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
Claims 10-12 & 13-15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected drain wire device of a second embodiment and a method for correcting a drain wire, respectively, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 04/30/2026.
Claim Status
In response to an election/restriction filed on 04/30/2026, claims 1-15 are pending, claims 1-9 are under examination, and claims 10-15 have been withdrawn.
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:
“a retention device” in claim 1
“a gripping member” in claims 1-9
“a drive device” in claim 1
“a moving device” in claim 1
“a rotating device” in claim 1
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
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-9 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.
Claim 1 is rejected for being indefinite as it recites the limitation “a gripping member configured to be capable of gripping the drain wire on a predetermined axis” in lines 5-6. The limitation “predetermined axis” renders the scope of the claim unclear because it is ambiguous whether the featured axis is interpreted as:
The axis in which the drain wire runs along (axial direction of the wire)
The axis in which the gripping member moves along (perpendicular to the wire)
As such, it is not clear how the claimed limitation is intended to be interpreted. For the purpose of this office action, the claim has been examined, as best understood, to encompass any of the two potential reasonable interpretations noted above. For the same reason, dependent claims 2-9 therefore are rejected as well by virtue of their dependency and recitation of the limiting language.
Claim 1 is rejected as it recites the limitation “a gripping force increased from that in the squeeze control” in lines 20-21. The limitation “that” renders the scope of the claim unclear because it is ambiguous if “that is referring to the gripping force from the squeeze control. For the same reason, claim 2 which recites the limitation “that”, and all dependent claims 3-9, respectively, thereof are rejected as well by virtue of their dependencies.
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 2 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 1, which claim 2 is dependent upon, recites the limitation “the controller configured to execute… a rotation control… with a gripping force increased from that in the squeeze control” in lines 15-23. Claim 2 recites the limitation “the controller is configured to, in the squeeze control, cause the gripping member to grip the drain wire with a gripping force weaker than that in the rotation control”. Essentially, claim 1 recites the gripping force of the rotation control, in relation to the squeeze control, to be of a greater force. Claim 2, in a separate point of view, recites the gripping force of the squeeze control, in relation to the rotation control, to be of a weaker force.
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 § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-4 & 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Iwasaki (J.P. Patent Application Publication 2016123214 A).
Regarding claim 1, Iwasaki discloses a drain wire correcting device (Title: Wire Alignment Method and Wire Alignment Device), comprising:
PNG
media_image1.png
396
692
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a retention device (sheath chuck 3, p. 2, ll. 17) configured to retain a sheathed portion (insulating sheath 22, p. 2, ll. 12) of a multi-core cable (shield wire 2, p. 2, ll. 7) (p. 2, ll. 23-24, “the sheath chuck 3 is provided movably between a fixing position where the sheath 22 is fixed with the sheath 22 interposed therebetween”), the multi-core cable including the sheathed portion covered with a sheath and a drain wire (electric wire 21, p. 2, ll. 6) exposed from the sheathed portion (FIG. 2 depicts electric wire 21 exposed from the insulating sheath 22);
PNG
media_image2.png
292
575
media_image2.png
Greyscale
a gripping member (pair of rollers 5a & 5b, p. 2, ll. 18) configured to be capable of gripping the drain wire (p. 2, ll. 29, “the pair of rollers 5a and 5b are provided to hold the plurality of electric wires 21 between them”) on a predetermined axis (longitudinal direction Y1, p. 2, ll. 32);
a drive device (roller opening/closing cylinder 8, p. 4, ll. 40) configured to drive the gripping member so as to grip or release the drain wire (p. 4, ll. 40, “roller opening/closing cylinder 8 to move the pair of rollers 5a and 5b… from open position to the closed position”);
a moving device (moving cylinders 10 & 11, p. 3, ll. 38-39) configured to move at least one of the multi-core cable retained by the retention device and the gripping member along the axis (p. 3, ll. 38-39, “moving cylinders 10 and 11… serve as driving sources for moving the pair of rollers 5a and 5b in the longitudinal direction Y1”);
a rotating device (support block 7a & 7b, p. 3, ll. 4-9) configured to rotate at least one of the multi-core cable retained by the retention device and the gripping member around the axis (p. 3, ll. 4-9, “roller 5a is rotatably supported by the support block 7a” and “roller 5b is rotatably supported by the support block 7b”) (p. 2, ll. 35, “electric wires are rotated while the pair of rollers 5a and 5b rotate”); and
a controller (control/controller 20, p. 4, ll. 15) configured to control the drive device, the moving device and the rotating device (p. 4, ll. 15-17, “control part 20 as a control means which controls the cylinders 4, 8-11, 13, and 14”),
wherein the controller is configured to execute:
a squeeze control of moving the gripping member along the axis relative to the multi-core cable while the gripping member is in contact with the drain wire, thereby squeezing the drain wire toward a distal end side (p. 5, ll. 25-30, “control unit 20 controls… to move the pair of rollers 5a and 5b toward the distal end side of the electric wire 21. Accordingly, the pair of rollers 5a and 5b again move toward the distal end side of the plurality of electric wire 21 while the plurality of electric wires 21 are sandwiched between”; Iwasaki discloses this process as step S9, corresponding to the first ironing step. Iwasaki also discloses in p. 6, ll. 14-15 that this ironing step can be “performed a plurality of times); and
a rotation control, after the squeeze control, of causing the gripping member to grip the drain wire, (p. 5, ll. 36-42, “control unit 20 controls… 5a and 5b away from the tip of the electric wire 21… arranged them in a row”; Iwasaki discloses this process as step S12, corresponding to the second ironing step) with a gripping force increased from that in the squeeze control, and rotating the gripping member around the axis relative to the sheathed portion (p. 6, ll. 11-13, “the twisting of the electric wire 21 may not be eliminated by only one first ironing process. If the force which pinches the electric wire 21 by the rollers 5a and 5b is increased, the twist of the electric wire 21 can be eliminated”; p. 6, ll. 11-16, Iwasaki discloses that the first ironing process can be done with a “weak force”. Thus, the second ironing process has a weaker gripping force than that of the first ironing process).
