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 .
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 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.
DETAILED ACTION
This is an AIA application filed June 16, 2023.
The earliest effective filing date of this AIA application is seen as December 17, 2020, the date of the earliest priority application (DENMARK PA202070846) for any claims which are fully supported under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) by the parent application.
The same is similarly true for the following United States provisional, non-provisional, or international PCT patent application(s):
PCT international application number PCT/EP2021/085450 filed December 13, 2021.
The present application is also related to the applications giving rise to the following patent publication(s) (some redundancy may be present):
Office
Application
App. Date
Pub. #
Pub. Date
EP
21836497
12/13/2021
EP 4264350 A1
10/25/2023
EP
PCT/EP2021/085450
12/13/2021
WO 2022128894 A1
06/23/2022
The claims filed September 3, 2026 are entered, currently outstanding, and subject to examination.
This action is in response to the request for continued examination/RCE filing of the same date.
The current status and history of the claims is summarized below:
Last Amendment/Response
Previously
Amended:
none
1-5, 7-10, 12, & 14-23
Cancelled:
none
2, 6, 11, 13, & 24-37
Withdrawn:
none
none
Added:
none
none
Claims 1, 3-5, 7-10, 12, and 14-23 are currently pending and outstanding.
No claims have been amended, cancelled, withdrawn, or added.
Claims 1, 3-5, 7-10, 12, and 14-23 are currently outstanding and subject to examination.
As no changes were made to the claims, the Response to Arguments section, below, primarily contains new portions to the examination of the instant application.
This is a final action and is the third action on the merits.
Allowable subject matter is not indicated below.
Often, in the substance of the action below, formal matters are addressed first, claim rejections second, and any response to arguments third.
Special Definitions for Claim Language - MPEP § 2111.01(IV)
No special definitions are seen as present in the specification regarding the language used in the claims. Consequently, the words and phrases of the claims are given their plain meaning. MPEP §§ 2173.01, 2173.05(a), and 2111.01.
If special definitions are present, Applicant should bring those to the attention of the examiner and the prosecution history with its next response in a manner both specific and particular. In doing so, there will be no mistake, confusion, and/or ambiguity as to what constitutes the special definition(s).
To date, Applicant has provided no indication of special definitions.
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 of this title, 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, 3-5, 7-10, 12, and 14-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 6012621 of Hoium et al. (Hoium, cited by Applicant) in view of U.S. Patent No. 5,390,841 of Horiuchi et al. (Horiuchi).
With respect to claim 1, Hoium (Fig. 1) discloses an apparatus (20) for installing a cable (22) into a duct (26), with the assistance of a fluid within the duct (26), the apparatus comprising:
a blowing chamber (44) having
a cable inlet (right side of 44 where it meets 22),
a cable outlet (at 28, generally), and
a fluid inlet (lower side of 44 where it meets air line 46a) for receiving a supply of pressurized fluid,
wherein the cable outlet is configured to be connected to the duct (per Fig. 1 left);
a pushing drive (drive assembly 40 with upper 62 and lower 60 tractor drives);
a first conveyer part (60) and a second conveyer part (62),
wherein the first conveyer part (60) and the second conveyer part (62) are arranged at opposing sides of a cable guidance space (per the center of Fig. 1) and
wherein one or both of the first conveyer part (60) and the second conveyer part (62) are configured to be driven by the pushing drive of the apparatus and thereby induce a driving force (F1) onto a part of the cable arranged in the cable guidance space ("In a preferred embodiment, an endless chain in each assembly 60, 62 is driven by hydraulic motors 64, 66, respectively, so as to frictionally engage cable 22 and apply the motive pushing force to cable 22." col. 5, ll. 34 and adjacent.),
a clamping arrangement configured to control one or both of the first conveyer part (60) and the second conveyer part (62) (per above re the clamp cylinder 70);
a sensor arrangement (48, 68) for providing one or more sensor input;
a clamping force control comprising one or more controllers ("the control system of apparatus 20 includes control subsystems for: monitoring and controlling the speed of lower and upper tractor drive assemblies 60, 62; monitoring the speed of cable 22; monitoring and controlling system air pressure; and monitoring and controlling the hold down system, such as clamp cylinder 70." col. 6, ll. 18 and adjacent.),
wherein the clamping force control is configured to control the clamping arrangement based on the one or more sensor input ("Apparatus 20 reduces or avoids cable damage (crush, column, and slippage), but allows for sufficiently long runs of continuous cable to be installed. Such balance comes from monitoring and controlling the normal force applied to cable 22, the speed of cable 22, and the speed of cable drive assembly 40." col. 6, ll. 13 and adjacent.),
so as to control a clamping force (Fc) applied onto the cable by the first conveyer part (60) and the second conveyer part (62) according to a first clamping setting while the driving force (F1) is applied onto the cable (according to the foregoing re col. 6, ll. 13 and adjacent.).
