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 .
Statement re Text of U.S. Code
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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 following must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s):
the cutter blade that is “disposed to be tilted relative to the first area”, as set forth in claim 2 (for example, it is noted that the drawings do not show the cutter blade 320 being disposed to be tilted as in able to be swiveled/pivoted/tilted).
No new matter should be entered.
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.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required:
the specification does not provide antecedent basis for the term “suction pump” now set forth in claim 8 (as a side note, it is noted that the amendment to claim 8 to recite a “suction pump” is considered new matter, which will be addressed in a separate rejection of claim 8 under 35 USC 112(a) hereinbelow; that said, in the event that Applicant is able to successfully demonstrate that support for this limitation existed in the specification as originally filed, then it is noted that such term does not have antecedent basis in the specification; however, if Applicant is unable to successfully demonstrate that support for this limitation existed in the specification as originally filed, then it is noted that amending the specification to provide antecedent basis for the claim term will result in new matter objection regarding the addition of new matter to the specification); and
the specification does not provide antecedent basis for the term “camera” now set forth in claim 10 (as a side note, it is noted that the amendment to claim 10 to recite a “camera” is considered new matter, which will be addressed in a separate rejection of claim 10 under 35 USC 112(a) hereinbelow; that said, in the event that Applicant is able to successfully demonstrate that support for this limitation existed in the specification as originally filed, then it is noted that such term does not have antecedent basis in the specification; however, if Applicant is unable to successfully demonstrate that support for this limitation existed in the specification as originally filed, then it is noted that amending the specification to provide antecedent basis for the claim term will result in new matter objection regarding the addition of new matter to the specification).
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“seating portion” in claim 11.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 2-7 and 11-13 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.
In claim 2, the claim recites “a cutter blade of the peeling cutter is disposed to be tilted relative to the first area”. However, it is unclear as claimed whether “disposed to be tilted” intends to describe a physical configuration of some (unspecified in the claim) aspect (axis, surface, etc.) of the cutter blade relative to the first area, or whether “disposed to be tilted” instead intends to reference an action/capability of the cutter blade (as in the cutter blade is configured to be able to tilt/swivel/pivot).
In claim 3, the claim recites “wherein the peeling cutter includes a body connected to the driver, and a cutter blade extending from the body”. However, claim 3 depends from claim 2, and claim 2 now recites “a cutter blade of the peeling cutter…”. That being said, it is unclear as set forth in the claim whether “a cutter blade” in claim 3, line 2, is intended to be the same cutter blade previously recited in claim 2, or whether “a cutter blade” in claim 3, line 2 is instead intended to be additional to the cutter blade previously recited in claim 2.
In claim 3, in each of lines 3 and 4, as well as in claim 4¸ line 2, and claim 6, each of lines 3 and 4, these claims recite “the cutter blade”. However, the limitation “the cutter blade” lacks sufficient antecedent basis in each of the aforementioned claims, noting that it is unclear which previously-recited cutter blade is intended to be referenced, i.e., the cutter blade set forth in claim 2, or the cutter blade set forth in claim 3, line 2.
In claim 11, lines 3-5, the claim now recites “the apparatus further comprises a base including a groove configured to accommodate the connector ribbon, and a seating portion connected to the groove and on which the clamp is seated”. However it is unclear as set forth in the claim whether “and a seating portion connected to the groove and on which the clamp is seated” is intended to go with “the apparatus further comprises…” {as in “the apparatus further comprises a base including a groove configured to accommodate the connector ribbon, and” (the apparatus further comprises) “a seating portion connected to the groove and on which the clamp is seated”}, or whether “and a seating portion connected to the groove and on which the clamp is seated” is instead intended to go with “a base including a groove…” {as in “the apparatus further comprises a base including a groove configured to accommodate the connector ribbon, and” (the base including) “a seating portion connected to the groove and on which the clamp is seated”, or whether “and a seating portion connected to the groove and on which the clamp is seated” is instead intended to go with “groove configured to accommodate…”.
