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 .
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.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: The limitation of “a second cutting section cooperatively formed third and fourth cutting edges” in claim 1 is grammatically improper. Consider ––a second cutting section cooperatively formed by third and fourth cutting edges––. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Toward (US 603349).
1. Toward teaches a tool (Toward fig. 1) having first (A, A') and second (B, B') halves pivotally coupled together at a pivot (C, see Toward fig. 1) and respectively having first (A) and second jaw portions (B), the tool comprising:
a first cutting section (H, see Toward fig. 4 taken along line 4-4 shown in fig. 2) cooperatively formed by first and second cutting edges respectively disposed on the first and second jaw portions (see Toward figs. 2 and 4);
a second cutting section (F, see Toward fig. 5, taken along line 5-5 shown in fig. 2) cooperatively formed by third and fourth cutting edges respectively disposed on the first and second jaw portions (see Toward figs. 2 and 5), wherein the second cutting section is disposed proximal to the pivot in relation to the first cutting section (E is closer to pivot C than H, see Toward figs. 2, 4, and 5 and 1:36-59); and
a grip feature (D) formed by a first groove disposed on the first jaw portion (recess D is formed by grooves disposed on each of A and B, Toward figs. 1-2).
Toward does not teach that the grip feature is disposed between the first and second cutting sections.
However, it has been held that where the sole difference between the prior art and the claimed invention is the particular placement of an element, the particular placement of that element is—absent some indication that changing the position of the element would have modified the operation of the device—an obvious matter of design choice. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975).
Because the sole difference between the invention of claim 1 and the disclosure of Toward is the specific location of the grip feature relative to the cutting sections, and there is no disclosure or other indication that changing the position of the grip feature relative to the cutting sections would have modified the operation of the device of Toward, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the tool of Toward such that the grip feature is disposed between the first and second cutting sections, as doing so represents no more than design choice relating to a rearrangement of parts, and the results of such a modification would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill.
Regarding claims 2 and 3, Toward as modified teaches the tool of claim 1, wherein the grip feature includes a second groove disposed on the second jaw portion opposite the first groove, the second groove is disposed between the first and second cutting sections, and the first and second grooves are substantially equidistant from the pivot (recesses D are formed by grooves positioned symmetrically in each jaw at positions substantially equidistant from pivot C, see Toward fig. 2).
Regarding claims 4-6, Toward as modified teaches the tool of claim 1,
wherein the first and second cutting edges are each formed by a first angled wall and a flat wall, the flat wall being substantially perpendicular to a pivot axis extending through the pivot and the flat walls of the cutting edges being substantially co-planar (see Toward figs. 2 and 4); and wherein third and fourth cutting edges are each cooperatively formed by second and third angled walls (See Toward figs. 2 and 5).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Toward as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Boyajian (US 3831207).
7. Toward teaches the tool of claim 1, but does not teach that it further comprises an indent disposed on each of the first and second jaw portions, wherein the indents define a wire-stripping aperture between the first and second sets of cutting edges that is adapted to strip wire, and the indents are substantially equidistant from the pivot.
However, Boyajian teaches a multipurpose plier tool including a wire cutter (blades 36a and 36b, Boyajian fig. 7) and further teaches that such a tool may include indents (40a,40b) disposed on opposing jaw portions (16a,16b) substantially equidistant from a pivot (12, see Boyajian fig. 7), wherein the indents define a wire-stripping aperture adjacent the cutting edges (wire stripping holes are adjacent cutter blades 36a,36b, Boyajian fig. 7 and 4:37-5:8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify the tool of Toward according to the teachings from Boyajian of including a wire stripper such that it further comprised an indent disposed on each of the first and second jaw portions, wherein the indents define a wire-stripping aperture between the first and second sets of cutting edges that is adapted to strip wire, and the indents are substantially equidistant from the pivot, as one of ordinary skill would have recognized that doing so would facilitate the removal of insulation from wires being cut or otherwise manipulated by the tool of Toward without requiring the use of a separate tool.
However, Boyajian teaches a multipurpose plier tool including a wire cutter (blades 36a and 36b, Boyajian fig. 7) and further teaches that such a tool may include indents (40a,40b) and channels (42a, 42b) extending away from the indents (see Boyajian fig. 7), the indents and channels being disposed on opposing jaw portions (16a,16b) substantially equidistant from a pivot (12, see Boyajian fig. 7), wherein the indents define a wire-stripping aperture adjacent the cutting edges (wire stripping holes are adjacent cutter blades 36a,36b, Boyajian fig. 7 and 4:37-5:8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify the tool of Toward according to the teachings from Boyajian of including a wire stripper such that it further comprised an indent disposed on each of the first and second jaw portions, wherein the indents define a wire-stripping aperture between the first and second sets of cutting edges that is adapted to strip wire, and the indents are substantially equidistant from the pivot.
