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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on August 14, 2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the examiner.
Status of Claims
This office action is in reply to the amendment filed on July 29, 2026. Claims 16 and 28 have been amended. Claims 31-36 have been added. Claim 17 has been cancelled. Claim interpretation previously made under 35 USC 112(f) is maintained. The previous 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) has been withdrawn. Claims 16 and 18-36 are currently pending and have been fully examined.
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 19, 20 and 22 are Finally 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. Any remaining claims are rejected based on their dependency to a rejected base claim.
Claim 19 recites the limitation" the processing surfaces of the first tools" in Line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 19 also recites “the same plane” in Line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 20 recites the limitation" the processing surface" in Lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 20 also recites “the same plane” in Line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 22 also recites “the further drive device” in Line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
Claims 16, 18-20, 22, 28, 30, 33 and 35 are Finally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sugawara (2020/0412114).
In reference to claims 16 and 28, Sugawara discloses a cable processing apparatus (at 100, Figure 1 and/or at MA in Figure 2, also see paragraph 78) comprising:
A tool holder (10) for accommodating a group of at least two first tools (i.e. upper 1 and lower 1) for processing a cable (W, see Figure 24 and paragraph 78);
the tool holder is rotatably mounted about an axis of rotation (i.e. axis L in Figure 1 also see paragraph 84) and the at least two first tools can be moved relative to the tool holder (see bold arrows in Figure 7-9) for delivering the first tools for cable processing; and
a tool holder drive device (40/50) for rotationally driving the tool holder (paragraph 96) and a first drive device (41) for moving the first tools relative to the tool holder are provided (see bold arrows in Figure 7-9); and
at least one second tool (left 2 and right 2) for processing the cable is arranged in the tool holder and can be moved relative thereto (see bold arrows in Figure 7-9);
the at least one second tool can be moved independently (see paragraph 96 for disclosing that “Rotation drive mechanisms 40 and 50 independent of each other are coupled with the cutter plate rotating shaft 21 and the cam plate rotating shaft 31 respectively.”) of the first tools by means of a second drive device (51);
the second drive device is arranged in a fixed position (see second drive device 51 being in a fixed position extending from cable processing apparatus MA in Figure 2) on the cable processing apparatus so that it cannot rotate together with the tool holder; and
wherein at least one of the tools (i.e. “cutting cutter 2”, see paragraph 90) is designed as a knife for cutting into and/or cutting through the cable (see paragraph 90), and the first tools (1) are designed as incising knives for cutting into a sheathing, a film (see paragraph 91) and/or into a shielding of the cable (i.e. “peeling cutter 1” paragraphs 90-91). The examiner notes the method claim 28 merely discloses the normal operation of the device of claim 16 and therefore the same reasoning as previously discussed above for claim 16 applies mutatis mutandis to the subject matter of claim 28.
In reference to claim 18, Sugawara discloses that the at least one second tool (2) is designed as a slicing knife for cutting through the cable, wherein the cutting edges thereof are preferably configured to be V-shaped (Figure 7).
In reference to claim 19, As Best Understood, Sugawara discloses that [a same plane (Figure 7).
In reference to claim 20, As Best Understood, Sugawara discloses a further second tool (another element 2) is provided, [Figure 7).
In reference to claim 22, As Best Understood, Sugawara discloses that [the second drive device for moving the second tool has at least one actuating plunger for actuating at least one contact surface configured for this purpose on the second tool, wherein the actuating plunger in particular is arranged in a fixed position so that it cannot rotate together with the tool holder] and/or the further drive device (i.e. second drive device 51) is configured as a parallel gripper (see Figure 2 showing 51 being parallel to 41), preferably configured as a pneumatic parallel gripper (Figure 2).
In reference to claim 30, Sugawara discloses that the tool holder is moved (i.e. from 111) relative to the cable along the axis of rotation, wherein the first tools are located in a third position (paragraph 175).
