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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 6, lines 4-5, consider amending to, --simultaneously enter from one open end and exit from the both sides of [[the ]]another open end, and the two torsion spring arms respectively abut against the [[two]]both sides of the other open end; and—for proper antecedent basis.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 is 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, “wherein the spring hanging columns on the right handle and the left handle are of an anti-tension angular columnar structure” which renders the claim indefinite. The term “anti-tension angular columnar structure” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably be apprised of the scope of the invention. Therefore, the limitation, “anti-tension angular columnar structure” is indefinite because a person skilled in the art cannot ascertain what the metes and bounds of the columnar structure for which the applicant seeks protection. For examination purposes and as best understood by the Examiner, a rectangular spring hanging column that protrudes outward relative to the handle(s) is defined anti-tension angular columnar structure.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Axelsen (US Patent No. 2,523,936).
Regarding claim 1, Axelsen (US Patent No. 2,523,936) discloses a wire stripper (figs. 1-11) comprising a right handle (right-sided item 1; figs. 1 and 6) and a left handle (left-sided item 1; figs. 1 and 6), the right handle and the left handle being rotatably connected by a pin shaft (item 5; col. 1, ll. 46-48; fig. 1), a jaw (designated in annotated fig. 2 below) being provided on front surfaces of top portions of the right handle and the left handle respectively (each surface and portion designated in annotated fig. 2 below), and a right movable plate (right-sided item 9; col. 1, ll. 51-53; figs. 1-5) and a left movable plate (left-sided item 9; col. 1, ll. 51-53; figs. 1-5) being correspondingly provided on back surfaces of the top portions (designated in annotated fig. 2 below) of the right handle and the left handle respectively, wherein the wire stripper further comprises a damping assembly (includes items 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35; figs. 1 and 6), the damping assembly comprises a damping seat (item 31; fig. 6) and a torsion spring (item 33; col. 2, ll. 52-54; fig. 6), the damping seat is connected to the right movable plate (during damping, damping seat 31 is connected to right movable plate 9 via item 30; figs. 2 and 6), the torsion spring is connected to the left movable plate (via item 32; fig. 6), the torsion spring has two relatively opened torsion spring arms (figs. 1 and 6), the two torsion spring arms respectively abut against both sides of the damping seat (one arm abuts against upper side of damping seat, i.e. item 33, and second arm abuts against lower side of damping seat during damping, i.e. position of fig. 6), and the two torsion spring arms are opened and tightened by relative reciprocating sliding between the damping seat and the torsion spring arms (spring arms 33 are opened, i.e. position in fig. 1, and tightened, i.e. position in fig. 6, via sliding of damping seat 31 and spring arms along surface, i.e. inner surface of item 4; col. 2, ll. 48 through col. 3, ll. 5; figs. 1 and 6).
PNG
media_image1.png
535
530
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Axelson Annotated Fig. 2.
Regarding claim 2, Axelson discloses the wire stripper as claimed in claim 1, wherein the jaw comprises a right mounting plate (includes items 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 19, 20, 21, 22 on right side in view of fig. 6) and a left mounting plate (includes items 10, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29 on left side in view of fig. 6), the right mounting plate and the left mounting plate are respectively rotatably connected to the top portions (top portions of each movable plate 9 designated in annotated fig. 6 below) of the right movable plate and the left movable plate (right mounting plate and left mounting plate respectively rotatably connected to right and left movable plates 9 via intermediate components, i.e. item 7; figs. 1 and 6), and the jaw further comprises a pressing end (designated in annotated fig. 6 below; col. 2, ll. 29-40) and a wire stripping end (designated in annotated fig. 6 below; col. 2, ll. 7-24) which are arranged opposite to each other (pressing and wire stripping end are disposed on opposing left and right sides of tool; figs. 1 and 6);
the pressing end comprises an upper pressing seat (item 25; col. 2, ll. 31-32; fig. 6) and a lower pressing seat (item 23; col. 2, ll. 25-28; fig. 6); and
the wire stripping end comprises an upper knife seat (item 16; col. 2, ll. 11-16; fig. 6) and a lower knife seat (item 12; col. 2, ll. 7-11; fig. 6).
The recitation(s) of wherein “the upper pressing seat is formed by stamping and bending the left mounting plate, and the lower pressing seat is formed by stamping and bending the left movable plate…the upper knife seat is formed by stamping and bending the right mounting plate, and the lower knife seat is formed by stamping and bending the right movable plate” are considered to be product-by-process limitations. MPEP 2113 clearly states “Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In this instance, each component within the left and right mounting plates (e.g. the upper pressing seat, the lower pressing seat, the upper knife seat, and the lower knife seat) are sheet(s) of material, i.e. thin (fig. 1), and formed at an angle, i.e. bent, relative to vertical orientation of left and right mounting seats (i.e. perpendicular and rounded at edges), thereby meeting the limitations of the claim.
