cutting edge and fixed in position relative to the second jaw member, the object contacting surface of the second stabilizer extends laterally in a second direction from the second jaw member and is aligned with the first cutting blade 12 such that the at least one stabilizer is spaced away from the first or second cutting edge (18-19 and 20-21) and fixed in position relative to the respective first jaw member or second jaw member, the object contacting surface extends laterally from one of the first or second jaw member (12, 16) and is positioned in alignment with one of the first or second cutting blade such that only when an electrical conductor is positioned between the first and second cutting blades and the first and second jaw members move toward each other so that the first and second cutting edges (18-19 and 20-21) are cutting the electrical conductor and causing the electrical conductor (M; Figs. 3A-3B) to rotate relative to the first and second cutting blades beyond a threshold angle does at least a portion of the object contacting surface contact the electrical conductor to limit further rotation of the electrical conductor. See Figs. 1-8 in Pemberton.
It should be noted that the manner in which the workpiece is cut does not structurally further limit the shearing apparatus or the working head assembly. Rather, rotation of the workpiece during cutting is a natural and foreseeable result of the shearing interaction between the cutting blades and the electrical conductor. When such rotation occurs, the stabilizer 22 necessarily and inherently contacts the workpiece and limits further rotation.
As shown in Figures 3A–3B, when an electrical conductor (M) is positioned between the first and second cutting blades and the jaw members move toward each other, the cutting edges (18–19, 20–21) engage the conductor and may cause the conductor to rotate relative to the cutting blades. Because the stabilizer 22 is fixed in position relative to the corresponding jaw member 16 and spaced a predetermined distance from the cutting edge (20-21), continued rotation of the conductor (M) beyond a threshold angle inevitably brings the conductor into contact with the flat object-contacting surface of the stabilizer 22. This contact inherently prevents further rotation of the conductor beyond the threshold angle.
The threshold angle is inherently defined by the fixed spatial relationship between the flat object-contacting surface of the stabilizer and the cutting edge of the corresponding jaw member. Accordingly, the stabilizer’s function of contacting the workpiece and limiting rotation is an inherent result of the disclosed structure, regardless of the manner in which the cutting operation is performed.
It should be noted that while Pemberton discloses a portable hydraulic cutting tool, it does not expressly disclose a handheld configuration. Regardless, because the claim is directed to “a working head assembly” and does not positively recite a portable handheld hydraulic cutting tool, no weight should be afforded to that limitation under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim.
Pemberton does not explicitly teach, in addition to the second stabilizer coupled to the second jaw member, a second stabilizer having a substantially flat object contacting surface and at least one leg extending from the object contacting surface of the second stabilizer, the second stabilizer being coupled to or formed into the first jaw member such that electrical conductor is positioned between the first and second cutting blades and the first and second jaw members move toward each other so that the first and second cutting edges are cutting the electrical conductor and causing the electrical conductor to rotate relative to the first and second cutting blades beyond a second threshold angle does at least a portion of the object contacting surface of the second stabilizer contact the electrical conductor to limit further rotation of the electrical conductor. However, Kinsella teaches a working head assembly comprising: a first jaw member 1600 operatively coupled to a neck of the in-line hydraulic cutting tool and having a first cutting blade that includes a first cutting edge 1620; a second jaw member (Figs. 1-6) operatively coupled to the neck of the in-line hydraulic cutting tool and having a second cutting blade that includes a second cutting edge; a first stabilizer (1614-1617) having a substantially flat object contacting surface (defined by the top surface of the stabilizer (Fig. 6) and at least one leg (1617, 1627; Fig. 5) extending from the object contacting surface, the at least one stabilizer being coupled to or formed into the first jaw member 1600 such that the first stabilizer is spaced away from the first cutting edge and fixed in position relative to the first jaw member, the object contacting surface of the first stabilizer extends laterally in a first direction from the first jaw member and is aligned with the second cutting blade such that during a cutting operation of the hydraulic cutting tool the object contacting surface of the first stabilizer contacts an object being cut by the first and second cutting blades to limit rotation of the object relative to the first and second cutting blades; and a second stabilizer (as the second stabilizer, which is not shown, but it is connected to the second jaw member and similarly extended from the exterior surface of the jaw member; see col. 2, lines 1-5 and claim 3 of the translated disclosure) having a substantially flat object contacting surface and at least one leg (1617, 1627) extending from the object contacting surface, the at least one stabilizer being coupled to or formed into the second jaw member such that the second stabilizer is spaced away from the second cutting edge and fixed in position relative to the second jaw member, the object contacting surface of the second stabilizer extends laterally in a second direction from the second jaw member and is aligned with the first cutting blade such that during a cutting operation of the in-line hydraulic cutting tool the object contacting surface of the second stabilizer contacts the object being cut by the first and second cutting blades to limit rotation of the object relative to the first and second cutting blades. See Figs. 1-16 in Kinsella.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide Pemberton’s working head assembly with the first stabilizer couple to or formed into the first jaw member, as taught by Kinsella, in order to provide support for the workpiece on both jaw members and facilitate cutting action of the working tool assembly.
