DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group I, claims 1-15 and 17-20 in the reply filed on 03/18/2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
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.
Claim 8 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 8 recites the limitation "the row of rollers" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-7, 9-13, 15, 17, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klages et al. (WO 2021/069416) in view of Scott (US 2002/0084020).
As to claims 1 and 15, Klages et al. discloses a device for a continuously closed arrangement of printed tube about a prolate object (page 1, lines 3-4, abstract) comprising; a guide passage for conveying the tube piece in the longitudinal direction and to open the tube during conveying through milling forces (see page 34, lines 4-13); and a sensor that is transversely oriented to the longitudinal direction (see pages 39 and 40, sensor 106). The device can comprise a printer (see 200 of Fig.).
Klages et al. fails to teach the sensor detects a trailing end of the piece of tubing during conveying by exposing the sensor and to detect the inserted prolate object by blocking the sensor as required by claim 1.
Scott teaches a photoelectric sensor arrangement for detecting transported objects moving through an apparatus. Scott teaches a first photoelectric sensor (22) positioned along a transport path, wherein light emitted by the sensor is blocked by a label and , when a gap between adjacent labels reach the sensor, light is transmitted and detected by the senor. Scott further teaches that the resulting signal is used by a controller to control operation of the transport mechanism. Scott further teaches a second photoelectric sensor (46) positioned adjacent a passthrough through which an object travels. When an object passes in front of the sensor, a signal is generated and transmitted to a control unit, thereby detecting the presence and position of the object by interruption of the sensing path (see 0028 and 0029).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the photoelectric sensing arrangement of Scott into the sleeve applicator system of Klages in order to automatically determine when a sleeve has reached a desired position within the apparatus and confirm insertion of the wire or other elongated object into the sleeve. One having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to improve automation, increase accuracy, verify successful insertion and improve overall process reliability.
As toa claims 2 and 3, Klages et al. teaches the guide passage comprises a carriage (124 of Fig 7B) which is movable transversely to the longitudinal direction (see Fig. 5 and 7B, 0193-0194 of translation) and which a row of rollers extend in the longitudinal direction (see 123 of Fig. 7B, 0194 of translation), and the piece of tubing is guided between the row of rollers on a side of the guide passage opposite the carriage that provides flexing forces.
As to claim 4, Scott teaches the system comprises two sensors spaced apart.
As to claim 6, the blocking of the sensor takes place without contact (see Scott).
As to claim 7, the sensor comprises a light barrier transverse to the longitudinal direction (the sensor uses a light beam, see Scott).
As to claim 9, Klages teaches the use of infrared signals.
As to claim 10, Klages teaches releasing the conductor carrying an applied sleeve following insertion. Scott teaches a controller responsive to sensor outputs and configured to stop machine operations in response to detected events. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the controller to release the wire carrying the sleeve in response to detection of the sleeve position and/or object position in order to automate operations and reduce operator intervention.
As to claims 11 and 20, Klages et al. teaches after application of the sleeve, further processing may include heat-sealing. Providing an indication that the processed completed such as visual or audible signal is a well-known automation feature especially since Scott teaches the use of an indicator based on the sensor’s signal.
As to claim 12-13, the distance between the rollers can be controlled using a width senso (see Klages).
As to claim 17, the object is a conducting element (see abstract of Klages).
Claim(s) 1, 6-7, 9-15, 17, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schnake et al. (US 2015/0284126) in view of Scott (US 2002/0084020).
As to claims 1 and 15, Schnake et al. discloses a device for circumferentially closed arrangement of a printed piece of tubing (sleeve) around a prolate object (wire, see abstract), the device comprising: a guide passage to convey a piece of tubing along a longitudinal direction (see 106 of Fig. 10 and open the piece of tubing (see Fig. 3b-3D, 6B-6D, 0030, 0066, 0069-0071) by inserting a mandrel and using dies. Schnake et al. teaches the sleeve is opened by mechanical deformation using sleeve-opening dies, which compress and deform the sleeve into an open tubular configuration where a wire (elongated object, 170) is inserted into the sleeve. Schnake further teaches a printer configured to print on a product (see 0031-0033).
Schnake et al. fails to teach the sensor detects a trailing end of the piece of tubing during conveying by exposing the sensor and to detect the inserted prolate object by blocking the sensor as required by claim 1.
Scott teaches a photoelectric sensor arrangement for detecting transported objects moving through an apparatus. Scott teaches a first photoelectric sensor (22) positioned along a transport path, wherein light emitted by the sensor is blocked by a label and , when a gap between adjacent labels reach the sensor, light is transmitted and detected by the senor. Scott further teaches that the resulting signal is used by a controller to control operation of the transport mechanism. Scott further teaches a second photoelectric sensor (46) positioned adjacent a passthrough through which an object travels. When an object passes in front of the sensor, a signal is generated and transmitted to a control unit, thereby detecting the presence and position of the object by interruption of the sensing path (see 0028 and 0029).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the photoelectric sensing arrangement of Scott into the sleeve applicator system of Schnake in order to automatically determine when a sleeve has reached a desired position within the apparatus and confirm insertion of the wire or other elongated object into the sleeve. One having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to improve automation, increase accuracy, verify successful insertion and improve overall process reliability.
As to claim 6, the blocking of the sensor takes place without contact (see Scott).
As to claims 7 and 9, the sensor comprises a light barrier transverse to the longitudinal direction (the sensor uses a light beam, see Scott) and uses a transmitter to transmit a signal (see 0028).
As to claim 10, Schnake teaches releasing a wire carrying an applied sleeve following insertion. Scott teaches a controller responsive to sensor outputs and configured to stop machine operations in response to detected events. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the controller to release the wire carrying the sleeve in response to detection of the sleeve position and/or object positon in order to automate operations and reduce operator intervention.
As to claims 11 and 20, Schnake et al. teaches after application of the sleeve, further processing may include application of heat for shrink fitting the sleeve to the wire (see 0072). Providing an indication that the processed completed such as visual or audible signal is a well-known automation feature especially since Scott teaches the use of an indicator based on the sensor’s signal.
As to claim 12, Schnake et al. teaches replacement sleeve opening dies having different sizes to accommodate differently sized sleeves and objects (see 0012). It would have been obvious to control the width depending on the object or sleeve size.
As to claim 13, Scott teaches sensor-based control of machine operation. Adjusting sensor sensitivity according to dimensions of the detected article would have been obvious in order to improve detection reliability.
As to claim 14, controllers receiving sensor signals include memory for storing the signals and operational information.
As to claim 17, the object is a wire (see Schnake).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5 and 18-19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the cited prior art fails to teach the sensors and transmitters are arranged along in the longitudinal direction between rows of rollers as required.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Cachet I Proctor whose telephone number is (571)272-0691. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7-3 pm.
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, Michael Cleveland can be reached at 571-272-1418. 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.
/CACHET I. PROCTOR/
Examiner
Art Unit 1712
/CACHET I PROCTOR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712
Prosecution Insights