(Iwasaki’s FIG. 4, below, was translated by google translate, and FIG.5 depicts the process of the first and second ironing process, having identical steps in translating the rollers 5a and 5b up and down the axis Y1 of the electric wire 21).
PNG
media_image3.png
604
685
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
750
432
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Iwasaki further discloses the drain wire correcting device according to claim 1, wherein the controller is configured to, in the squeeze control, cause the gripping member to grip the drain wire with a gripping force weaker than that in the rotation control (p. 6, ll. 11-13, Iwasaki discloses a second ironing process and mentions “the twisting of the electric wire 21 may not be eliminated by only one first ironing process. If the force which pinches the electric wire 21 by the rollers 5a and 5b is increased, the twist of the electric wire 21 can be eliminated”; p. 6, ll. 11-16, Iwasaki discloses that the first ironing process can be done with a “weak force”. Thus, the second ironing process has a weaker gripping force than that of the first ironing process).
Regarding claim 3, Iwasaki further discloses the device according to claim 1, as detailed above, wherein the controller is configured to, in the rotation control, drive the moving device (p. 4, ll. 15-17 disclose that control part 20 controls a moving device, namely the cylinders 10 & 11 which move) so that the gripping member pulls the drain wire toward the distal end side of the drain wire (p. 3, ll. 38-39, “moving cylinders 10 and 11… serve as driving sources for moving the pair of rollers 5a and 5b in the longitudinal direction Y1”; FIG. 5 depicts rollers 5a & 5b moving in the Y1 axis, towards the distal end of the wire).
Regarding claim 4, Iwasaki discloses the drain wire correcting device according to claim 1, as detailed above, wherein the controller is configured to, after the rotation control, execute a release control of causing the gripping member to grip the drain wire with a gripping force weaker than that in the rotation control (p. 6, ll. 11-16, Iwasaki discloses the first ironing process having a weaker grip than the second ironing process), rotating the gripping member (p. 2, ll. 29, Iwasaki discloses the gripping members as a pair of rollers 5a & 5b able to rotate) around the axis relative to the sheathed portion (longitudinal direction Y1, p. 2, ll. 32), and moving the gripping member along the axis toward the distal end side of the drain wire (p. 5, ll. 1-2, “to move the pair of rollers 5a and 5b toward the distal end side of the electric wire 21; ), thereby releasing the gripping member from the drain wire (FIG. 5B depicts the rollers 5a & 5b moving towards the distal end of the wire, resulting in the release of the electric wire 21).
Regarding claim 6, Iwasaki discloses the drain wire correcting device according to claim 1, as detailed above, wherein the controller executes the rotation control (second ironing process, p. 5, ll. 36-42; Iwasaki discloses the controller controlling the second ironing process) while the gripping member is positioned at the distal end portion of the drain wire (FIG. 5 depicts rollers 5a & 5b moving in the Y1 axis, towards the distal end of the wire).
Regarding claim 7, Iwasaki further discloses the device according to claim 1, as detailed above, wherein the controller starts the squeeze control while the gripping member is positioned at a root portion of the drain wire (FIG. 5A depicts the starting position of the rollers 5a & 5b at a root portion, exposed end of the electric wires 21 closest to the sheath 22).
Regarding claim 8, Iwasaki further discloses the device according to claim 1, as detailed above, wherein in the squeeze control, the controller rotates the gripping member around the axis relative to the sheathed portion (p. 3, ll. 4-9, “roller 5a is rotatably supported by the support block 7a” and “roller 5b is rotatably supported by the support block 7b”) (p. 2, ll. 35, “electric wires are rotated while the pair of rollers 5a and 5b rotate”) while moving the gripping member toward the distal end side of the drain wire while the gripping member is in contact with the drain wire (p. 5, ll. 25-30, “control unit 20 controls… to move the pair of rollers 5a and 5b toward the distal end side of the electric wire 21. Accordingly, the pair of rollers 5a and 5b again move toward the distal end side of the plurality of electric wire 21 while the plurality of electric wires 21 are sandwiched between”; also disclosed as first ironing process S9).