Regarding claim 13, Pemberton, as modified by Kinsella, teaches that the second direction of the second stabilizer is opposite the first direction of the first stabilizer. It should be noted that the first and second directions are inherently opposite each other since the stabilizer laterally extends from the exterior side face of the respective jaw member in Kinsella. In this way, the stabilizers do not interfere with the shear action of the jaw members when the jaw members overlap each other. This is also evidenced in Cornell et al. (5,832,612) wherein the stabilizers 22,28 are extending laterally on opposite directions from respective jaw members (12, 14; Figs. 1-2). Hildebrandt teaches that that the first and second direction are opposite each other. See Figs. 1 in Hildebrandt.
Regarding claim 14, Pemberton, as modified by Kinsella, teaches that the first stabilizer is coupled to the first jaw member by releasably securing a base of the first stabilizer to the first jaw member. It should be noted that Pemberton and Kinsella both teach that the stabilizers are releasably attached to the respective jaw members.
Regarding claim 15, Pemberton teaches that the second stabilizer 22 is coupled to the second jaw member by releasably securing a base of the second stabilizer to the second jaw member.
Regarding claim 16, Pemberton, as modified by Kinsella, does not explicitly teach that the first stabilizer is alternatively formed into the first jaw member by forming the at least the object contacting surface of the first stabilizer with the first jaw member as a single piece. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to form the stabilizer into the first jaw member by forming the stabilizer with the second jaw as a single piece, since it has been held that forming in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art. Howard v. Detroit Stove Works, 150 U.S. 164 (1893).
Regarding claim 17, Pemberton, as modified by Kinsella, does not explicitly teach that the second stabilizer is alternatively formed into the second jaw member by forming at least the object contacting surface of the second stabilizer with the second jaw member as a single piece. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to form the stabilizer into the second jaw by forming the stabilizer with the second jaw member as a single piece, since it has been held that forming in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art. Howard v. Detroit Stove Works, 150 U.S. 164 (1893).
Regarding claims 19 and 21, as best understood, Pemberton teaches everything noted above including that the threshold angle is between about 15 degrees and about 25 degrees. Pemberton teaches that the threshold angle is about 22 degrees. See col. 3, lines 26-32 and lines 56-62 in Pemberton.
To the degree that it could be argued the first jaw and the second jaw of Pemberton are not coupled to a portable, hand held hydraulic cutting tool, the rejection below is applied.
10. Claims 1, 3, 4, 7-8, 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pemberton in view of McVaugh (4,369,576). Regarding claim 1, Pemberton teaches a working head assembly (12, 16) for cutting an electrical conductor, the working head assembly comprising: a first jaw member 12 operatively coupled to a neck 30 of a portable, hand held hydraulic cutting tool, the first jaw member 12 having a first cutting blade that includes a first cutting edge (18-19); a second jaw member 16 operatively coupled to the neck 30 of the hydraulic cutting tool, the second jaw member having a second cutting blade that includes a second cutting edge (20-21), the second jaw member being pivotably coupled to the first jaw member so that the first and second cutting blades are movable toward and away from each other; and at least one stabilizer 22 having a substantially flat object contacting surface and at least one leg (defined by the section extending below the top flat surface of the stabilizer 22) extending from the object contacting surface, the at least one stabilizer 22 being coupled to or formed into the first jaw member12 or the second jaw member 16 such that the at least one stabilizer is spaced away from the first or second cutting edge (18-19 and 20-21) and fixed in position relative to the respective first jaw member or second jaw member, the object contacting surface extends laterally from one of the first or second jaw member (12, 16) and is positioned in alignment with one of the first or second cutting blade such that only when an electrical conductor is positioned between the first and second cutting blades and the first and second jaw members move toward each other so that the first and second cutting edges (18-19 and 20-21) are cutting the electrical conductor and causing the electrical conductor (M; Figs. 3A-3B) to rotate relative to the first and second cutting blades beyond a threshold angle does at least a portion of the object contacting surface contact the electrical conductor to limit further rotation of the electrical conductor relative to the first and second cutting blades.