In reference to claim 33, Sugawara discloses that the incising knife has suitable high-precision blades to only cut the extremely thin film (paragraphs 98 and 128), and/or wherein the incising knife has suitable robust cutting edges to minimize wear, and/or wherein the incising knife has a slightly oblique cutting edge (see Figure 7 and paragraphs 98 and 128).
In reference to claim 35, Sugawara discloses that the tool holder drive device and the second drive device for the second tools are arranged such that the second tools (2) are driven in a non-rotating mode (i.e. because they slide linearly, paragraphs 20, 41, 107 and 127) of the tool holder.
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 21, 29 and 36 are Finally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugawara (2020/0412114) in view of Sayyadi et al. (5320002) or Locher (5950505).
In reference to claims 21 and 29, Sugawara discloses the claimed invention as previously mentioned above, but lacks,
at least one passive force element (i.e. being spring loaded) is provided in the tool holder in order to transfer at least one of the second tools into a first position.
However, Sayyadi et al. teach that it is old and well known in the art at the time the invention was made to provide at least one passive force element (i.e. being spring loaded from spring 100 Figure 7, which is equivalent to the limitation of the passive force element, as previously interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), see section 6c above) is provided in a tool holder (see tools at 128 and 130 being held in Figure 7) in order to transfer at least one of the second tools into a first position.
In addition, Locher also teaches that it is old and well known in the art at the time the invention was made to provide at least one passive force element (i.e. being spring loaded from spring 14 Figure 5, which is equivalent to the limitation of the passive force element, as previously interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), see section 6c above) is provided in a tool holder (15) in order to transfer at least one of the second tools into a first position.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the device, of Sugawara, with the known technique of providing the at least one passive force element, as taught by Sayyadi et al. or Locher, and the results would have been predictable. In this situation, one could provide a more advantageous and versatile device having cutting elements that are spring-biased to normally close upon the end of a wire (see Abstract Sayyadi et al.) or that provides cutting elements that are pretensioned (see claim 4 of Locher).
In reference to claim 36, Sayyadi et al. disclose that the passive force element is a spring (spring 100) or a cylindrical spiral compression spring, [and/or wherein the passive force element is configured such that it ensures that the associated second tool is clearly fixed in a first position in the non-actuated state, and can be brought into at least one further position with the aid of an actuating plunger]. Locher also discloses that the passive force element is a spring (spring 14).
Claims 23 and 25 are Finally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugawara (2020/0412114) in view of Locher et al. (2011/0219927).
In reference to claim 23, Sugawara discloses the claimed invention as previously mentioned above, but lacks,
a group of third tools is provided, which can be delivered radially to the axis of rotation (X) and can preferably be moved by means of a third drive device.
However, Locher et al. teach that it is old and well known in the art at the time the invention was made to provide a cable processing device (Figure 1) including cutting elements (19 and 20) having no restrictions as to the number of cutting elements being provided (paragraph 30), each cutting element (19 and 20) is provided at its external end with an “actuating device” (which meets the limitation of the third drive device [i.e. controlled pneumatic actuating cylinder or electrical adjusting means], see paragraph 29).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the device, of Sugawara, with the known technique of providing the additional cutting elements, as taught by Locher et al., and the results would have been predictable. In this situation, one could provide a more advantageous and versatile device that allows an optimal rotary cutting under the possible lowest load (stress) of the cable (paragraph 30).
In reference to claim 25, Locher et al. disclose that the third drive (actuating device) is designed to be pneumatic, preferably designed as a single-acting pneumatic cylinder (pneumatic actuating cylinder or electrical adjusting means, see paragraph 29).
Claim 24, is Finally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugawara (2020/0412114) in view of Locher et al. (2011/0219927) and Applicants’ Admitted Prior Art (see paragprh 47 of applicants’ PG-PUB 2024/0258775 and as further evidenced by DE102020207962A1, cited by applicant).