It is noted that the changes to the claims that were submitted with the 4/30/2026 are in gray-scale. Please note that in the event that Applicant is submitting text changes in a color (such as red or the like) other than black, when those are provided in the case file, they will show up in gray-scale, making them difficult to read. That said, particularly for amended claim 13 as filed 4/30/2026, which has extensive changes, it is difficult to tell what some of the punctuation is, such that it is unclear, for example, in many instances whether Applicant intends to use a semicolon vs. a comma. For example, in lines 8-9, in the limitation “a first unit including a first clamp, a first peeling cutter, and a first driver”, followed by “and a second unit including a second clamp, a second peeling cutter, and a second driver”, it is unclear whether “first driver” and “and a second unit” are separated by a comma, or whether they are instead separated by a semicolon. That being said, it is unclear as set forth in lines 8-9 of claim 13 with what the limitation “and a second unit including a second clamp, a second peeling cutter, and a second driver” is intended to go, i.e., “the apparatus comprising” (from line 6), or “a first unit including…” in line 8. In the event that a semicolon separates the two aforementioned limitations, and in the event that it is Applicant’s intent for “and a second unit…” to go with “the apparatus comprising” (given that the specification as filed does not teach that the first unit (A) includes both a first clamp and a second clamp), Applicant may wish to make sure that a semicolon is provided between “a first driver” and “and a second unit” in line 8 of claim 13, and also provide the limitation “a second unit including a second clamp, a second peeling cutter, and a second driver” on a separate line with a corresponding indent format to, for example, the limitation “a base on which the connector ribbon is placed” from line 7, to make it clear that “a second unit including a second clamp, a second peeling cutter, and a second driver” is intended to go with “the apparatus comprising”.
Claims 2-13 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.
In claim 2, the claim recites “a cutter blade of the peeling cutter is disposed to be tilted relative to the first area”. However, as noted in a separate rejection of claim 2 under 35 USC 112(b), it is unclear as claimed whether “disposed to be tilted” intends to describe a physical configuration of some (unspecified in the claim) aspect (axis, surface, etc.) of the cutter blade relative to some (unspecified in the claim) aspect of the first area, or whether “disposed to be tilted” instead intends to reference an action/capability of the peeling cutter (as in the cutter blade is configured to be able to tilt/swivel/pivot). That being said, in the event that the term “tilted” is intended to reference an action/capability of the cutter blade (i.e., to tilt/swivel/pivot), the specification as filed does not appear to teach, in a manner so as to demonstrate possession thereof.
In claim 3, in each of lines 3 and 4, as well as in claim 4¸ line 2, and claim 6, each of lines 3 and 4, these claims recite “the cutter blade”. However, the limitation “the cutter blade” lacks sufficient antecedent basis in each of the aforementioned claims, noting that it is unclear which previously-recited cutter blade is intended to be referenced, i.e., the cutter blade set forth in claim 2, or the cutter blade set forth in claim 3, line 2. That being said, in the event that claim 3 (and thus claims 4-7) intends to recite that the peeling cutter (300) includes two cutter blades, then it is noted that it does not appear that the specification as originally filed teaches or supports one peeling cutter (300) that includes two cutter blades.
In claim 8, the claim has been amended to recite “a suction pump to which a suction tube is connected, wherein the suction tube is disposed adjacent to a cutter blade of the peeling cutter to allow the suction pump to suction the protective film peeled from the first area”. However, the specification as originally filed does not appear to provide support for any such “suction pump”. The specification as filed broadly teaches a “suction unit” 600 to which a suction tube 610 is connected. See, for example, page 3, lines 20-25, page 9, line 24 through page 10, line 10, page 13, lines 10-12, and original claim 8. Such suction unit 600 is schematically shown in Figure 3 as a box. That said, there is no express teaching that the suction unit 600 is, specifically, a “suction pump”, nor is it inherent that the suction unit 600 is a “suction pump”, as opposed to being some other device for causing suction (such as a device that creates suction via thermodynamic principles such as a device that heats up a collection receptacle to which the tube 610 leads, and then cools off the collection receptacle, so as to generate a suction effect, or some other device for causing suction other than via a pump), or as opposed to the disclosed “suction unit” 600 only including a collection receptacle, with some other suction-causing element being located outside of the “suction unit 600” and generating suction to cause the peeled/removed film F to travel through the tube 610 to such a collection receptacle, for example.
In claim 10, the claim has been amended to recite “a camera disposed behind the clamp to obtain an image of a peeled area of the first area from which the protective film is removed”. However, the specification as originally filed does not appear to provide support for any such “camera”. The specification as filed broadly teaches a “vision device” 700 that is disposed “behind” the clamp 200 and “behind” the peeling cutter 300 to obtain an image of a peeled area from which the protective film F is removed. See page 4, lines 1-3, page 11, lines 4-7, page 13, lines 21-25, page 14, lines 1-5, and original claim 10. Such vision device 700 is schematically shown in Figure 14 as a box with dashed lines coming out of it. That said, there is no express teaching that the vision device 700 is, specifically, a camera, nor is it inherent that the vision device 700 is a “camera”, as opposed to being another type of imaging device, such as an imaging device that does not include a lens, such as an imaging device that is a lensless diffraction-based imaging device, or such as an imaging device that utilizes compressive sensing.
It is noted that the changes to the claims that were submitted with the 4/30/2026 are in gray-scale. Please note that in the event that Applicant is submitting text changes in a color (such as red or the like) other than black, when those are provided in the case file, they will show up in gray-scale, making them difficult to read. That said, particularly for amended claim 13 as filed 4/30/2026, which has extensive changes, it is difficult to tell what some of the punctuation is, such that it is unclear, for example, in many instances whether Applicant intends to use a semicolon vs. a comma. For example, as discussed in detail in the above rejection of claim 13 under 35 USC 112(b), in lines 8-9, in the limitation “a first unit including a first clamp, a first peeling cutter, and a first driver”, followed by “and a second unit including a second clamp, a second peeling cutter, and a second driver”, it is unclear whether “first driver” and “and a second unit” are separated by a comma, or whether they are instead separated by a semicolon. That being said, it is unclear as set forth in lines 8-9 of claim 13 with what the limitation “and a second unit including a second clamp, a second peeling cutter, and a second driver” is intended to go, i.e., “the apparatus comprising” (from line 6), or “a first unit including…” in line 8. That being said, in the event that “and a second unit including a second clamp, a second peeling cutter, and a second driver” is/are intended to go with “a first unit including” (so as to set forth that the first unit includes a second unit including a second clamp, a second peeling cutter, and a second driver), then it is noted that it does not appear that the specification as originally filed provides support for such.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Claims 1-5 and 11, any of which that were rejected under 35 USC 112 above are as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Pat. No. 3,706,241 to Balmer et al. (hereinafter, “Balmer”).
Balmer teaches an apparatus for “bending” and peeling a connector ribbon (ribbon cable 88 of Balmer) on which a protective film (such as insulation 152; see col. 4, lines 42-53, col. 3, lines 6-14, as well as Figures 5-8, for example) is laminated, the apparatus comprising:
a clamp (84; Figures 1-5 and 10, col. 3, lines 6-9, and col. 3, line 64 through col. 4, line 20, for example; alternatively, 40 and/or 42, see Figures 1-7 and 9 and col. 2, lines 8-32) configured to fix a second area (e.g., the area of 88 that is clamped by 84, or alternatively, the area of 88 that is clamped by 40 and/or 42) of the connector ribbon (88) excluding a first area of the (aforedescribed) connector ribbon (e.g., an area of 88 that is outside of clamp 84, or alternatively, an area of 88 that is outside of clamp 40 and/or 42);
a peeling cutter (including, for example, upper mounting block 38, as well as cutters 44, 46, and optionally including elements 40, 42, re claim 1, such as including 40, 42 when 84 is considered the clamp; see Figures 1-7 and col. 2, lines 8-15, as well as col. 4, lines 43-63, and col. 5, lines 10-30, for example) disposed at one side of the (aforedescribed) first area (see Figures 1-7); and
a driver (22, labeled in Fig. 11) configured to move the peeling cutter (38+44+46 or alternatively, when 84 is the clamp, peeling cutter 38+44+46+40+42) (see at least col. 1, lines 51-63 and col. 2, lines 8-14, col. 4, lines 59-65, and col. 5, lines 42-65, noting that the motor 22 operates the punch press to move plate 16 towards and away from plate 12, and noting that upper mounting block 38 is secured to the lower surface of plate 16 and carries the elements 46, 44, such that when 22 moves 16 up and down, resultantly, the aforedescribed peeling cutter moves up and down),
wherein the (aforedescribed) peeling cutter moves (i.e., is capable of moving) to come in contact with the (aforedescribed) first area (of the ribbon cable 88) and, by the movement of the peeling cutter, simultaneously pushes and bends (which pushing and bending is shown in Figures 5-6, for example) the protective film (152) of at least a portion of the first area. See Figures 5-6 and col. 4, lines 42-62 and col. 5, lines 10-30, for example. See also Figures 2-4. As can be seen from looking at the sequence of Figures 2-6, the vertical movement of the peeling cutter serves to “push and bend” the protective film (152) of at least portion of the first area.
Regarding claim 2, the (aforedescribed) first area (of the ribbon cable 88) “extends in” a horizontal direction (for example, the first area of 88 has a horizontal dimension, such as in the left/right horizontal direction re Figures 2-7, for example);
the driver (22) moves the peeling cutter in an up-down direction (as discussed above; see also col. 1, lines 51-63, col. 2, lines 8-14, col. 4, lines 59-65, and col. 5, lines 42-65, as well as Figures 2-7); and
a cutter blade (such as, for example, one of 44 or 46) of the (aforedescribed) peeling cutter is disposed to be “tilted” relative to the first area (as broadly claimed; see, for example, at least Figures 1-7 noting that the vertical axis of movement of the cutter blade of the peeling cutter 38+44+46, or alternatively, 38+44+46+40+42 when 84 is the clamp, is at an angle to/“tilted” relative to, for example, a horizontal left/right re Figures 2-7 direction in which the ribbon cable 88 extends; such is but one example of a way in which the Balmer reference meets this limitation).
Regarding claim 3 (as best understood in view of the above rejections based on 35 USC 112), the (aforedescribed) peeling cutter includes a body (such as, for example, whichever one of 44 or 46 is not considered the “cutter blade”) connected to (at least via intervening structure such as plate 16) the driver (22) (see at least col. 1, lines 51-68), and (the peeling cutter includes) “a” cutter blade (such as the other of 44 or 46; e.g., where 44 constitutes the claimed “body”, then 46 constitutes the cutter blade; alternatively, where 46 constitutes the claimed “body”, then 44 constitutes the claimed cutter blade) extending from the (aforedescribed) body (see Figures 1-7, for example);
the (aforedescribed) cutter blade (either of 44 or 46) includes a first surface (either of S11 or S12, labeled in the annotated reproduction of Figure 7 below, re cutting blade 44; alternatively, either of S21 or S22, labeled below, re cutting blade 46) and a second surface (the other of S12 or S11 re blade 44, alternatively, the other of S22 or S21 re blade 46) that meet to form an edge (either E1 re 44 labeled below in the annotated reproduction of Figure 7, at the intersection of S11 and S12, or alternatively, E2 re blade 46, labeled below, at the intersection of S21 and S22) of the cutter blade; and
the (aforedescribed) first surface and the (aforedescribed) second surface “extend in” a direction inclined relative to the horizontal direction (see the annotated reproduction of Figure 7 below).
[AltContent: textbox (S22)][AltContent: textbox (S21)]
[AltContent: textbox (E1)][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: textbox (S12)][AltContent: textbox (S11)][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector]
[AltContent: textbox (E2)][AltContent: connector]
PNG
media_image1.png
266
540
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4, the edge (either of E1 or E2, described previously) of the cutter blade (either of 44 or 46) is disposed to be spaced apart from the body (the other of 46, 44) in the horizontal direction. See Figures 5-7, for example.
Regarding claim 5, the peeling cutter (such as 38+44+46+40+42) includes a plurality of ribs (the teeth 52 of element 42; see Figures 1 and 5-7, as well as at least col. 2, lines 8-32, for example) configured to protrude from the first surface (such as the first surface S12; see annotated Figure 7 above, as well as Figures 5-6 and 1, noting that the teeth/ribs 52 of element 42 protrude towards the left re Figures 5-7 from surface S12).
