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 .
Status of Claims
This office action is in reply to the Amendment filed on December 15, 2025. Claim 1 has been amended. No additional claims have been added. Claims 7-9 have been cancelled. Claim interpretation previously made under 35 USC 112(f) is maintained. The previous 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection has been overcome however in view of the amendment, a new 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection is presented herewith and is discussed in greater detail below. Claims 1-6 are currently pending and have been fully examined.
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 1-6 are Finally 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. Any remaining claims are rejected based on their dependency to a rejected base claim.
Claim 1, in Line 11 discloses, “…a first side of a first handle”. However, Line 2 in claim 1 already disclosed “a first handle”. Thus, it is unclear whether the recitation of “a first handle” in Line 11 is the same first handle as previously disclosed in Line 2 or if it is another first handle. In other words, how many first handles are being claimed? In order to expedite prosecution, the examiner has interpreted the limitation above as disclosing, “a first side of the first handle”. However, further clarification is respectfully requested.
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, 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 1-6 are Finally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yen (10033166) in view of Yan (CN 218633074, translation included herewith), optionally in view of Yen (2014/0020513, hereafter referred to as Yen ‘513), further in view of Yen (D771458, hereafter referred to as Yen ‘458) and as further evidenced by Chen et al. (4703674).
In reference to claim 1, As Best Understood, Yen discloses a wire stripper (1) with a cutting support structure (Figures 1-6), comprising:
a first handle (11);
a second handle (21), pivoted to the first handle by a pivot (25);
a blade set (30), comprising a first blade (i.e. left blade 30 in Figure 1) connected to the first handle and a second blade (i.e. right blade 30 in Figure 1) connected to the second handle, the first blade fixed to the first handle by a rivet (i.e. left rivet 35 in Figure 1), and the second blade fixed to the second handle by another rivet (i.e. right rivet 35 in Figure 1);
a spring (40), comprising one end fixed on the first handle and another end fixed on the second handle (Figure 5),
a support blocker plate, comprising a first support blocker plate (50) located on a first side of the first handle, first support blocker plate comprising one end (i.e. left end of 50 in Figures 1-2) connected to the first handle (Figure 2) and another end (i.e. right end of 50 in Figures 1-2) extending to the second handle (Figure 2).
Yen lacks,
the first blade being fixed to the first handle by a screw (instead of the rivet above);
the second blade being fixed to the second handle by another screw (instead of the rivet above);
a pair of support blocker plates (instead of just the one support blocker plate above), wherein a second support blocker plate is located on a second opposite side of the first handle and includes one end connected to the first handle and another end extending to the second handle; and
a plurality of concave surfaces and a plurality of protrusions adjacent to each other, connecting to the blade set and located on two opposite sides of the first handle and the second handle.
However, Yan teaches that it is old and well known in the art at the time the invention was made to fixed a first blade (i.e. right blade 30 in the annotated figure below) to a first handle (see figure below) by a screw (see figure below); and fixing a second blade (i.e. left blade 30 in the annotated figure below) to a second handle (see figure below) by another screw (Note; the figures below shows a rear end of the another screw in the figure below).
[AltContent: textbox (Second handle)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (First handle)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Screw)][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
264
432
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (Rear end of another Screw)]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the rivet connection of the blades, of Yen, with the known technique of providing the threaded/screwed connection of the blades, as taught by Yan, and the results would have been predictable. In this situation, one could provide a more advantageous and versatile device that more effectively and removably (because the screws can be loosened or tightened) fixes the blades to the handles thereby preventing any unwanted disconnection during normal operation.
In addition, Yan further teaches that it is old and well known in the art at the time the invention was made to provide a support plate (50) that is located on a front side of the tool (see Figure 11 below) and with another support plate (50, see figure below) that is located on a rear side of the tool (see Figure 12 below). See the following portion of translation disclosing that, “the supporting baffle 50 of the half part is combined on one side of the first handle 101, but not to be limited.”. Since, support plate (50) is formed as a half part...on one side of the fist handle, two support plates must obviously be used, with one support plate (50) being located on each side (i.e. front side and rear side) of the handle (see Figures 11 and 12 showing a respective support plate located on opposite sides of the handle).
PNG
media_image2.png
470
682
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Optionally, Yen ‘513 also teaches that it is old and well known in the art at the time the invention was made to provide a pair of support blocker plates (see figure below) comprising; a first support blocker plate (see figure below) connected to a first handle (21) and a second support blocker plate (see figure below) connected to the first handle on an opposite side to the first support blocker plate, each of the first support blocker plate and the second support blocker plate comprising one end (i.e. left end thereof in the figure below) connected to the first handle and another end (i.e. right tip end thereof in the figure below) extended to a second handle (formed from 22 and the horizontal portion shown in the second figure below, Figures 1-7).