Hoium as set forth above does not disclose:
the clamping arrangement comprising at least one clamping drive unit (40, 40a) comprising an electric servomotor.
Horiuchi discloses a method of drawing large-size elongate cable for installation that includes (Figs. 2 and 6, col. 4, l. 56 - col. 5, l. 28 and adjacent):
"In response to the speed command signal, the AC servo driver 25a energizes the servomotor 14a to actuate the cable drawing machine 12a."
As such, use of servomotors in cable installation systems is seen as known in the art. Use of such servomotors is not seen as limited by any specific application, but usable for any application requiring or allowing displacement.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a servomotor along the lines of Hoium in a system according to Hoium as set forth above in order to controllably displace cable installation elements, including a clamping drive unit. This provides one rationale to combine the references.
Another completely independent and separately sufficient rationale arises as follows. In making the combination (above), the combining of prior art elements (listed above) according to known methods (per the references) to yield predictable results (a cable installation device) would occur as each element merely performs the same function in combination as it does separately. MPEP § 2141(III). This additional rationale is a sufficient, a complete, and an explicitly-recognized rationale to combine the references and conclude that the claim is obvious both under the controlling KSR Supreme Court case and MPEP § 2141(III)(A). Current Office policy regarding the determination of obviousness is set forth in the Federal Register notice at 89 Fed. Reg. 14449 (Feb. 27, 2024).
Further, the combination would then provide:
the clamping arrangement comprising at least one clamping drive unit (40, 40a) comprising an electric servomotor.
With respect to claim 3, Hoium in view of Horiuchi as set forth above discloses the apparatus according to claim 1, including one wherein
the clamping force control is configured to control the clamping arrangement to move one or both of the first conveyer part and the second conveyer part towards and away from the cable guidance space so as to control an applied clamping force,
based on said clamping setting and the one or more sensor input.
Hoium is seen as so configured.
For product and apparatus claims, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties and/or functions are presumed to be inherent. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). MPEP § 2112.01(I).
Consequently, because Hoium as set forth above as set forth above provides the structure of claim 3, the combination is seen as also providing the same claimed properties or functions of claim 3.
Unsupported features are seen to directly result from the supported/claimed structures. No authority is known by which unsupported or “naked” functions/characteristics/features can be claimed and subject to exclusive protection.
Below, this analysis is referred to as “same product/same features”.
With respect to claim 4, Hoium in view of Horiuchi as set forth above discloses the apparatus according to claim 1, including one wherein
the clamping force control is configured to control the clamping arrangement to apply a higher clamping force onto the cable (2), such as according to a second,
higher clamping setting which exceeds the first clamping setting,
if predefined criteria is complied with.
Hoium is seen as so configured. Same product/same features.
With respect to claim 5, Hoium in view of Horiuchi as set forth above discloses the apparatus according to claim 4, including one wherein
the predefined criteria comprises a detection and/or estimation of slippage between a jacket of the cable (2) and at least one of the first conveyer part and the second conveyer part.