Regarding claim 11, the clamp (such as 40 and/or 42) is (ultimately, via intervening structure) “connected to” the (aforedescribed) driver (22) and moves vertically (when 16 is moved vertically; see Figures 2-7, for example; see also col. 2, lines 8-32 and col 4, lines 32-42, for example);
the apparatus further comprises a base (such as 30) including a groove (such as one 50) (see at least Figure 1) configured to accommodate the connector ribbon (88) and a seating portion (the recessed portions of 30 in which the elements 40, 42 are received when 40, 42 are lowered to perform clamping, as shown in Figures 3-6 and 9; see also col. 2, lines 8-32 and col. 4, lines 7-20, for example) “connected to” the (aforedescribed) groove (see Figures 1, 3-6, and 9) and on which the clamp (40 and/or 42) is seated (as can be seen in Figures 3-6 and 10); and
the clamp (40 and/or 42) fixes the connector ribbon (88) in a state in which the clamp (40 and/or 42) is seated on the (aforedescribed) seating portion. See Figures 3-6 and 9, as well as col. 2, lines 8-32 and col. 4, lines 7-20, for example, and particularly col. 2, lines 29-32.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim 8, as best understood in view of the above rejections based on 35 USC 112, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pat. No. 3,706,241 to Balmer et al. (hereinafter, “Balmer”) as applied to at least claim 1 above, in view of Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art (AAPA).
Balmer teaches all aspects of the presently-claimed invention as were discussed in the above rejection(s) based thereon.
Additionally, it is noted that Balmer teaches that leads (tubes) 100 and 102 are used to provide an air blast in order to clear the stripped portion 152 of the cable end 86 from the cutter tooling (such as via nozzles 104 re lead 102, and via not-illustrated nozzles re lead 100; note that the nozzles 104 are adjacent to the cutter blades 44, 46, as can be seen in at least Figures 2 and 7), and eject the stripped portion from the machine. See col. 5, lines 40-56, as well as col. 3, lines 25-31 and 51-56, for example, as well as at least Figures 1-7.
That said, Balmer teaches the use of air blast (i.e., positive pressure) to clean/remove the stripped protective film 152 from the first area, rather than teaching the use of suction/negative pressure to remove the stripped protective film from the first area. Thus, regarding claim 8, Balmer does not expressly teach “a suction pump to which a suction tube is connected, wherein the suction tube is disposed adjacent to a cutter blade of the peeling cutter to allow the suction pump to suction the protective film peeled from the first area”.
However, it is noted that in the Office Action mailed February 6, 2026, the Examiner took Official Notice that the use of suction (through a tube) to remove waste such as stripped protective film is well-known and widely used, and is a well-known type of cleaning arrangement that functions similarly to the provision of positive pressure, but that has (as is well-known) a vacuum or suction/negative pressure source attached to the tube instead of a blower/positive pressure source, whose benefits are also well-known (e.g., removes the undesirable debris in a way that does not potentially create more mess). Note that this assertion {that the use of suction (through a tube) to remove waste such as stripped protective film is well-known and widely used, and is a well-known type of cleaning arrangement that functions similarly to the provision of positive pressure, but that has (as is well-known) a vacuum or suction/negative pressure source attached to the tube instead of a blower/positive pressure source, whose benefits are also well-known (e.g., removes the undesirable debris in a way that does not potentially create more mess)} is taken to be admitted prior art because Applicant did not previously traverse the Examiner’s assertion. See MPEP section 2144.03, section C, for example. It is noted that a vacuum or suction/negative pressure source would appear to be a suction pump.
In the alternative, in the event that a vacuum or suction/negative pressure source is not inherently a suction pump, Examiner takes Official Notice that a “suction pump” is a well-known and widely-used type of vacuum or suction/negative pressure source.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted a well-known negative pressure source/suction (re AAPA), and/or a well-known “suction pump”, for the positive pressure source (present in Balmer) and attached to the tubes/leads 100/102, as is well-known, for the purpose of providing an alternative well-known arrangement for removing the stripped protective film 152 that has the well-known benefit of removing the undesirable debris in a manner that does not create more mess (i.e., the mess created by “blowing” the debris around), and that has the benefit (re a suction pump) of being widely available.
Claim 10, as best understood in view of the above rejections based on 35 USC 112, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pat. No. 3,706,241 to Balmer et al. (hereinafter, “Balmer”) as applied to at least claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0369271 to Mitchell et al. (hereinafter, “Mitchell”).