In reference to claim 24, Sugawara discloses the claimed invention as previously mentioned above and further shows that the third drive device, as taught by Locher et al., is arranged in the tool holder (because all the tools are arranged on the tool holder), but lacks,
wherein a power supply is preferably provided which is connected to the third drive device via hoses and preferably a rotary feedthrough for the hoses is provided.
However, Applicants’ Admitted Prior Art teaches that it is old and well known in the art at the time the invention was made to provide a drive device (i.e. drive kinematics, paragraph 47) for moving tools (which can be any or all of the tools of modified Foreign Reference, see paragraph 47 disclosing, “To move the third tools using the third drive device, drive kinematics can be used as described in DE 10 2020 207 962 A1”). Thus, the drive kinematics will obviously include the power supply, the hoses and the rotary feedthrough, otherwise the tools could not be moved as described by the applicant.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the drive device for the third group of tools, of modified Sugawara, with the known technique of providing the drive device for a group of tools, as taught by Applicants’ Admitted Prior Art and the results would have been predictable. In this situation, one could provide a more advantageous and versatile device that allows for a compact design (paragraph 47).
Claims 26 and 27 are Finally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugawara (2020/0412114) in view of Sorg (2022/0239078).
In reference to claim 26, Sugawara discloses the claimed invention as previously mentioned above, but lacks,
an adjusting ring is provided, which can be moved relative to the tool holder and preferably at least one drive element is provided, which is arranged on the adjusting ring or is in operative connection with a surface of the adjusting ring.
However, Sorg teaches that it is old and well known in the art at the time the invention was made to provide an adjusting ring (i.e. at 7.1) is provided, which can be moved (i.e. rotated) relative to the tool holder and preferably at least one drive element is provided, which is arranged on the adjusting ring or is in operative connection (i.e. at least through the connection of parts) with a surface of the adjusting ring (Figure 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the device, of Sugawara, with the known technique of providing the adjusting ring, as taught by Sorg, and the results would have been predictable. In this situation, one could provide a more advantageous and versatile device that provides additional processing on the cable (i.e. trimming, paragraph 169).
In reference to claim 27, Sugawara discloses that the cable can be moved (i.e. by “transport mechanism” see paragraph 86) relative to the tool holder (paragraph 86) along the axis of rotation (see Figure 1). Assuming arguendo that Sugawara discloses that the cable is fixed and the holder is movable (i.e. the reverse configuration as claimed by applicant), the examiner notes that the applicant fails to provide any criticality in providing that the cable is movable or that the cable being movable provides any unexpected result. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to rearrange the fixed cable and the movable tool holder such that the cable is movable and the tool holder is fixed, since it has been held that a mere reversal of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Einstein, 8 USPQ 167. In this situation, one could still remove and cut the cable during normal operation.
Finally in further reference to claim 27, and assuming that Sugawara lacks,
the cable being moved relative to the tool holder, then Sorg is used for such a teaching.
Sorg also teaches that it is old and well known in the art at the time the invention was made to provide a cable that can be moved relative to a tool holder (see Abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the device, of Sugawara, with the known technique of providing the cable that can be moved relative to a tool holder as taught by Sorg, and the results would have been predictable. In this situation, one could provide a more advantageous and versatile device that more effectively guides and advances the cable during normal operation (see Abstract).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 31, 32 and 34 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments, see pages 7-10, filed July 29, 2026, with respect to amended claims 16 and 28 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The previous rejections of claims 16 and 28 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to amended claims 16 and 28 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference as previously applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter as specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action.
Claims 16 and 28 were amended to require that at least one of the tools is designed as a knife for cutting into and/or cutting through the cable, and the first tools are designed as incising knives for cutting into a sheathing, a film and/or into a shielding of the cable, which changed the scope for dependent claims 18-27, 29 and 30.
Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 ROBERT J SCRUGGS whose telephone number is (571)272-8682. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6-2.
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, David Posigian can be reached at 313-446-6546. 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.
/ROBERT J SCRUGGS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights