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 .
Detailed Action
Drawings Objection
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 path (cited in claims 1 and 16) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). 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.
Objection to the Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
(1) On page 12, lines 21-22, “Actuation of the movement component 5” should read --Movement of the actuating component 5--.
(2) On page 15, line 1, “element 3a” should read --element 3b--.
(3) On page 16, line 10, “handling element” should read --handle element--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objection
Claims 9 and 18 are objected to because of the following informalities:
(1) In claim 9, lines 2-3, “end face” should read --an end face--.
(2) In claim 18, lines 1-2 ,”one of the interchangeable adapter element” should read --one of the interchangeable adapter elements--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejection - 35 U.S.C. 112(b)
1. 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.
2. Claims 2-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
(1) In claims 2 and 13-15, lines 3 and 4, “the housing” has no clear antecedent basis. The phrase should read --the housing unit--.
(2) In claim 2, line 3, “the end face” is vague. Is it the end face of the blade element or of the housing unit?
(3) In claim 5, line 1, “the end face” is vague. Is it the end face of the blade element or of the housing unit?
(4) In claim 7, lines 1-2, “the further blade element” has no antecedent basis.
(5) The scope of claims 8 and 15 is misleading. As the disclosed invention is understood, the cutting tool 10 comprises a path-limitation unit 4 like a cap that can be removed therefrom (see page 14, lines 21-24 of the specification). The housing unit 3 of the cutting tool 10 does not comprise an adapter element d3 of Fig.4 but the adapter element 3d is usable with the cutting tool (10) once the path-limitation unit 4 is removed and replaced with the adapter element 3d. Further, it is not understood how an adapter element “specifies a relative position” of the blade element to the end face.
(6) In claim 8, line 2, “blade element” and “end face” are vague and should read
--the blade element-- and --the end face-- since they refer to ones previously cited.
(7) In claim 9, line 2, “end face” (both occurrences) and “the housing” are vague and should read --the end face-- and --the housing unit--, respectively.
(8) The scope of claims 10 and 20 is misleading. As disclosed (see page 15, lines 13-14 of the specification), Fig.5 shows an adapter element 3d as the path-limiting unit 4 shown in Fig.1 which can be “replaced” (e.g., the adapter element 3d and the path-limiting unit 4 being interchangeable with each other and not usable “together at the same time). Thus, it is incorrect to say “the adapter element can be exchanged … with at least a part of the end face” but “with the path-limiting unit”. Further, the claims are replete with functional language. It is not understood how “the adapter element can be exchanged without tools with at least a part of the end face” is accomplished.
(9) In claim 13, line 7, “the end face” is vague. Is it the end face of the blade element or of the housing unit?
(10) In claim 15, line 8, “blade element” is vague. Is it in addition to “the blade element” and “a further blade element” cited at line 2 of the claim?
(11) In claim 15, line 8, “end face” is vague. Is it the end face of the housing unit or of the blade element or of the further blade element?
(12) In claim 16, lines 5 and 9, “a housing unit comprising: a plurality of different interchangeable adapter elements” is misleading for the similar reasons set forth in item (5) above.
(13) The main body of claim 19 reciting a method step is not a proper product claim.
Claim Rejection - 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)
1. 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.
2. Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by EP 2 335 880 (cited in the 11/07/2024 IDS, and an English transition thereof enclosed with this instant Office action).
Regarding claim 1, EP ‘880 discloses a cutting tool (Fig.1) for destructively releasing a cable tie (13,14,16), comprising:
a cutting unit (1,1’,5,5’,8,8’) for cutting into the cable tie (13,14,16) to be released;
a housing unit having a handle element (6,6’) for holding the cutting tool and an end face (see Fig.12) to be placed on the cable tie (13,14,16) to be loosened during intended use; and
a path-limiting unit (2,2’,7,7’), the path-limiting unit (2,2’,7,7’) limiting a path (27) covered by a blade element (1,1’) of the cutting unit (1,1’,5,5’,8,8’) when cutting the cable tie (13,14,16) to be released such that the cable tie (13,14,16) is partially cut but not entirely cut through by the cutting unit (1,1’,5,5’,8,8’).
3. Claims 1, 2, 5, 6 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lueschen (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2006/0037661).
Regarding claim 1, Lueschen discloses a cutting tool (10) comprising:
a cutting unit (86) for cutting;
a housing unit (20) having a handle element (22) for holding the cutting tool (10) and an end face (36); and
a path-limiting unit (118,124), the path-limiting unit (118,124) limiting a path (P, see Fig.8 as annotated below) covered by a blade element (110) of the cutting unit (86) as claimed.
The statements of intended use (e.g., for destructively releasing a cable tie, for cutting into the cable tie, and such that the cable tie is partially cut but not entirely cut through by the cutting unit) have no patentable import on the structure of claimed cutting tool (10).
PNG
media_image1.png
626
812
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Lueschen’s blade element (110) has an end face which is arranged offset from the end face (36) of the housing unit (20) inwardly with a predetermined distance (e.g., determined by a material thickness of the path limiting unit 118,124) from the end face (36) of the housing unit (20), so that the end face (36) of the housing unit (20) comprises the path-limiting unit (118,124).
Regarding claim 5, Lueschen’s end face (36) of the housing unit (20) has a receiving region (120) and is fully capable of receiving a cable tie head of a cable tie completely if such a cable tie is so provided.
Regarding claim 6, Lueschen’s receiving region (120) is oriented in such a way that the path (P, see the annotated Fig.8) covered by the blade element (110) runs transversely to a plane in which an inner side of the cable tie head (16, see Fig.1) runs.
Regarding claim 13, Lueschen’s blade element (110) has an end face which is arranged offset from the end face (36) of the housing inwardly with a predetermined distance (e.g., determined by a material thickness of the path limiting unit 118,124) from the end face (36) of the housing unit (20), so that the end face (36) of the housing unit (20) comprises the path-limiting unit (118,124), and wherein the end face (120) and is fully capable of receiving a cable tie head of a cable tie completely if such a cable tie is so provided.
Claim Rejection - 35 U.S.C. 103
1. 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.
2. Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lueschen (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2006/0037661).
Regarding claims 3 and 4, Lueschen’s cutting tool (10) as set forth shows all the claimed structure except it does not explicitly mention the predetermined distance (determined by a material thickness of the path limiting unit 118,124) being at least 0.5 mm or at least 0.8 mm. However, to select the predetermined distance (material thickness of the path limiting unit) to be at least 0.5 mm or at least 0.8 mm depends more upon an obvious matter of a manufacturer’s choice than on any inventive concept.
Indication of Allowable Subject Matter
1. Claims 7-12, 14 and 15 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
2. Claims 16-20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office action.
Prior Art Citations
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. Patent No. 6,425,183 shows a cutting tool (8) for cutting a workpiece (30) without completely cutting through the workpiece (30, see Fig.1c).
U.S. Patent No. 8,365,418 shows a cable tie removal tool (see Fig,7) for removing the head (90) of a cable tie (92).
U.S. Patent No. 10,035,246 is cited to show a method and an apparatus for releasing a cable tie.
U.S. Patent No. 11,407,131 shows a cable tie cutting tool.
U.S. Patent No. 2023/0127208 shows a cable tie cutting tool (see Fig.2) equipped with a nosepiece assembly (or an adapter 110) for receiving and aligning a tail portion of a cable tie to allow a blade member of the cutting tool to produce a round cut.
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0219245 shows a cutting tool (1) for destructively releasing a cable tie (8) by cutting the head (82) of the cable tie (8, see Figs.5-6).
Point of Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HWEI-SIU PAYER whose telephone number is (571)272-4511. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday – Friday from 6:00 AM to 2:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Boyer Ashley, can be reached at telephone number 571-272-4502. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via a variety of formats. See MPEP § 713.01. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/InterviewPractice.
/HWEI-SIU C PAYER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724