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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group II, claims 11-17 in the reply filed on 5/15/26 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the grounds that the restriction is not properly defined as three different inventions because Groups I-III (Claims 1-20) should be drawn to the same class and subclass in order to withdraw the Restriction Requirement as the limitations of independent Claim 1 (Group I), independent Claim II (Group II) and independent Claim 17 (Group III) are similarly disclosed for the same or overlapping search and the same logic without incurring any burden. This is not found persuasive, because the Inventions I-III are distinctive from one another for reasons provided from the record (see previous election/restriction dated 4/29/26) where the inventions do not overlap in scope and each invention has separate utilities mode of operations and functions (e.g., “for installing sleeve “(of Group I) versus “for placing sleeve “(of Group II) and versus “method for implemented computer program” (of Group III). Thus, a single search for the two (3) inventions would not be made by a single search. And moreover, if the two (3) inventions were searched concurrently the search would be burdensome. The examiner has established a prima facie case (filed 4/29/26), which is clarified under MPEP § 806.05(c) and § 806.05(d) but being ignored by the Applicants, that the inventions of Groups I-III each have a separate status in the art and clearly have a separate field of search which would be non-coextensive while creating a burden for each search of each invention, where the explanation is clearly provided in section 4 (filed 4/29/26) but is still ignored by the Applicants. In accordance with MPEP § 803, the examiner has demonstrated that the inventions of Groups I-III are each independent or distinct and a serious burden would be placed on the examiner for prosecution of the three claimed inventions together due to their mutually exclusive characteristics. The inventions Groups I-III require a different field of search (e.g., searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search queries); and/or the prior art applicable to one Invention would not likely be applicable to another Group Invention; and/or the Groups I-III are likely to raise different non-prior art issues under 35 U.S.C. 101 and/or 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph. Therefore, the Restriction mailed on or about 4/29/26 is now made Final.
Claims 1-10, 18-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to nonelected inventions I, III, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 5/15/26. Applicants are required to cancel all non- elected invention I, III (claims 1-10, 18-20) or take other appropriate action.
An OA on the merits of claims 11-17 as following:
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the claimed of “a cable feeding mechanism “(see claim 11, line 14), and that computer (see claim 11, line 24), and “plurality of robot motors” (claim 11, lines 18-19), “a first funnel extension “ (see claim 11, line 10) as well as subject matters of claims 12-13 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. (Note that only Applicant Admitted Prior art see Figs. 3, 4A-4B depicts the features above, however none of the instant Application’s Drawings show the above features)
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
New possible corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in this application because the subject matters as representing in claim 11 (entirely) do not show in the pending drawings the best overall apparatus as shown in Fig. 10 do not cover the missing features as noted under the “drawings objection to” section above. Applicant is advised to employ the services of a competent patent draftsperson outside the Office, as the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office no longer prepares new drawings. The corrected drawings are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The requirement for corrected drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested:
--“Apparatus for Placing Sleeve on Shielded Electrical Cable”--
The abstract should be updated to reflect the elected apparatus invention II.
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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 11-17 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.
Since the scope of the claims directed to an apparatus (see preamble lines 1-2) and claims recites a list of structure features (e.g., cable feeding mechanism 140, robot 17, sleeve gripper 18, a computer 162 as shown in various Figs. 5, 10, 15) however there appears to be no connection between the computer 162 and the rest of the features that make up the claimed apparatus. Therefore, it is suggested that further define the interconnection of the computer 162 with the rest of the features of the claim 1 in order to clarify that the computer is a part of the claimed apparatus (note that Fig. 5 is a block diagram of a cable feeding system in accordance with the embodiment depicted in FIG. 4A of the prior art) which does not belong to the claimed apparatus of the instant invention.
the phrase: “and when the sleeve comprises a solder sleeve and a ground lead seated on the first and second funnel extensions in an "out back" configuration, the ground lead lies between the first and second ground lead clearance slots and rests in the groove formed by the first and second angled surfaces” (claim 14, lines 6-9) directed to “the sleeve “entity (e.g., an associated work piece) which is not part of the claimed apparatus that make scope of the claim 14 unclear.
Similar to claim 11 above applied to claims 15-16 where the phrases: “wherein the computer is further configured to output the center cable command subsequent to outputting the feed cable command” (occurrence in claim 15, lines 5-6); and “wherein the computer is further configured to output the clamp cable command subsequent to outputting the center cable command” (occurrence in claim 16, lines 9-10) does not further limit the claimed apparatus, since no inventive features existed in the above phrases.
Further, claims 15-17 recites feature of “a centering gripper 20” but lacking of the connection to the rest of the features. Therefore, it is not known as to how the above feature being connectively attached to the rest of the claimed features as in base claim 11.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 14 discloses “the sleeve comprises a solder sleeve and a ground lead seated on the first and second funnel extensions in an "out back" configuration, the ground lead lies between the first and second ground lead clearance slots and rests in the groove formed by the first and second angled surfaces” that being worked on by the apparatus is/are not parts of the claimed invention. According to section 2115 of the MPEP, A claim is only limited by positively recited elements. Thus, inclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims." In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963); see also In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935).