Claims 8-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Toward in view of Boyajian.
Regarding claims 8-20, Toward teaches a tool (Toward fig. 1) comprising:
first (A, A') and second (B, B') halves pivotally coupled together at a pivot (C, see Toward fig. 1) and respectively having first (A) and second jaw portions (B),
a first cutting section (H, see Toward fig. 4 taken along line 4-4 shown in fig. 2) cooperatively formed by first and second cutting edges respectively disposed on the first and second jaw portions (see Toward figs. 2 and 4), wherein the first and second cutting edges are each formed by a first angled wall and a flat wall, the flat wall being substantially perpendicular to a pivot axis extending through the pivot and the flat walls of the cutting edges being substantially co-planar (first cutting section defined by two coplanar flat walls and two angled walls, see Toward figs. 2 and 4);
a second cutting section (F, see Toward fig. 5, taken along line 5-5 shown in fig. 2) cooperatively formed by third and fourth cutting edges respectively disposed on the first and second jaw portions (see Toward figs. 2 and 5), wherein third and fourth cutting edges are each cooperatively formed by second and third angled walls (See Toward figs. 2 and 5), and wherein the second cutting section is disposed proximal to the pivot in relation to the first cutting section and extends substantially to the pivot (E is closer to pivot C than H and specifically extends to the angled breakpoint where the jaws separate, see Toward figs. 2, 4, and 5 and 1:36-59); and
a grip feature (D) formed by opposing first and second grooves, respectively disposed on the first and second jaw portions substantially equidistant from the pivot (recesses D are formed by grooves positioned symmetrically in each jaw at positions substantially equidistant from pivot C, see Toward figs. 1-3).
Toward does not teach that the grip feature is disposed between the first and second cutting sections.
However, it has been held that where the sole difference between the prior art and the claimed invention is the particular placement of an element, the particular placement of that element is—absent some indication that changing the position of the element would have modified the operation of the device—an obvious matter of design choice. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975).
Because the sole difference between the invention of claim 1 and the disclosure of Toward is the specific location of the grip feature relative to the cutting sections, and there is no disclosure or other indication that changing the position of the grip feature relative to the cutting sections would have modified the operation of the device of Toward, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the tool of Toward such that the grip feature was disposed between the first and second cutting sections, as doing so represents no more than design choice relating to a rearrangement of parts, and the results of such a modification would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill.
Toward also does not teach that the first half comprises a first indent and a first channel and the second half comprises a second indent and a second channel; wherein the first and second indents are substantially equidistant from the pivot and cooperatively form a wire-stripping feature disposed between the first and second cutting sections; and wherein the first and second channels extend from the wire-stripping feature in a direction away from the wire-stripping feature.
However, Boyajian teaches a multipurpose plier tool including a wire cutter (blades 36a and 36b, Boyajian fig. 7) and further teaches that such a tool may include indents (40a,40b) and channels (42a, 42b) extending away from the indents (see Boyajian fig. 7), the indents and channels being disposed on opposing jaw portions (16a,16b) substantially equidistant from a pivot (12, see Boyajian fig. 7), wherein the indents define a wire-stripping aperture adjacent the cutting edges (wire stripping holes are adjacent cutter blades 36a,36b, Boyajian fig. 7 and 4:37-5:8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify the tool of Toward according to the teachings from Boyajian of including a wire stripper such that the first half comprised a first indent and a first channel and the second half comprised a second indent and a second channel; wherein the first and second indents were positioned substantially equidistant from the pivot to cooperatively form a wire-stripping feature disposed between the first and second cutting sections; the first and second channels extending from the wire-stripping feature in a direction away from the wire-stripping feature, as one of ordinary skill would have recognized that doing so would facilitate the removal of insulation from wires being cut or otherwise manipulated by the tool of Toward without requiring the use of a separate tool.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Schandelmeier et al. (US PGPub 2009/0094837, "Schandelmeier et al.") teaches a plier-stye wire cutter comprising two cutting sections, the first being formed by a flat wall and an angled wall, and the second being formed by two angled walls (see the cross-sections taken along lines II-II and III-III shown in Schandelmeier figs. 1-3).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN R ZAWORSKI whose telephone number is (571)272-7804. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:00-5:00, Fridays 9:00-1:00.
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, Monica Carter can be reached at (571)-272-4475. 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.
/J.R.Z./Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/MONICA S CARTER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723