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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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.
Claim 3 is 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.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite in that it fails to point out what is included or excluded by the claim language. This claim is an omnibus type claim. The statement: “wherein the hand pliers are further designed as stripping pliers” fails to quantify what limitation are included to define “stripping pliers.” Therefore, the claim is indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 5 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US 20200251869 A1 to (WEISHEIT et al.).
The applied reference has a common applicant with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B) if the same invention is not being claimed; or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed in the reference and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement.
Regarding claim 1, (WEISHEIT et al.) discloses hand pliers (crimping pliers 1), designed to carry out crimping, having one stationary (handle 4) and one movable plier leg (handle 5) and a first (pressing jaw 7) and a second crimping jaw (pressing jaw 6), wherein the first crimping jaw (7) is acted on by a drive tappet (plier jaw 3), wherein the first (7) and the second crimping jaw (6) are provided with ribs (31,29) which engage in one another in a partially comb-like manner and which are preferably approximately triangular in shape when viewed in a direction of an insertion direction of a cable (W) provided with a pressed part into the crimping opening (33)(paragraph [0068]; Fig. 1), wherein in an unloaded basic position, a resulting crimping mouth (33) that is rectangular in plan view is obtained, wherein the second crimping jaw (6) is configured to be moved back inside a crimping jaw receptacle (according to paragraphs [0062], [0073]-[0077], and [0080] “Outside the working region of the ribs 29, 31, the ribs 29, 31 have a guide surface F which cooperates with a guide projection 38 starting from the opposite pressing jaw 6, 7. There is therefore a cooperation and therefore also a displacement hindrance or displacement limitation in the rib longitudinal direction.”) of the hand pliers (1) against spring force (pressing jaw 6 “ is fixed at the end of a resilient holder part 23.” - paragraph [0060]), and wherein the first and the second crimping jaws (20,21) are arranged in a common linear guide (formed and maintained by guide projection 38).
Regarding claim 5, in (WEISHEIT et al.), the pliers legs (4, 5) interact via a positive lock (actuator 22, ratchet arm 18, toothed ratchet section 19 formed on the ratchet arm 18, pivotably articulated pawl 20, and a tension spring 21; paragraphs [0058] and [0059]).
Regarding claim 6, in (WEISHEIT et al.) according to claim 5, the positive lock acts between a control lever (ratchet arm 18) and the movable plier leg (5).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 2 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: that the crimping opening formed by the crimping jaws opens into a narrow side of a plier head formed by mutually pivotable plier jaws which interact for stripping, has neither been disclosed nor suggested by the prior art of record.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure as describing pliers having features related to the pending application.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to David B. Thomas whose telephone number is (571) 272-4497. The examiner’s e-mail address is: dave.thomas@uspto.gov. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 11:30-7:30.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, David Posigian can be reached on (. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/David B. Thomas/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/DBT/
Prosecution Insights