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 without traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 3-4-26 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-9 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 3-4-26.
Claims 1-9 are directed to the non-elected embodiment as claim 1 incorporates a first beam secured to the first and second housing sections which is not incorporated by the elected embodiment.
Applicant's election with traverse is not found persuasive because M.P.E.P. 806.04(f) Restriction Between Mutually Exclusive Species discloses:
Where two or more species are claimed, a requirement for restriction to a single species may be proper if the species are mutually exclusive. Claims to different species are mutually exclusive if one claim recites limitations disclosed for a first species but not a second, while a second claim recites limitations disclosed only for the second species and not the first. This may also be expressed by saying that to require restriction between claims limited to species, the claims must not overlap in scope.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because;
In Figures 13, 14, 15, and 16, it is believed that labels “116-2” and “114-2” should be switched with each other. Meaning 116-2 should be replaced with 114-2 in these Figures and 114-2 should be replaced with 116-2 in these Figures. See the first specification objection below.
In Figures 18, 19, 20, 21, these Figures appear to show the bottom assembly so 114-2 needs to be replaced with 116-2.
In Figure 16, item 178 should be replaced with 148.
In Figure 17, the upper occurrence of 116-2 should be replaced with 114-2.
In Figure 17, label 114-2 should be replaced with 116-2.
In Figure 17, the lower occurrence of 116-2 should be replaced with 116-1.
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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
This objection corresponds with the first Drawing objection above. The specification discloses a primary handle 114-1 operatively connected to a blade sub-assembly 114-2 and second housing section a primary handle 116-1 operatively connected to a blade sub-assembly 116-2. Figures 13, 14, 15, and 16 show 116-2 operatively connected to 114-1 (in the circles below) and show 114-2 operatively connected to 116-1 (in the squares below). Replacing 116-2 with 114-2 and replacing 114-2 with 116-2 in Figures 13-16 and 18-21 overcomes both objections.
PNG
media_image1.png
616
424
media_image1.png
Greyscale
On line 2 of paragraph [00108], the phrase “as shown in FIG. 21” should be replaced with “as shown in FIGS. 18 and 21”. Figure 21 does not show 186 while Figure 18 does.
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.
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 first/second housing section 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.
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.
With regards to claim 10 lines 4-5, the disclosure that the “primary handle being operatively connected to the blade subassembly” is unclear. It is unclear what defines the operable connection between the handle and the subassembly. Do the rods 144 define the operable connection or does the engagement between the handle and the subassembly (shown in Fig. 13) define the operable connection? If the rods represent the connection, at least a broad disclosure of the rods is necessary as there cannot be a connection without the rods. If the rods define the connection, there is an issue with the “biasing member” limitation as the biasing member has to be associated with the structure representing the rods. If the engagement represents the connection, it is unclear how the connection is sustained when the subassembly is in the position of Figure 15. Claim 10 lines 6-7 has the same issue with the second primary handle and the second blade subassembly.
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 should 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.
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 lines 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.
With regards 10 line 17, in order for a second datum to be defines a first datum needs to be defined first. The phrase should be replaced with “datum”.
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 that one positions, the position must be disclosed so the limitation is clear.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the cutting edge" on line 17. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
With regards to claim 11, it is unclear what structure allows for the biasing member to bias the housing sections as a whole. See the biasing member rejection above.
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 these secured later on? Claim 10 needs to disclose the shoulders are on the second beam and claim 12 can further define the location.
With regards to claims 12 and 13, it is unclear which if 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.
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.
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.
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
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.
25 March 2026
/Jason Daniel Prone/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724