Claim 5 requires a device constructed according to its immediate parent claim, claim 4, to be operated in a certain manner.
The manner of operating the device does not differentiate an apparatus claim from the prior art. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987) (The preamble of claim 1 recited that the apparatus was “for mixing flowing developer material” and the body of the claim recited “means for mixing ..., said mixing means being stationary and completely submerged in the developer material”. The claim was rejected over a reference which taught all the structural limitations of the claim for the intended use of mixing flowing developer. However, the mixer was only partially submerged in the developer material. The Board held that the amount of submersion is immaterial to the structure of the mixer and thus the claim was properly rejected.). MPEP § 2114(II).
Consequently, claim 5 is rejected on the same grounds as its immediate parent claim, claim 4, as not being differentiated from it.
Below and herein, this analysis is referred to as “intended use”.
With respect to claim 7, Hoium in view of Horiuchi as set forth above discloses the apparatus according to claim 1, including one wherein
the clamping force control is configured to increase the applied clamping setting until a maximum clamping setting is reached.
Intended use per claim 5, above.
With respect to claim 8, Hoium in view of Horiuchi as set forth above discloses the apparatus according to claim 1, including one wherein
the first clamping setting is configured to be at least 20% below a predefined maximum clamping setting for the cable.
Intended use.
With respect to claim 9, Hoium in view of Horiuchi as set forth above discloses the apparatus according to claim 1, including one wherein
the clamping force control is configured to switch between selectable clamping settings, and/or to calculate a higher clamping setting,
if predefined criteria is complied with.
Intended use.
With respect to claim 10, Hoium in view of Horiuchi as set forth above discloses the apparatus according to claim 1, including one wherein
the apparatus comprises a data storage comprising information of one or more selectable clamping settings.
"Hydraulics allow such normal force to be preset, and consistently repeated during operation." col. 2, ll. 39 and adjacent. References to the prior art are based on the last antecedent.
With respect to claim 12, Hoium in view of Horiuchi as set forth above discloses the apparatus according to claim 1, including one wherein
the apparatus comprises a user interface, and
wherein the user interface enables direct and/or indirect selection of a clamping setting between a plurality of selectable clamping settings.
Referring now to FIGS. 22 and 23, various hydraulic control components of control assembly 52 are also illustrated with respect to frame 50. . . . Control module 276 also includes a manually operated up/down control lever 282 for controlling clamp cylinder 70 via hydraulic directional control valve 258 (FIG. 20). col. 11, ll. 5 and adjacent.
With respect to claim 14, Hoium in view of Horiuchi as set forth above discloses the apparatus according to claim 4, including one wherein
an increase of clamping force (Fc) to exceed the first clamping force setting is configured to be provided by the clamping force control while the driving force (F1) is applied onto the cable and during installation of the cable into the duct.
Intended use.
With respect to claim 15, Hoium in view of Horiuchi as set forth above discloses the apparatus according to claim 1, but not one wherein
the clamping force control comprises a first controller comprising a first data processor, and a second controller comprising a second data processor,
wherein the first controller is configured to communicate clamping settings to the second controller based on one or more predefined criteria, and
wherein the second controller is configured to control the clamping arrangement according to the communicated clamping setting and based on the one or more sensor input while the driving force (F1) is applied onto the cable.
Automating a manual activity is not seen as sufficient to distinguish over the prior art. MPEP § 2144.04 (III).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide automation in a system according to Hoium as set forth above in order to standardize or make less burdensome use of the device.
With respect to claim 16, Hoium in view of Horiuchi as set forth above discloses the apparatus according to claim 1, including one wherein
the clamping force control is configured to control the clamping force (Fc) applied onto the cable by the first conveyer part and the second conveyer part according to clamping setting(s) by a feedback control loop,
based on sensor input such as sensor input representative of the present clamping force (Fc) acting on the cable and/or sensor input representative of a slippage between the jacket of the cable (2) and either the first conveyer part of the second conveyer part .