PNG
media_image2.png
712
805
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Axelson Annotated Fig. 6.
Regarding claim 3, Axelson discloses the wire stripper as claimed in claim 2, wherein a second mounting seat (left-sided item 7 in view of figs. 1 and 6-7) is provided between the upper pressing seat and the left mounting plate (designated in annotated fig. 6 above; portion of second mounting seat is disposed between upper pressing seat 25 and lower portion of left mounting plate), a first mounting seat (right-sided item 7 in view of figs. 1 and 6-7) is provided between the upper knife seat and the right mounting plate (designated in annotated fig. 6 above; a portion of first mounting seat is disposed between upper knife seat 16 and lower portion of right mounting plate; figs. 1 and 6), the two mounting seats have a respective coupling point (designated in annotated fig. 6 above) and are rotatably connected to the corresponding mounting plate through the respective coupling point (mounting seats 7 are rotatably connected to mounting plates; col. 3, ll. 46-52), and the upper pressing seat and the upper knife seat are respectively connected to the corresponding movable plate and rotate with the movable plate (upper pressing seat 25 connected to left-sided movable plate 9 and rotate with movable plate via intermediate components when movable plate is pivoted via handle movement; similarly, upper knife seat 16 connected to right-sided movable plate 9 and rotate with movable via intermediate components when movable plate is pivoted via handle movement; col. 3, ll. 44-70; figs. 1 and 6).
Claims 1 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Metcalf (Re. US Patent No. 28,687).
Regarding claim 1, Metcalf (Re. US Patent No. 28,687) discloses a wire stripper (abstract; fig. 1) comprising a right handle (item 20; fig. 1) and a left handle (item 18; fig. 1), the right handle and the left handle being rotatably connected by a pin shaft (right handle 20 and left handle 18 are rotatably coupled via intermediate components at pivot pin 16; fig. 1), a jaw (includes items 12, 14, 22, 24; fig. 2) being provided on front surfaces of top portions of the right handle and the left handle respectively (surfaces and top portions designated in annotated fig. 2 below), and a right movable plate (item 14; fig. 1) and a left movable plate (item 12; fig. 1) being correspondingly provided on back surfaces of the top portions (designated in annotated fig. 2 below; left movable plate 12 extends to back surface of top portion, i.e. item 30 of left movable plate; further, right movable plate 14 provided on inner back surface of top portion of handle, i.e. item 14 in view of fig. 3) of the right handle and the left handle respectively, wherein the wire stripper further comprises a damping assembly (includes items 32, 34, 40, 110, 112; figs. 1, 3-5, and 7-9), the damping assembly comprises a damping seat (includes items 32, 34; figs. 3 and 7-8) and a torsion spring (item 110; col. 4, ll. 8-9; figs. 1 and 3), the damping seat is connected to the right movable plate (damping seat connects to right movable plate 14 during use and via intermediate components; fig. 3), the torsion spring is connected to the left movable plate (torsion spring 110 is connected to left movable plate 12 via intermediate components, i.e. item 36; fig. 3), the torsion spring has two relatively opened torsion spring arms (defined as arms extending downward to items 114, 116; fig. 1; col. 4, ll. 9-11), the two torsion spring arms respectively abut against both sides of the damping seat (the two spring arms extend downward in view of fig. 3 and thereby, abut against, i.e. be next to, both sides of damping seat 32, 34, i.e. front and rear sides of damping seat; fig. 3), and the two torsion spring arms are opened and tightened by relative reciprocating sliding between the damping seat and the torsion spring arms (when handles 18, 20 are compressed together, spring 110 slides around pin, i.e. via tightening of spring 100, in a position between the damping seat 32, 34 and arms will slide in downward direction, i.e. towards end of handles; when handles are released, spring 110 slides around pin, i.e. via expanding of spring around pin, and arms will slide in an upward direction).
PNG
media_image3.png
349
439
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Metcalf Annotated Fig. 2.
Regarding claim 6, Metcalf discloses the wire stripper as claimed in claim 1, wherein the damping seat comprises a seat body (defined as structure of items 32, 34 extending from item 28; figs. 7-8) with two open ends (designated in annotated fig. 7-8 below) and guide side plates (defined as plates 32, 34; figs. 7-8), the damping seat is connected to the right movable plate (during use, damping seat is connected to right movable plate 14 via intermediate components; figs. 1 and 3) and moves with the right movable plate (when handles are compressed, left and right movable plates 12, 14 pivot outward about item 16 and damping seat 32, 34 pivots about item 16 simultaneously thereby, moving with the right movable plate 14), the two torsion spring arms simultaneously enter from one open end (arms of spring 110 enter, i.e. begin extending, from one open end and extend downward to other open end; similar to applicant’s disclosure, pp. [0021] in which spring arms are inserted and extend from the inlet, i.e. one open side) and exit from both sides of the other open end (spring arms 110 extend downward in view of figs. 1 and 3 and exit from front and rear sides of damping seat on other open end; designated in annotated fig. 7-8 below), and the two torsion spring arms respectively abut against the two sides of the other open end (when in use, spring arms 110 abut against, i.e. mount next to, the two sides, i.e. front and rear sides of damping seat in view of fig. 8, to move with damping seat; figs. 3 and 7-8).
