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 .
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 10-17 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.
With regards to claim 10 lines 2-3, the shoulder and the first beam disclosures are unclear. As written, the shoulders and beams are respectively part of the first/second housing section but do not have a relationship with the respective blade subassembly which is not supported. The first beams 148 and shoulders 174 are respectively attached to the respective blade subassembly as supported by the specification. This relationship needs to be disclosed because this is the only way there is support as there is never a time where these items are separate from the subassemblies. Adding the phrases “wherein the shoulder and the first beam of the first housing section engage the blade subassembly of the first housing section” and “wherein the shoulder and the first beam of the second housing section engage the blade subassembly of the second housing section” overcome the issue as they acknowledge the supported structural relationships.
With regards to claim 10 lines 2-3, the biasing member disclosure is unclear. As written, the biasing member is respectively part of the first/second housing section but does not have a relationship with the respective primary handle and blade subassembly which is not supported. In order for the biasing member to perform its function, it must engage the respective primary handle and blade subassembly. This relationship needs to be disclosed because this is the only way there is support as there is never a time where these items are separate. The relationship needs to be disclosed in the same manner as the previous paragraph.
With regards to claim 10 lines 8-9, the phrase “load/unload position” and “strip position” are unclear. Each position needs to be further defined using the structural limitations in the claim. For example, the subassemblies and respective handles engage in load/unload position but are spaced in the strip position. The first and second blades engage the shoulder in the strip position and are spaced from the shoulder in the load/unload position. The beams engage the other of the assemblies in the strip position and are spaced in the load/unload position. Each structural limitation that has a relationship that is one way in the load/unload position and another way in the strip position must be disclosed to define the positions because they are claimed and this is the only way there is support. Without structural definition of the positions, the subassemblies can be in one position and another structure will not be in either position which is not supported. Structural relationships underlined above need to be acknowledged in the claim.
With regards to claim 10 lines 11-14, the cable and the cable axis are not positively claimed making these items indefinite intended use of the tool. Lines 11-14 utilize the cable axis to further define the tool making the limitation indefinite. Since the cable is not positively claimed, the cable does not have to be the cable shown in the specification and can be any cable/work piece in any position including unorthodox situations. The lengths need to be defined only with existing structure of the tool. Line 16 has the same issue with the third length being defined with the indefinite cable. Lines 18-19 and lines 20-21, have the same issue with first and second dimensions being defined with the indefinite cable. Line 23 has the same issue with the distance being defined with the indefinite cable.
With regards to claim 10 line 15, the second beam disclosure is unclear. As written, the shoulders are comprised by the tool in a way where the shoulders are not connected to the second beams which is not supported. The second beams must be disclosed as engaging the shoulders because they are both claimed and this is the only way there is support. Adding the phrases “wherein the shoulder of the first housing section engages the second beam of the first housing section” and “wherein the shoulder of the second housing section engages the second beam of the second housing section” overcome the issue as they acknowledge the supported structural relationships.
With regards to claim 10 line 17, what structure allows for the datum to be set and the first and second dimensions defined when the tool is in the load/unload position? Since there are more than one position, the position must be disclosed so the limitation is clear.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the cutting edge" on line 19. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
With regards to claim 11, it is unclear what is meant by “normally” bias. The specification discloses that the biasing member only biases to the strip position. It is unclear what can and cannot represent “normally” bias versus a bias that is not considered “normally”. Removing the word “normally” overcomes the issue.
With regards to claim 12, claim 10 discloses the tool having the shoulders and the second beam as unrelated structures. It is unclear how the two can be unrelated and then secured later on? Claim 10 needs to disclose the shoulders are on the second beam and claim 12 can further define this relationship.
With regards to claims 12 and 13, it is unclear which of the two shoulders are being referenced? Was this limitation supposed to be plural like the biasing members in claim 11? As written, in claim 12, the shoulder of one housing section can be secured with the second beam of the other housing section which is not supported. The fist and second housing sections need to be included in the disclosures.
With regards to claim 12, the phrase “upper” is unclear. For one of the beams the surface may be upper but for the other second beam, it would be “lower”. Another issue is the tool is handheld and is capable of being utilized in an infinite number of orientations including ones where neither surface of either beam could be considered upper. Terms that are true regardless of the orientation should be used (i.e. inner or outer).
With regards to claim 14, the inlet guide disclosure is unclear. As written, each housing has a blade subassembly and a separate inlet guide which is not supported. Each of the blade subassemblies incorporates an inlet guide and the claim needs to acknowledge this relationship because this is the only way there is support. Claim 14 needs to disclose “the blade subassembly of each of the first and second housing sections further comprise an inlet guide”.
With regards to claim 15, each blade subassembly has the first nozzle 180-1 and the second nozzle 180-2 as shown in Figure 21. Like claim 14, claim 15 needs to acknowledge this relationship because this is the only way there is support.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7-27-26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Basically, the outstanding issue is the substructures are introduced in a way unrelated to the other substructures. For example, the shoulder and the first beam and the blade subassembly of each of the housing sections have no relationships. Without a relationship with the blade subassembly, how are the shoulder and the first beam comprised by the tool? The specification supports the shoulder and the first beam engage (or any other term preferred by Applicant) the blade subassembly and there is never a time where they are not engaged and the claim needs to acknowledge this relationship because they are all claimed and this is the only way there is support. The same goes with the load/unload and strip positions. The claimed structures have relationships/positions that define these positions. Without the relationships/positions of the structures being disclosed to define the positions, the tool can be in the load/unload or strip positions but the claimed structures may not be which is not supported. The claims needs to disclose engagements between structures that require such relationships as supported by the specification.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10-17 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: none of the prior art incorporates a cable stripping tool having first and second housing sections each with a primary handle, a biasing member, and a blade subassembly with a shoulder, a first beam, and a second beam, the structural relationships between the limitations, and the functions the limitations perform in combination with the remaining limitations.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON DANIEL PRONE whose telephone number is (571)272-4513. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 7:00 am-3:00 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, Boyer D Ashley can be reached on (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 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.
01 October 2026
/Jason Daniel Prone/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724