Intended use.
With respect to claim 17, Hoium in view of Horiuchi as set forth above discloses the apparatus according to claim 1, including one wherein
the clamping force control is configured to control a clamping force (Fc) applied onto the cable by the first conveyer part and the second conveyer part according to a plurality of different,
changing settings during a cable installation after the cable has entered the duct inlet and before the cable exits an outlet of the duct (3).
Intended use.
With respect to claim 18, Hoium in view of Horiuchi as set forth above discloses the apparatus according to claim 1, including one wherein
the first clamping setting is an initial clamping setting representing an initial,
lower clamping force to be induced upon startup of the installation of the cable (2) into the duct (3).
Intended use.
With respect to claim 19, Hoium in view of Horiuchi as set forth above discloses the apparatus according to claim 1, including one wherein
the clamping force control is configured to control the clamping arrangement to apply a lower clamping force onto the cable (2), according to a lower clamping setting,
if predefined criteria is complied with during installation of the cable into the duct.
Intended use.
With respect to claim 20, Hoium in view of Horiuchi as set forth above discloses the apparatus according to claim 1, including one wherein
a controller is configured to control the pushing drive to reduce the velocity of which the cable is introduced into the duct by at least 30% but not stop the pushing drive unit,
when the clamping setting reaches a predefined level.
Intended use.
With respect to claim 21, Hoium in view of Horiuchi as set forth above discloses the apparatus according to claim 20, including one wherein
the reduction in velocity is configured to be provided if a slippage between the jacket of the cable (2) and at least one of the first conveyer part and the second conveyer part is detected,
based on sensor input,
to be above a certain amount.
Intended use.
With respect to claim 22, Hoium in view of Horiuchi as set forth above discloses the apparatus according to claim 1, including one wherein
the first clamping setting is configured to be at least 30% below a predefined maximum clamping setting for the cable.
Intended use.
With respect to claim 23, Hoium in view of Horiuchi as set forth above discloses a method of installing a cable into a duct (3), the method including one comprising:
providing an apparatus (1), the apparatus comprising:
-a blowing chamber having a cable inlet,
a cable outlet, and
a fluid inlet for receiving a supply of pressurized fluid;,
-a pushing drive;
-a first conveyer part and a second conveyer part,
wherein the first conveyer part and the second conveyer part are arranged at opposing sides of a cable guidance space and wherein one or both of the first conveyer part and the second conveyer part are configured to be driven by the pushing drive of the apparatus and thereby induce a driving force (F1) onto a part of the cable arranged in the cable guidance space,
wherein one or both of the first conveyer part and the second conveyer part is configured to be moved towards and away from the cable guidance space;
-a clamping arrangement configured to control one or both of the first conveyer part and the second conveyer part, the clamping arrangement comprising at least one clamping drive unit (40, 40a) comprising an electric servomotor;
-a sensor arrangement for providing one or more sensor input;
-a clamping force control system comprising one or more controllers;
the method further comprising:
-connecting the duct (3) to the cable outlet to allow fluid to enter from the blowing chamber and into the duct;
-providing one or more data inputs, and
wherein one or more initial clamping settings for an initial clamping force (Fc) to be applied to the cable (2) by the first conveyer part and the second conveyer part is provided based on the one or more data inputs,-arranging the cable in an installation space;
-providing a fluid flow into the duct (3) through the blowing chamber; and
-starting the pushing drive to induce the driving force (F1) onto the cable;
wherein the clamping force control controls the clamping arrangement to induce the initial clamping force (Fc) on the cable in the cable guidance space by the first conveyer part and the second conveyer part; and
wherein the clamping force control increases the clamping force applied onto the cable in the cable guidance space based on the one or more sensor input if predetermined criteria is complied with.
The method of claim 23 above would naturally occur in the use of a device as set forth in claim 1, above, in conjunction with the quote in the last clause.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed September 3, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive and the claim rejections are not rebutted.