Balmer teaches all aspects of the presently-claimed invention as were discussed in the above rejection(s) based thereon.
However, Balmer does not expressly teach a camera re claim 10.
However, Mitchell teaches that it is known to include (in a wire processing module 110 that includes an insulation stripper module 112 and a stripper inspection module 114) a wire strip quality-assurance camera to inspect each wire end to ensure appropriate removal of the insulation layer (see Figure 4 and paragraph 0078).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the wire processing apparatus (that performs stripping/peeling, as discussed in detail above) taught by Balmer with an the stripper inspection module that includes a wire strip quality-assurance camera as taught by Mitchell, for the purpose of enhancing the quality of the produced workpieces of Balmer’s apparatus by facilitating quality assurance inspections to ensure the appropriate removal of the insulation layer, as taught by Mitchell (see Mitchell, paragraph 0078, for example). Note that resultantly, Balmer in view of Mitchell (i.e., “Balmer/Mitchell”) comprises a camera (the wire strip quality-assurance camera taught by Mitchell) that is considered to be “disposed behind” the clamp (84) taught by Balmer no matter where the camera is located, as broadly claimed, which camera is considered to be capable of performing the claimed function of “obtaining an image of a peeled area of the first area from which the protective film is removed”, noting that Mitchell teaches that the element 114 is a wire strip quality-assurance “camera”.
Comment Regarding Non-Indication of Allowable Subject Matter
A thorough search has been conducted re the elected invention/claims. That being said, though no art rejections are considered to presently apply to claims 6-7, 9, 12, and 13, no indication regarding the allowability of the subject matter of claims 6-7, 9, 12, and 13 with respect to the prior art is being made at this time due to the rejection(s) thereof based on 35 USC 112(a), set forth above, particularly given that is unclear what changes to the claims might be necessary to overcome the above-described issues with respect to 35 USC 112(a).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed April 30, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the previous objection to the drawings under 37 CFR 1.83(a) for failing to show the subject matter of claim 2, Applicant has indicated (page 9 of the 4/30/2026 reply) that claim 2 has now been amended to recite “a cutter blade of the peeling cutter is disposed to be tilted relative to the first area”, and that such is shown in the drawings. However, attention is directed to the above objection to the drawings that arose/exists re the amended language of claim 2. Note that the drawings do not show that the cutter blade is disposed to be tilted as in able to be swiveled/pivoted/tilted.
Regarding the previous rejections under 35 USC 112(b) and 35 USC 112(a), Applicant indicates (pages 9-12 of the 4/30/2026 reply) that the amendments to the claims address the concerns. However, attention is directed to the above rejections under 35 USC 112(b) and 35 USC 112(a) for any issues with respect thereto that either remain, or that were newly created via the amendment filed 4/30/2026.
Regarding the previous prior art rejections of claims 1-5 and 11 under 35 USC 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Pat. No. 3,706,241 to Balmer et al. (hereinafter, “Balmer”), and the previous prior art rejections of claims 8 and 10 under 35 USC 103 that also rely (at least in part) on Balmer, Applicant has indicated (page 13 of the 4/30/2026 reply) that these rejections are overcome because Balmer does not teach the amended (claim 1) limitation “wherein the peeling cutter moves to come in contact with the first area and, by the movement of the peeling cutter, simultaneously pushes and bends the protective film of at least a portion of the first area” (with emphasis on the italicized features).
However, such is not persuasive. As noted in the above rejection of claim 1 under 35 USC 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Balmer:
wherein the (aforedescribed) peeling cutter moves (i.e., is capable of moving) to come in contact with the (aforedescribed) first area (of the ribbon cable 88) and, by the movement of the peeling cutter, simultaneously pushes and bends (which pushing and bending is shown in Figures 5-6, for example) the protective film (152) of at least a portion of the first area. See Figures 5-6 and col. 4, lines 42-62 and col. 5, lines 10-30, for example. As can be seen from looking at the sequence of Figures 2-6, the vertical movement of the peeling cutter serves to “push and bend” the protective film (152) of at least portion of the first area.