It should be noted that the manner in which the workpiece is cut does not structurally further limit the shearing apparatus or the working head assembly. Rather, rotation of the workpiece during cutting is a natural and foreseeable result of the shearing interaction between the cutting blades and the electrical conductor. When such rotation occurs, the stabilizer 22 necessarily and inherently contacts the workpiece and limits further rotation.
As shown in Figures 3A–3B, when an electrical conductor (M) is positioned between the first and second cutting blades and the jaw members move toward each other, the cutting edges (18–19, 20–21) engage the conductor and may cause the conductor to rotate relative to the cutting blades. Because the stabilizer 22 is fixed in position relative to the corresponding jaw member 16 and spaced a predetermined distance from the cutting edge (20-21), continued rotation of the conductor (M) beyond a threshold angle inevitably brings the conductor into contact with the flat object-contacting surface of the stabilizer 22. This contact inherently prevents further rotation of the conductor beyond the threshold angle.
The threshold angle is inherently defined by the fixed spatial relationship between the flat object-contacting surface of the stabilizer and the cutting edge of the corresponding jaw member. Accordingly, the stabilizer’s function of contacting the workpiece and limiting rotation is an inherent result of the disclosed structure, regardless of the manner in which the cutting operation is performed.
It could be argued that Pemberton’s portable hydraulic cutting tool is not hand held. However, McVaugh teaches a portable hydraulic cutting tool which is hand held and has first jaw member 10 and a second jaw member 12 connected to a neck 40 of the cutting tool. tool. See Figs.1-3 in McVaugh. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to configure Pemberton’s portable hydraulic cutting tool as a handheld cutting tool, as taught by McVaugh, in order to enable a user to cut cables or objects having smaller diameters.
Regarding claim 3, Pemberton teaches everything noted above including that the threshold angle is between about 15 degrees and about 25 degrees. Pemberton teaches that the threshold angle is about 22 degrees. See col. 3, lines 26-32 and lines 56-62 in Pemberton.
Regarding claim 4, Pemberton teaches that the at least one stabilizer is coupled to the first jaw member or the second jaw member 16 by releasably securing a base (defined as the mounting plate 23 of the stabilizer that is removing connected to the jaw 16; Fig. 3A) of the at least one stabilizer 22 to the first jaw member or the second jaw member 16.
Regarding claim 7, Pemberton teaches a working head assembly (12, 16) for cutting an electrical conductor (M) a, the working head assembly comprising: a first jaw member 12 operatively coupled to a neck portion 30 of a portable, hand held hydraulic cutting tool and having a first cutting blade that includes a first cutting edge (18-19); a second jaw member 16 operatively coupled to the neck portion 30 of the hydraulic cutting tool and having a second cutting blade that includes a second cutting edge (20-21), the second jaw member 16 being pivotably coupled to the first jaw member 12 so that the first and second cutting blades are movable toward and away from each other; and at least one stabilizer 22 having a substantially flat object contacting surface and a pair of legs (a first leg s defined by the square portion of the vertical mounting plate 26, and the second leg is defined by the triangular shaped portion of the vertical mounting plate; Fig. 1) extending from the object contacting surface, the at least one stabilizer being coupled to or formed into the first jaw member or the second jaw member 16 such that the at one stabilizer is spaced away from the first or second cutting edge (20-21) and fixed in position relative to the respective first jaw member 12 or second jaw member 16, the object contacting surface extends laterally from one of the first or second jaw member and is positioned in alignment with one of the first or second cutting blade such that only when an electrical conductor (M; Figs. 3A-3B) is positioned between the first and second cutting blades and the first and second jaw members move toward each other so that the first and second cutting edges are cutting the electrical conductor and causing the electrical conductor to rotate relative to the first and second cutting blades beyond a threshold angle does at least a portion of the object contacting surface contact the electrical conductor to limit further rotation of the electrical conductor.
It should be noted that the manner in which the workpiece is cut does not structurally further limit the shearing apparatus or the working head assembly. Rather, rotation of the workpiece during cutting is a natural and foreseeable result of the shearing interaction between the cutting blades and the electrical conductor. When such rotation occurs, the stabilizer 22 necessarily and inherently contacts the workpiece and limits further rotation.