Applicant argues that:
Accordingly, the combination of Hoium and Horiuchi fails to teach "a clamping arrangement ... comprising at least one clamping drive unit ... comprising an electric servomotor" or a "clamping force control ... configured to control the clamping arrangement based on the one or more sensor inputs" as recited by claim 1. The Examiner's assertion that Horiuchi's servomotors can be used "for any application requiring or allowing displacement" is unsupported by any teaching in Horiuchi and improperly fills the gap in the prior art with the conclusion that the claim is obvious.
Examiner response: Applicant errs in its conclusion as Horiuchi’s motors specifically provide for such displacement. col. 2, ll. 51 and adjacent, col. 4, ll. 56 and adjacent both have servomotors controlling cable drawing speed for the former and crawler belts for the latter. Indeed, servomotors are seen as precision-based machine elements to control machine operation.
The rejection is not rebutted.
In stark contrast, Horiuchi's closed-loop AC servomotors operate on an entirely different principle. As disclosed in Horiuchi, each servomotor is controlled by an AC servo driver 25a, an error counter 23a, and a shaft encoder 26a. See Horiuchi, Fig. 6, col. 4, I. 58 - col. 5, I. 20. The error counter continuously compares commanded pulses with feedback encoder pulses, and "the AC servo driver 25a energizes the servomotor 14a" to eliminate any positional error. id. This is an inherently rigid, position-locked control system designed to maintain exact commanded speed regardless of opposing load. When a cable encounters resistance, the servo controller detects the resulting velocity error and automatically increases current to the motor to force the drive shaft to maintain its commanded speed. Substituting a closed-loop servo actuator for Hoium's clamp cylinder 70 and its dedicated manually valved hydraulic branch shown in FIG. 20 would replace the fixed, limited normal force that makes Hoium's controlled-slip mechanism work with an actively regulated actuator. Rather than maintaining a passive, preset clamping force that allows the drive to safely slip when an obstruction is encountered-as Hoium's fluidic compliance permits-a servo-driven clamping actuator operating under closed-loop control would actively resist any change in position, destroying the F=pN slip-before-column-failure principle on which Hoium's entire cable-protection design depends. This would directly cause the catastrophic accordion failure or cable crushing that Hoium's entire design is intended to prevent. The proposed modification thus renders Hoium unsatisfactory for its intended purpose of protecting delicate fiber optic cables during installation.
Examiner response: Using servomotors to drive/operate/control a clamping drive unit would not prevent Hoium’s cable conveying apparatus from conveying cables. The rejection is not rebutted.
Hoium and Horiuchi address completely different problems in vastly different technical contexts. Hoium is directed to a portable, self-contained pneumatic duct-blowing and tractor- pushing machine for installing lightweight fiber optic cables into underground innerducts. See Hoium, col. 1, II. 5-8. Horiuchi, by contrast, is directed to multi-station speed synchronization across multi-kilometer open-air trenches for laying massive, multi-ton 500 kV electrical power cables using distributed caterpillar machines spaced 100 meters apart. See Horiuchi, col. 3, II. 56-60 (describing installation of "an oil-filled cable of DC 500 kV, which has an outside diameter of 130 mm and a weight of 45 kg/m, over a distance of 5000 m"). Horiuchi's AC servomotors are employed solely to solve the problem of synchronizing distant, independent pulling stations spread over several miles of open ground, as shown in Horiuchi FIG. 2, which depicts the distributed multi-station layout with spaced machines 12a and 12b, cable rollers 13, a separate hydraulic machine 19, and separate control panels 20 and 21. Horiuchi contains no teaching or suggestion that an AC servomotor offers any advantage for a single, self-contained duct-blowing unit like Hoium. The Examiner's "predictable results" rationale fails because Horiuchi never applies a servomotor to clamping-as shown in Horiuchi FIGS. 3, 4, and 5, the servomotors are coupled to drive gears 30 only through flexible shafts 37 (FIG. 3), while clamping is performed by a torque wrench 36 shown as a hand lever on bolt 35 (FIG. 4), with the crawler belts 31 closing on cable 11 via sliders 33 (FIG. 5). There is no teaching in either reference that would lead a person of ordinary skill in the art to use a servomotor for sensor-based clamping force control.