PNG
media_image3.png
250
515
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
188
711
media_image4.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the single support plate, of Yen, with the known technique of providing the pair of support plates each being located on an opposite side of a first handle, as taught by Yan or optionally as taught by Yen ‘513, and the results would have been predictable. In this situation, one could provide a more advantageous and versatile device that “can provide supporting force to the first handle and the second handle when the blade group is cut” (translation from Yan) or that more effectively supports and/or guides shearing blades (see Figures 3-7 of Yen ‘513) as they are movably interlocked during normal shearing operations (see paragraphs 12, 26 and 32 of Yen ‘513).
Furthermore, Yen ‘458 teaches that it is old and well known in the art at the time the invention was made to provide a similar wire stripping tool (see Title and Figure 1) comprising; a plurality of concave surfaces (see figure below) and a plurality of protrusions (see figure below) adjacent to each other, connecting to a blade set (see figure below) and located on two opposite sides (see figure below) of a first handle (see figure below) and a second handle (Note; the second handle also has similar concave surfaces and protrusions but have not been annotated in the figure below for clarity).
PNG
media_image5.png
627
612
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Finally, as further evidenced by Chen et al., which also teach that it is old and well known in the art at the time the invention was made to provide similar tool (Figure 1) that also includes a pressing structure (formed from a plurality of concave surfaces [see figure below] and a plurality of protrusions [see figure below] adjacent to each other) disposed on the two sides opposite to each other on a first handle and the second handle respectively (Figures 2-5, Note; the second handle also has similar concave surfaces and protrusions but have not been annotated in the figure below for clarity) and provides explicit motivation for including such a pressing structure (Column 4, Lines 43-47).
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Second handle)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (First handle)][AltContent: textbox (Second side opposite to the first side)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Plurality of protrusions)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image6.png
293
446
media_image6.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (First side)][AltContent: textbox (Plurality of concave surfaces)]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the device, of Yen, with the known technique of providing the pressing structure, as taught by Yen ‘458 and as further evidenced by Chen et al., and the results would have been predictable. In this situation, one could provide a more advantageous and versatile device that can also provide wire-terminal joining capabilities (see Column 4, Lines 43-47 of Chen et al.).
In reference to claim 2, Yen discloses that the first handle comprises a first seat (i.e. right seat portion of 11 that receives element 61 thereon, Figure 3), and the second handle comprises a second seat (i.e. left seat portion of 11 that receives element 62 thereon, Figure 3), corresponding to the first seat (Figure 3).
In reference to claim 3, Yen discloses further comprising a stripping structure (60), and each of the first seat and the second seat comprising one end connected with the stripping structure (Figure 3).
In reference to claim 4, Yen discloses that the stripping structure comprises a knife seat set (formed from 611 and 612) disposed on the first seat (Figure 3) and a clamp seat set (formed from 621 and 622) disposed on the second seat (Figure 3), the knife seat set comprises a movable knife seat (611) and a fixed knife seat (612), and the clamp seat set comprises a movable clamp seat (621) and a fixed clamp seat (611, Column 3, Lines 50-59).
In reference to claim 5, modified Yen discloses that the pair of support blocker plates (because another support plate [as previously taught by Yan or optionally as taught by Yen ‘513] would be located on the opposite side of the first handle in Figure 1 of Yen) is disposed between the pivot (25) and the blade set (30, Figure 1 of Yen).
In reference to claim 6, modified Yen discloses that the pair of support blocker plates (again as previously taught by Yan or Yen ‘513) are respectively fixed to the first handle and extended to the second handle (see Figures 1 and 2 of Yen).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference as previously applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter as specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant contends that, “In comparison, referring to annotated FIG. 2 of Chen shown below, the asserted concave surfaces 48/[49] and protrusions 38 connect to the pivot, which is different from "a plurality of concave surfaces and a plurality of protrusions adjacent to each other, connecting to the blade set and located on two opposite sides of the first handle and the second handle" as of the Applicant's amended claim 1.”
However, the examiner respectfully disagrees with this statement. The examiner notes that Yen (D771458) is used for the teaching of providing the plurality of concave surfaces and the plurality of protrusions adjacent to each other, connecting to the blade set and located on two opposite sides of the first handle and the second handle. The examiner has provided Chen ‘674 as further evidence for explicitly teaching the motivation for including a similar pressing structure (i.e. providing a more advantageous and versatile device that can also provide wire-terminal joining capabilities [see Column 4, Lines 43-47 of Chen et al.]). The fact that the concave surfaces and protrusions shown in Chen connect to the pivot, is moot because the plurality of concave surfaces and the plurality of protrusions, as taught by Yen (D771458) are adjacent to each other, connect to the blade set and are located on two opposite sides of the first handle and the second handle. Since, all of the structural limitations have been met the examiner believes that the rejection is proper.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action.
Specifically, applicant further defined the blade set, the pair of support plates and to include the plurality of concave and protrusions in claim 1.
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 ROBERT J SCRUGGS whose telephone number is (571)272-8682. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6-2.
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, David Posigian can be reached at 313-446-6546. 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.
/ROBERT J SCRUGGS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723