Applicant goes on to state (on page 13 of the 4/30/2026 reply) the following:
As amended, claim 1 requires that the peeling cutter moves to come in contact with the first area and, by the movement of the peeling cutter, simultaneously pushes and bends the first area while peeling the protective film of at least a portion of the first area, as supported by paragraphs [0006] and [0071] of the published application. That is, a single component - the peeling cutter - carries out two distinct processing operations (bending and peeling) at one time, by its own movement alone.
However, firstly, it is noted that the rejected claims are not method claims. The rejected claims are apparatus claims. Thus, it is noted that all that is necessary to meet functional limitations of such apparatus claims is for the prior art apparatus to be merely capable of performing the claimed function(s). As just discussed, Balmer actually does teach the performance of the broadly claimed functional limitation “wherein the peeling cutter moves to come in contact with the first area and, by the movement of the peeling cutter, simultaneously pushes and bends the protective film of at least a portion of the first area” (see above discussion for further details).
Furthermore, it is noted that Applicant is arguing functions/features which are not claimed. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., that the simultaneous pushing and bending of the protective film occur “while peeling the protective film of at least a portion of the first area”, or that the peeling cutter carries out two distinct processing operations (bending and peeling) at one time, “by its own movement alone”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Care should be taken when crafting future claim language re such functional limitations, noting that as shown in Figures 2-6, the movement of the peeling cutter of Balmer does push and bend the first area during the peeling operation.
Applicant makes a number of arguments in the first paragraph of page 14 of the 4/30/2026 about how Balmer operates. The merits/accuracy of such statements is not being addressed at the present time, noting that such is not relevant to any existing claim language. As just noted above, Applicant’s arguments about what features the presently-claimed apparatus of claim 1 has and about what functions the presently-claimed apparatus of claim 1 must be (merely) capable of carrying out do not accurately reflect the present claim language.
On page 14 of the 4/30/2026 reply, Applicant argues that the Balmer reference is being “dissected” and “recombined” in an impermissible way in order to meet claim 1. However, such is not persuasive, as such is not accurate. There is no modification or dissection/recombination of the apparatus taught by Balmer being asserted in the anticipation rejection of claim 1 under 35 USC 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Balmer, but rather, Balmer “as-is” anticipates present claim 1. Applicant goes on to say that “Balmer simply does not disclose any element that, by its own movement alone, simultaneously bends the workpiece and peels the protective film” and that “Amended claim 1 is therefore not anticipated by Balmer”. However, firstly, the word “alone” does not appear in claim 1, such that Applicant is again arguing features that are not claimed. Furthermore, as discussed in more detail above, Balmer does teach the limitations of claim 1, and particularly (regarding Applicant’s arguments), the amended limitation “wherein the peeling cutter moves to come in contact with the first area and, by the movement of the peeling cutter, simultaneously pushes and bends the protective film of at least a portion of the first area”. See the above discussion for further details, but also note that movement of the peeling cutter, in and of itself/alone, is sufficient to cause the contact/pushing and the shown “bending” of the protective film illustrated in Figures 2-6 of Balmer, as can be seen in Figures 2-6, i.e., pushing down on the protective film results in the pushing/contact between the blade the protective film, and results in the bending of the film that results from that pushing that is shown particularly well in Figures 5-6 (and the sequence of the movement of the cutter blade and the resultant “bending” of the film can be seen as you view the progression of the movement of the cutter blade relative to the workpiece that is depicted in Figures 2-6).
Regarding the rejected dependent claims 2-5, 8, and 10-11, Applicant has asserted that these claims are patentable by virtue of their respective dependencies from claim 1, for the same reasoning that claim 1 is patentable. However, likewise, the same responses to those arguments (set forth hereinabove) apply re the rejected dependent claims 2-5, 8, and 10-11.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. For example, it is noted that the cited Non-Patent Literature article “Imaging Without Lenses” by Stork et al. taches that a wide variety of imaging arrangements exist that are not “cameras” including a lens, and it is noted that the dictionary definition of the term “camera” from the Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, 11th ed., has also been cited.
Applicant's amendment necessitated any new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. 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 ERICA E CADUGAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4474. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 5:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, and via 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, Sunil K Singh can be reached at (571) 272-3460. 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.
/ERICA E CADUGAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3722
eec
June 25, 2026
Prosecution Insights