Examiner response: Hoium conveys cables and Horiuchi draws them. They are seen as being related to similar arts having similar issues/problems/solutions. The rejection is not rebutted.
The Examiner has alleged that claims 3 and 4 are met under the "same product/same features" inherency doctrine of In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 195 USPQ 430 (CCPA 1977). However, inherency requires that the allegedly inherent characteristic "necessarily flows from the teachings of the applied prior art.” Ex parte Levy, 17 USPQ2d 1461, 1464 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1990) (emphasis in original). See also MPEP § 2112(IV). The fact that a certain result "may occur or be present in the prior art is not sufficient to establish the inherency of that result.” In re Rijckaert, 9 F.3d 1531, 1534, 28 USPQ2d 1955, 1957 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Claim 3 recites that "the clamping force control is configured to control the clamping arrangement to move one or both of the first conveyer part and the second conveyer part towards and away from the cable guidance space so as to control an applied clamping force, based on said clamping setting and the one or more sensor input.” Claim 4 recites that "the clamping force control is configured to control the clamping arrangement to apply a higher clamping force onto the cable (2), such as according to a second, higher clamping setting which exceeds the first clamping setting, if predefined criteria is complied with.” These are specific control configurations that require sensor-based, dynamic adjustment of clamping force-features that are affirmatively contrary to Hoium's fixed, preset hydraulic clamping pressure. Indeed, Hoium FIG. 19 provides affirmative evidence that no control path to clamp cylinder 70 exists: the electronic control system 240 receives inputs only from prox switches 112 and 184 and outputs only to solenoid 244, which controls the drive motors-not the clamp cylinder. The alleged function therefore cannot "necessarily flow[]" from Hoium's structure, and the Examiner's bare assertion that "Hoium is seen as so configured" is contradicted by Hoium's own drawing. The Examiner has provided no basis in fact or technical reasoning to support a finding that these features necessarily flow from the combination. Claims 5, 7-9, 14, and 16-22: Intended Use
Examiner response: Claim 3 does not rely on inherency. Neither is claim 4. The rejection is not rebutted.
The Examiner has alleged that claims 5, 7-9, 14, and 16-22 are met under the "intended use" doctrine of Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). However, Masham applies only "if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim.” MPEP § 2114(11). As demonstrated above, the prior art combination does not teach all structural limitations of claim 1, from which these claims depend. Moreover, these claims recite that the apparatus is "configured to" perform specific control functions. Such "configured to" language defines the structural and control architecture of the apparatus, not merely an intended manner of operation. For example, claim 16 recites that "the clamping force control is configured to control the clamping force (Fc) applied onto the cable by the first conveyer part and the second conveyer part according to clamping setting(s) by a feedback control loop, based on sensor input.” This requires a specific feedback control loop architecture that is not present in Hoium's open-loop hydraulic system or Horiuchi's manual bolt-and-torque-wrench clamping mechanism. Claims 10 and 12: Data Storage and User Interface
Examiner response: The explanation in the action is seen as providing sufficient indication that no additional structural elements are added to the claims by the language of such claims.
"[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987) (The preamble of claim 1 recited that the apparatus was "for mixing flowing developer material" and the body of the claim recited "means for mixing ..., said mixing means being stationary and completely submerged in the developer material.” The claim was rejected over a reference which taught all the structural limitations of the claim for the intended use of mixing flowing developer. However, the mixer was only partially submerged in the developer material. The Board held that the amount of submersion is immaterial to the structure of the mixer and thus the claim was properly rejected.).
MPEP § 2114(II).
The rejection is not rebutted.