As shown in Figures 3A–3B, when an electrical conductor (M) is positioned between the first and second cutting blades and the jaw members move toward each other, the cutting edges (18–19, 20–21) engage the conductor and may cause the conductor to rotate relative to the cutting blades. Because the stabilizer 22 is fixed in position relative to the corresponding jaw member 16 and spaced a predetermined distance from the cutting edge (20-21), continued rotation of the conductor (M) beyond a threshold angle inevitably brings the conductor into contact with the flat object-contacting surface of the stabilizer 22. This contact inherently prevents further rotation of the conductor beyond the threshold angle.
The threshold angle is inherently defined by the fixed spatial relationship between the flat object-contacting surface of the stabilizer and the cutting edge of the corresponding jaw member. Accordingly, the stabilizer’s function of contacting the workpiece and limiting rotation is an inherent result of the disclosed structure, regardless of the manner in which the cutting operation is performed.
It could be argued that Pemberton’s portable hydraulic cutting tool is not hand held. However, McVaugh teaches a portable hydraulic cutting tool which is hand held and has first jaw member 10 and a second jaw member 12 connected to a neck 40 of the cutting tool. tool. See Figs.1-3 in McVaugh. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to configure Pemberton’s portable hydraulic cutting tool as a handheld cutting tool, as taught by McVaugh, in order to enable a user to cut cables or objects having smaller diameters.
Regarding claim 8, Pemberton teaches that the at least one stabilizer is coupled to the first jaw member or the second jaw member 16 by releasably securing a base (defined as the mounting plate 23 of the stabilizer that is removing connected to the jaw 16; Fig. 3A) of the at least one stabilizer 22 to the first jaw member or the second jaw member 16.
Regarding claim 10, as best understood, Pemberton teaches everything noted above including that the object contacting surface is configured to contact the object (M) after rotation of the object relative to the first and second cutting blades to or beyond the threshold angle.
Regarding claim 11, Pemberton teaches everything noted above including that the threshold angle is between about 15 degrees and about 25 degrees. Pemberton teaches that the threshold angle is about 22 degrees. See col. 3, lines 26-32 and lines 56-62 in Pemberton.
11. Claims 12-17, 19, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pemberton in view of McVaugh and Kinsella. Regarding claim 12, Pemberton teaches a working head assembly (12, 16) for cutting an electrical conductor, the working head assembly comprising: a first jaw member 12 operatively coupled to a neck 30 of a portable, hand held in-line hydraulic of the in-line hydraulic cutting tool and having a first cutting blade that includes a first cutting edge (18-19); a second jaw member 16 operatively coupled to the neck 30 of the in line-hydraulic cutting tool and having a second cutting blade that includes a second cutting edge (20-21), wherein the first and second cutting blades are movable toward and away from each other; and a second stabilizer 22 having a substantially flat surface object contacting surface and at least one leg (defined by the section extending below the top flat surface of the second stabilizer 22; Fig. 1) extending from the object contacting surface of the stabilizer, the at least one stabilizer being coupled to or formed into the second jaw 16 member such that the second stabilizer is spaced away from the second cutting edge and fixed in position relative to the second jaw member, the object contacting surface of the second stabilizer extends laterally in a second direction from the second jaw member and is aligned with the first cutting blade 12 such that the at least one stabilizer is spaced away from the first or second cutting edge (18-19 and 20-21) and fixed in position relative to the respective first jaw member or second jaw member, the object contacting surface extends laterally from one of the first or second jaw member (12, 16) and is positioned in alignment with one of the first or second cutting blade such that only when an electrical conductor is positioned between the first and second cutting blades and the first and second jaw members move toward each other so that the first and second cutting edges (18-19 and 20-21) are cutting the electrical conductor and causing the electrical conductor (M; Figs. 3A-3B) to rotate relative to the first and second cutting blades beyond a threshold angle does at least a portion of the object contacting surface contact the electrical conductor to limit further rotation of the electrical conductor. See Figs. 1-8 in Pemberton.
It should be noted that the manner in which the workpiece is cut does not structurally further limit the shearing apparatus or the working head assembly. Rather, rotation of the workpiece during cutting is a natural and foreseeable result of the shearing interaction between the cutting blades and the electrical conductor. When such rotation occurs, the stabilizer 22 necessarily and inherently contacts the workpiece and limits further rotation.