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
Claim(s) 11-14 as best understood is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Helmick et al (201802676498) in view of Applicant Admitted Prior Art (APA) see Figs.1-4, and discussion under heading back ground and in ¶¶ [0018-0023] which reflect the prior art Figs noted above.
Helmick et al discloses the claimed apparatus for placing a sleeve on a cable, the apparatus comprising:
a split funnel assembly 212, 220 222 comprising:
a first actuator 230 comprising first and second guide carriages which translate from funnel open positions to funnel closed positions in response to a close funnel command (see discusses in ¶ [0036]); and
a split funnel 212 comprising a first funnel half 214 mounted to the first guide carriage and a second funnel half 216 mounted to the second guide carriage, wherein the first funnel half comprises a first cable guide channel and a first funnel extension and the second funnel half comprises a second cable guide channel and a second funnel extension (see Fig. 2 and discussed in ¶¶ [0027, 0036]).
a robot comprising a robot tool mounting flange and a plurality of robot motors, wherein the robot is configured to move the robot tool mounting flange in accordance with robot motor control commands (see discussion in light of ¶ [0030] for the teaching of a robot includes robot system coupled to handle 204 and gripper 206, respectively;
a sleeve gripper 206 mounted to the robot tool mounting flange 210, wherein the sleeve gripper 206 is configured to grip the sleeve in response to a grip sleeve command (see Fig. 3c and discusses in ¶ [0044], respectively).
Note that the recites “wherein the split funnel is in a funnel closed state while the first and second guide carriages are in the funnel closed positions” is/are not considered to be an inventive structure feature since no further structure features existed in the above.
The Helmick et al as relied and applied upon above however, is in silent regarding features: cable feeding mechanism configured to feed the cable in response to a feed cable command, wherein the cable feeding mechanism is aligned to feed the cable between the first and second funnel halves while the split funnel is closed; and “a computer configured to output the close funnel command, the grip sleeve command, robot motor control commands that seat the sleeve on the first and second funnel extensions while the split funnel is in the funnel closed state, and the feed cable command in accordance with a predetermined computer program, wherein while the split funnel is in the funnel closed state, the first and second funnel extensions form a seat for the sleeve and the first and second cable guide channels to form a repeatable path for the cable to follow through the funnel;
The APA satisfied such above (see Figs. 1-4 in conjunction with the APA as discussed in ¶¶ [0018-0023] of applicant’s specification) indeed discloses substantially features a) such as a dual-belt cable feed mechanism 140 (see ¶ [0019], Fig. 2), as well as a robot comprising a robot tool mounting flange (see Figs. 4A-4B for the teaching of an automated system which reflect as robot and tooling flange as claimed by the instant application (see discussed in ¶¶ [0021-0022], respectively). Note that regarding “a computer configured to output the close funnel command, the grip sleeve command, robot motor control commands that seat the sleeve on the first and second funnel extensions while the split funnel is in the funnel closed state, and the feed cable command in accordance with a predetermined computer program, wherein while the split funnel is in the funnel closed state, the first and second funnel extensions form a seat for the sleeve and the first and second cable guide channels to form a repeatable path for the cable to follow through the funnel” is not inventive structure feature since no further structure features existed in the above however, the APA (see ¶ [0067] about lines 7-9 depict the system 110 be modified by the inclusion of a computer which satisfied the above associated feature).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having an ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to employ the APA ‘s teaching as noted above onto the Helmick et al invention for various known benefit including cable in order to form the apparatus including the above features by utilizing the known and available forming features. The motivation for such combination can be obtained from either reference since the prior art use in the rejection above is/ are in same endeavor field of invention.
The Helmick et al further discloses regarding:
Claim 12 regarding wherein “the first funnel extension comprises a first arc-shaped edge and the second funnel extension comprises a second arc-shaped edge, and wherein the first and second arc- shaped edges form a circular seat which fits inside one end of the sleeve while the split funnel is in the funnel closed state” as best understood is met by the Helmick et al (see Fig. 4A and discussion in light of ¶ [0036]). Since the features of claim above does not show in the pending drawings. And it appears that Fig. 4A of the Helmick et al depicts arc-shaped 218 portion of the funnel extension 214.
Claim 13 regarding angle surface of the split funnel as best understood appears to meet by the Helmick et al (see Fig. 4A/4B which depict the split funnel includes an angle of 180°).
Claim 14 as best understood , regarding ”wherein the first funnel half further comprises a first ground lead clearance slot above and adjacent the first funnel extension; the second funnel half further comprises a second ground lead clearance slot above and adjacent the second funnel extension; and when the sleeve comprises a solder sleeve and a ground lead seated on the first and second funnel extensions in an "out back" configuration, the ground lead lies between the first and second ground lead clearance slots and rests in the groove formed by the first and second angled surfaces” as best understood is met by the Helmick et al (see Fig. 4c which depicts a number of slots existed in the first funnel half and second funnel half of the 212which is/are readable as the lead clearance slots as claimed (see also section of 112 for claim 14).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MINH N TRINH whose telephone number is (571)272-4569. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH ~5:00-3:30.
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, Thomas J Hong can be reached at 571-272-0993. 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.
/MINH N TRINH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3729
mt
Prosecution Insights