The recitation of wherein “the guide side plates are formed by bending both sides of the seat body” is considered to be product-by-process limitations. MPEP 2113 clearly states “Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In this instance, each guide side plate is a bent, i.e. circular, portion of the seat body, thereby meeting the limitations of the claim.
PNG
media_image4.png
470
458
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Metcalf Annotated Figs. 7-8.
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.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Axelsen (US Patent No. 2,523,936) and further evidenced by McDonald (US Patent No. 3,604,115).
Regarding claim 4, Axelson discloses the wire stripper as claimed in claim 3, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the first mounting seat and the second mounting seat are made of plastic.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the first and second mounting seats to be composed of plastic, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice (please refer to MPEP 2144.07). As an example, McDonald (US Patent No. 3,604,115) teaches a wire stripper (figs. 1) comprising a plurality of movable components (fig. 1), wherein the wire stripper is formed using plastic materials in order to provide self-lubricating material to eliminate lubrication problems between moving components (McDonald; col. 1, ll. 64-67). Please note that in the instant application, pp. [0029], the applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Axelsen (US Patent No. 2,523,936) and further evidenced by Holt (US Patent No. 2,601,797).
Regarding claim 5, Axelson discloses the wire stripper as claimed in claim 2, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the pressing end and the wire stripping end are made of sheet steel.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the pressing end and the wire stripping end to be composed of sheet steel, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice (please refer to MPEP 2144.07). As an example, Holt (US Patent No. 2,601,797) teaches a wire stripper (figs. 1-2) comprising a pivotable handle (via item 22), wherein each component of the wire stripper, with the exception of the spring components, is composed of sheet steel to ensure maximum strength and lightness of weight (Holt; col. 4, ll. 42-47). Please note that in the instant application, pp. [0030], the applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations.
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Axelsen (US Patent No. 2,523,936) in view of Mugnier (US Patent No. 3,776,069).
Regarding claim 7, Axelson discloses the wire stripper as claimed in claim 1, wherein a tension spring (item 3; figs. 1 and 6) is further provided between the left handle and the right handle (col. 1, ll. 43-48; fig. 1), the left handle and the right handle are both provided with a spring hanging column (items 2 on each handle 1; figs. 1 and 6).
Axelson does not disclose wherein an end portion of the tension spring takes the shape of a hook and is hook jointed to the corresponding spring hanging column.
However, Mugnier (US Patent No. 3,776,069) teaches a wire stripper (item 11; fig. 1) comprising a first handle (item 15; fig. 1), a second handle (item 16; fig. 1), and a jaw (includes items 21, 22, 23, 24, 26; fig. 1) mounted on top of the handles, wherein a tension spring (item 19; fig. 1) is provided between the first and second handles, the first and second handles both provided with a spring hanging column (items 17, 18; col. 1, ll. 62-65), and wherein an end portion of the tension spring takes the shape of a hook (designated in annotated fig. 1 below) and is hook jointed to the corresponding spring hanging column (each hook shape end portion hook joints on spring hanging columns 17, 18, i.e. hook mounts onto spring hanging column to secure into place).
Both Axelson and Mugnier teach tension springs between two handles of a wire stripper. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the tension spring with extended boss structure, as disclosed in Axelson, for the tension spring with hook portions at the end to hook into a corresponding spring hanging column, as taught in Mugnier, to achieve the predictable result of permitting the handles to spread apart when handles are released and urging the handles together when handles are compressed.
PNG
media_image5.png
616
685
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Mugnier Annotated Fig. 1.
Regarding claim 8, as best understood Axelson as modified discloses the wire stripper as claimed in claim 7, wherein the spring hanging columns on the right handle and the left handle are of an anti-tension angular columnar structure (Mugnier; spring hanging columns 17, 18 are rectangular tabs extending outward, i.e. out of page in view of fig. 1; similar to applicant’s disclosure) formed by stamping and tearing.
The recitation of wherein “wherein the spring hanging columns....formed by stamping and tearing” is considered to be product-by-process limitations. MPEP 2113 clearly states “Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In this instance, each spring hanging column is a single rectangular tab formed at an angle, i.e. outward from, relative to the respective handles, thereby meeting the limitations of the claim.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SIDNEY D FULL whose telephone number is (571)272-6996. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7:00a.m.-2:30p.m..
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, Brian Keller can be reached at (571)272-8548. 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.
/SIDNEY D FULL/Examiner, Art Unit 3723