As shown in Figures 3A–3B, when an electrical conductor (M) is positioned between the first and second cutting blades and the jaw members move toward each other, the cutting edges (18–19, 20–21) engage the conductor and may cause the conductor to rotate relative to the cutting blades. Because the stabilizer 22 is fixed in position relative to the corresponding jaw member 16 and spaced a predetermined distance from the cutting edge (20-21), continued rotation of the conductor (M) beyond a threshold angle inevitably brings the conductor into contact with the flat object-contacting surface of the stabilizer 22. This contact inherently prevents further rotation of the conductor beyond the threshold angle.
The threshold angle is inherently defined by the fixed spatial relationship between the flat object-contacting surface of the stabilizer and the cutting edge of the corresponding jaw member. Accordingly, the stabilizer’s function of contacting the workpiece and limiting rotation is an inherent result of the disclosed structure, regardless of the manner in which the cutting operation is performed.
It could be argued that Pemberton’s portable hydraulic cutting tool is not hand held. However, McVaugh teaches a portable hydraulic cutting tool which is hand held and has first jaw member 10 and a second jaw member 12 connected to a neck 40 of the cutting tool. tool. See Figs.1-3 in McVaugh. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to configure Pemberton’s portable hydraulic cutting tool as a handheld cutting tool, as taught by McVaugh, in order to enable a user to cut cables or objects having smaller diameters.
Pemberton also does not explicitly teach, in addition to the second stabilizer coupled to the second jaw member, a second stabilizer having a substantially flat object contacting surface and at least one leg extending from the object contacting surface of the second stabilizer, the second stabilizer being coupled to or formed into the first jaw member such that electrical conductor is positioned between the first and second cutting blades and the first and second jaw members move toward each other so that the first and second cutting edges are cutting the electrical conductor and causing the electrical conductor to rotate relative to the first and second cutting blades beyond a second threshold angle does at least a portion of the object contacting surface of the second stabilizer contact the electrical conductor to limit further rotation of the electrical conductor. However, Kinsella teaches a working head assembly comprising: a first jaw member 1600 operatively coupled to a neck of the in-line hydraulic cutting tool and having a first cutting blade that includes a first cutting edge 1620; a second jaw member (Figs. 1-6) operatively coupled to the neck of the in-line hydraulic cutting tool and having a second cutting blade that includes a second cutting edge; a first stabilizer (1614-1617) having a substantially flat object contacting surface (defined by the top surface of the stabilizer (Fig. 6) and at least one leg (1617, 1627; Fig. 5) extending from the object contacting surface, the at least one stabilizer being coupled to or formed into the first jaw member 1600 such that the first stabilizer is spaced away from the first cutting edge and fixed in position relative to the first jaw member, the object contacting surface of the first stabilizer extends laterally in a first direction from the first jaw member and is aligned with the second cutting blade such that during a cutting operation of the hydraulic cutting tool the object contacting surface of the first stabilizer contacts an object being cut by the first and second cutting blades to limit rotation of the object relative to the first and second cutting blades; and a second stabilizer (as the second stabilizer, which is not shown, but it is connected to the second jaw member and similarly extended from the exterior surface of the jaw member; see col. 2, lines 1-5 and claim 3 of the translated disclosure) having a substantially flat object contacting surface and at least one leg (1617, 1627) extending from the object contacting surface, the at least one stabilizer being coupled to or formed into the second jaw member such that the second stabilizer is spaced away from the second cutting edge and fixed in position relative to the second jaw member, the object contacting surface of the second stabilizer extends laterally in a second direction from the second jaw member and is aligned with the first cutting blade such that during a cutting operation of the in-line hydraulic cutting tool the object contacting surface of the second stabilizer contacts the object being cut by the first and second cutting blades to limit rotation of the object relative to the first and second cutting blades. See Figs. 1-16 in Kinsella.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide Pemberton’s working head assembly, as modified by McVaugh, with the first stabilizer couple to or formed into the first jaw member, as taught by Kinsella, in order to provide support for the workpiece on both jaw members and facilitate cutting action of the working tool assembly.
Regarding claim 13, Pemberton, as modified by Kinsella, teaches that the second direction of the second stabilizer is opposite the first direction of the first stabilizer. It should be noted that the first and second directions are inherently opposite each other since the stabilizer laterally extends from the exterior side face of the respective jaw member in Kinsella. In this way, the stabilizers do not interfere with the shear action of the jaw members when the jaw members overlap each other. This is also evidenced in Cornell et al. (5,832,612) wherein the stabilizers 22,28 are extending laterally on opposite directions from respective jaw members (12, 14; Figs. 1-2). Hildebrandt teaches that that the first and second direction are opposite each other. See Figs. 1 in Hildebrandt.