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwasaki, and further in view of Rohrbach et al (W.O. Patent Application Publication 0062381 A1) hereinafter Rohrbach.
Regarding claim 5, Iwasaki discloses the drain wire correcting device according to claim 4, as detailed above.
However, Iwasaki fails to disclose the device wherein a moving speed of the gripping member relative to the drain wire in the squeeze control is faster than a moving speed of the gripping member relative to the drain wire in the release control.
Rohrbach discloses a cable processing device (Title: Method for Controlling a Cable Treating Device, Cable Treating Device and System Encompassing such a Cable Treating Device) wherein a moving speed of the gripping members (two drive rollers 22, p. 2, ll. 41) may be altered to a faster/slower speed (p. 2, ll. 40-42, “the feed speed of the wire is generated by two drive rollers driven by a gear, The feed rate is mechanically synchronized and varies with regard to the coil operation and the cutting operation”).
PNG
media_image5.png
581
839
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Iwasaki discloses a wire alignment method and device that comprises of a sheath chuck to retain a sheathed portion of a wire and a gripping member, made by two clamping members physically translate relative to one another to advance a wire in a distal direction. Rohrbach discloses a cable treating device that comprises of a two-drive rolling feed that rotate to advance the wire in a distal direction. Although the mechanisms differ in implementation, both teach controlled wire feed/advancement with respect to the gripping members, performing the same overall function and result to the wire. Furthermore, Rohrbach teaches that the speed of feed may be varied depending on coil operation. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to take the varied speed options for the gripping members of Rohrbach and apply it to Iwasaki’s wire device to allow for slip prevention and varied straightening performance as different speeds control the longitudinal force applied to a wire.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwasaki, and further in view of Martin et al (U.S. Patent Publication 10587101 B2) hereinafter Martin.
Regarding claim 9, Iwasaki discloses the drain wire correcting device according to claim 1, as detailed above, wherein:
the gripping member includes:
a first clamp (roller 5a, p. 2, ll. 18) including a first gripping portion (outer surface of roller 5a, as depicted in FIG. 2 which comes into contact with electric wire 21); and
a second clamp (roller 5b, p. 2, ll. 18) including a second gripping portion (outer surface of roller 5b, as depicted in FIG. 2 which comes into contact with electric wire 21) and is arranged so as to face the first gripping portion (FIG. 2 depict the pair of rollers 5a & 5b such that they face each other and “sandwich” the electric wire 21 between the two rollers); and
the drive device is configured to move the first clamp and the second clamp toward or away from each other (roller opening/closing cylinder 8, p. 4, ll. 40).
However, Iwasaki fails to disclose the gripping member with clamps having a gripping portion that is notched in a shape corresponding to the cross-sectional shape of the drain wire.
Martin discloses an apparatus (Title: Cable Processing Apparatus and Method Therefore) wherein the gripping members (second cable clamp 120, col. 5, ll. 8) includes:
A first clamp roller (first portion 120A, col. 6, ll. 17) including a first gripping portion (FIG. 7 depicts first portion 120A having a portion labeled as “GRIP”) that is notched in a shape corresponding to a cross-sectional shape of the drain wire (FIG. 9C depicts first portion shaped to conform around the cross-sectional area of the cable); and
A second clamp roller (second portion 120B, col. 6, ll. 18) including a second gripping portion (FIG. 7 depicts second portion 120B having a portion labeled as “GRIP”) that is notched in a shape corresponding to a cross-sectional shape of the drain wire (FIG. 9C depicts second portion shaped to conform around the cross-sectional area of the cable) and is arranged so as to face the first gripping portion (FIG. 9C depicts clamp portions 120A and 120B arranged as to face each other).
PNG
media_image6.png
298
462
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
267
540
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Iwasaki discloses a wire alignment method and device that comprises of a sheath chuck to retain a sheathed portion of a wire and a gripping member, made by two clamping members that is capable of being controlled by a control unit to driven, rotated, and moved in multiply directions by a plurality of cylinders. Iwasaki also discloses the gripping member having different levels of force during the clamping process, namely a weaker first ironing process and a stronger second ironing process. Martin discloses a cable processing device with a gripping member, configured with notched shapes corresponding to a cross-sectional shape of a wire on each clamp. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to take the notched cross-sectional shape of Martin and apply it to the clamps of Iwasaki to achieve predictable results, greatly improving the ability of the clamp to securely hold and align the wire while also preventing unwanted movement during use.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EUGENE REY D LEGASPI whose telephone number is (571)272-2956. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8-5PM.
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 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.
/E.D.L./Examiner, Art Unit 3729 /THOMAS J HONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3729
Prosecution Insights