For claim 10, the Examiner has alleged that Hoium's teaching that "[h]ydraulics allow such normal force to be preset, and consistently repeated during operation" discloses "a data storage comprising information of one or more selectable clamping settings.” Office Action, page 10. However, a preset hydraulic pressure is not a "data storage" containing "selectable clamping settings" as recited by claim 10. Hoium FIG. 22 shows control module 276 as comprising analog gauges 278a-c together with manual levers 280 and 282-it contains no digital memory and no stored selectable settings. Hoium's hydraulic system maintains a fixed pressure; it does not store multiple selectable settings. For claim 12, the Examiner has alleged that Hoium's "manually operated up/down control lever 282 for controlling clamp cylinder 70" discloses "a user interface" that "enables direct and/or indirect selection of a clamping setting between a plurality of selectable clamping settings.” Office Action, page 10. However, a manual hydraulic lever that moves a clamp cylinder up or down is not a user interface for selecting among a plurality of stored clamping settings. As shown in Hoium FIG. 22, lever 282 is a simple mechanical lever that actuates directional control valve 258 (FIG. 20) to move the clamp cylinder-it does not select among discrete, predefined settings. Claim 12 requires selection "between a plurality of selectable clamping settings," which implies discrete, predefined settings-not continuous manual adjustment of hydraulic pressure.
Examiner response: Without the data being stored, the normal force could not be consistently repeated.
The rejection is not rebutted.
For claim 15, the Examiner has alleged that "[a]utomating a manual activity is not seen as sufficient to distinguish over the prior art" under MPEP § 2144.04(111). Office Action, page 11. However, claim 15 recites specific structural elements: "a first controller comprising a first data processor, and a second controller comprising a second data processor, wherein the first controller is configured to communicate clamping settings to the second controller based on one or more predefined criteria, and wherein the second controller is configured to control the clamping arrangement according to the communicated clamping setting and based on the one or more sensor input while the driving force (F1) is applied onto the cable.” This is not mere automation of a manual activity-it is a specific dual-processor control architecture with defined communication and control relationships that is entirely absent from the prior art.
Examiner response: Setting a clamping force may be done manually or by a system that substitutes for such manual operation. That is what is seen as present in claim 15.
The rejection is not rebutted.
Independent claim 23 recites a method wherein "the clamping force control increases the clamping force applied onto the cable in the cable guidance space based on the one or more sensor input if predetermined criteria is complied with.” This active, sensor-based increase of clamping force is affirmatively contrary to Hoium's teaching of maintaining a "predetermined and fixed pressure" for the clamp cylinder. Hoium, col. 12, II. 4-18. The Examiner's assertion that "[t]he method of claim 23 above would naturally occur in the use of a device as set forth in claim 1" is unsupported because, as demonstrated above, the combination does not teach the apparatus of claim 1.
Examiner response: Per examiner’s remarks above, the rejection of claim 23 is seen as valid. The rejection is not rebutted.
Applicant's arguments with regards to the remaining claims all rely upon the arguments set forth above. Consequently, these remaining arguments as seen as being addressed by the examiner's corresponding remarks.
Applicant’s remaining arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references. As such, the examiner makes no remarks regarding them.
Conclusion
Applicant’s publication US 6012621 A published January 11, 2000 was previously cited.
No new art is cited.
This is a request for continued examination/RCE of the current application . All claims are drawn to the same invention claimed in the earlier application and could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the earlier application. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action in this case. See MPEP § 706.07(b). 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW JORDAN whose telephone number is (571) 270-1571. The examiner can normally be reached most days 1000-1800 PACIFIC TIME ZONE (messages are returned).
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. While examiner does not examine over the phone (see 37 C.F.R. § 1.2), examiner is glad to clarify or discuss issues so long as it forwards prosecution.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Thomas (Tom) HOLLWEG can be reached at (571) 270-1739. 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.
/Andrew Jordan/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874
V: (571) 270-1571 (Pacific time)
F: (571) 270-2571
September 13, 2026