Regarding claim 14, Pemberton, as modified by Kinsella, teaches that the first stabilizer is coupled to the first jaw member by releasably securing a base of the first stabilizer to the first jaw member. It should be noted that Pemberton and Kinsella both teach that the stabilizers are releasably attached to the respective jaw members.
Regarding claim 15, Pemberton teaches that the second stabilizer 22 is coupled to the second jaw member by releasably securing a base of the second stabilizer to the second jaw member.
Regarding claim 16, Pemberton, as modified by Kinsella, does not explicitly teach that the first stabilizer is alternatively formed into the first jaw member by forming the at least the object contacting surface of the first stabilizer with the first jaw member as a single piece. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to form the stabilizer into the first jaw member by forming the stabilizer with the second jaw as a single piece, since it has been held that forming in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art. Howard v. Detroit Stove Works, 150 U.S. 164 (1893).
Regarding claim 17, Pemberton, as modified by Kinsella, does not explicitly teach that the second stabilizer is alternatively formed into the second jaw member by forming at least the object contacting surface of the second stabilizer with the second jaw member as a single piece. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to form the stabilizer into the second jaw by forming the stabilizer with the second jaw member as a single piece, since it has been held that forming in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art. Howard v. Detroit Stove Works, 150 U.S. 164 (1893).
Regarding claims 19 and 21, as best understood, Pemberton teaches everything noted above including that the threshold angle is between about 15 degrees and about 25 degrees. Pemberton teaches that the threshold angle is about 22 degrees. See col. 3, lines 26-32 and lines 56-62 in Pemberton.
Response to Arguments
12. Applicant’s argument that the prior art does not teach the limitation “only when an electrical conductor is positioned between the first and second cutting blades and the first and second jaw members move toward each other so that the first and second cutting edges are cutting the electrical conductor and causing the electrical conductor to rotate relative to the first and second cutting blades beyond a threshold angle does at least a portion of the object contacting surface contact the electrical conductor to limit further rotation of the electrical conductor relative to the first and second cutting blades” is not persuasive.
As stated above, Pemberton teaches that the object contacting surface extends laterally from one of the first or second jaw member (12, 16) and is positioned in alignment with one of the first or second cutting blade such that only when an electrical conductor is positioned between the first and second cutting blades and the first and second jaw members move toward each other so that the first and second cutting edges (18-19 and 20-21) are cutting the electrical conductor and causing the electrical conductor (M; Figs. 3A-3B) to rotate relative to the first and second cutting blades beyond a threshold angle does at least a portion of the object contacting surface contact the electrical conductor to limit further rotation of the electrical conductor relative to the first and second cutting blades.
It should be noted that the manner in which the workpiece is cut does not structurally further limit the shearing apparatus or the working head assembly. Rather, rotation of the workpiece during cutting is a natural and foreseeable result of the shearing interaction between the cutting blades and the electrical conductor. When such rotation occurs, the stabilizer 22 necessarily and inherently contacts the workpiece and limits further rotation.
As shown in Figures 3A–3B, when an electrical conductor (M) is positioned between the first and second cutting blades and the jaw members move toward each other, the cutting edges (18–19, 20–21) engage the conductor and may cause the conductor to rotate relative to the cutting blades. Because the stabilizer 22 is fixed in position relative to the corresponding jaw member 16 and spaced a predetermined distance from the cutting edge (20-21), continued rotation of the conductor (M) beyond a threshold angle inevitably brings the conductor into contact with the flat object-contacting surface of the stabilizer 22. This contact inherently prevents further rotation of the conductor beyond the threshold angle.
The threshold angle is inherently defined by the fixed spatial relationship between the flat object-contacting surface of the stabilizer and the cutting edge of the corresponding jaw member. Accordingly, the stabilizer’s function of contacting the workpiece and limiting rotation is an inherent result of the disclosed structure, regardless of the manner in which the cutting operation is performed.
Conclusion
13. 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 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.
14. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GHASSEM ALIE whose telephone number is (571) 272-4501. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:30 am-5:00 pm EST.
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, Adam Eiseman can be reached on (571) 270-3818. 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.
/GHASSEM ALIE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724 February 5, 2026