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 .
Status of Claims
The examiner notes that Claims 1-15 have been cancelled and Claims 16-30 have been added therefore Claims 16-30 are currently pending and have been fully examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on November 30, 2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the examiner.
CLAIM INTERPRETATION
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as "configured to" or "so that"; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a tool holder drive device (34, 34a, 34b) for rotationally driving the tool holder (30)” in claims 16 and 28. However, claim limitations are read in view of the specification. In the instant case, the Specification in applicant’s PG-PUB describes “the tool holder drive device” as being, “an electrically driven motor” (see paragraph 84). Thus, in view of the specification, the limitation, “a tool holder drive device”, is being interpreted as an electrically driven motor and/or equivalents thereof.
Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a first drive device (44, 47a, 47b) for moving the first tools (351, 352)” in claims 16 and 28. However, claim limitations are read in view of the specification. In the instant case, the Specification in applicant’s PG-PUB describes “the first drive device” as being, “an electrically driven motor” (see paragraph 87). Thus, in view of the specification, the limitation, “a first drive device”, is being interpreted as an electrically driven motor and/or equivalents thereof.
Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “at least one passive force element…to transfer at least one of the second tools into a first position” in claim 21. However, claim limitations are read in view of the specification. In the instant case, the Specification in applicant’s PG-PUB describes “the passive force element” as being, “a spring or magnet” (see paragraph 28). Thus, in view of the specification, the limitation, “a passive force element”, is being interpreted as a spring or magnet and/or equivalents thereof.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 24, 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. Any remaining claims are rejected based on their dependency to a rejected base claim.
Claim 24 recites the limitation "the third drive device" in Lines 1-2. 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, 17, 19, 20, 22 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Foreign Reference (JP H0454410U, translation included herewith).
In reference to claims 16 and 28, Foreign Reference discloses a cable (1) processing apparatus (Figures 1-6) comprising:
a tool holder (i.e. at 17) for accommodating a group of at least two first tools (i.e. upper 19 and lower 19, Figures 2 and 3) for processing a cable (1, Figures 5 and 6),
the tool holder is rotatably mounted (see portion of translation disclosing, “Rotor 17 rotatably installed in the perimeter of support part 15 via bearing 16”) about an axis of rotation (i.e. a horizontal axis extending along the length of 15 in Figure 3) and the at least two first tools can be moved (i.e. moved radially from cylinder 22/22a, in Figure 3) relative to the tool holder for delivering the first tools for cable processing, and
a tool holder drive device (i.e. motor 26, Figure 4, which is equivalent to the limitation of the tool holder drive device, as previously interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), see section 6a above) for rotationally driving the tool holder (see portion of translation disclosing, “Therefore, follower gear 24 which meshes with drive gear 25 rotated with drive motor 26 will unite with rotor 17, and will rotate in rotor 17 by a Dynamic drive of drive motor 26”) and a first drive device (i.e. cylinder 22, Figure 3, which is equivalent to the limitation of the first drive device, as previously interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), see section 6b above) for moving the first tools relative to the tool holder are provided, and
at least one second tool (i.e. left 21, Figures 2 and 4) for processing the cable is arranged in the tool holder and can be moved relative thereto,
the at least one second tool can be moved independently of the first tools by means of a second drive device (i.e. air cylinder 23, Figure 4), and
the second drive device is arranged in a fixed position on the cable processing apparatus (see Figure 4) so that it cannot rotate together with the tool holder (Note; since the second drive device is spaced apart from the tool holder 17, it cannot rotate together with the tool holder, see Figure 4). 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 17, Foreign Reference discloses that the at least one of the tools (i.e. 19) is designed as a knife (19) for cutting into and/or cutting through the cable (see portion of translation disclosing, “it will be cutter 19 for a perimeter cut”), and preferably the first tools (19) are designed as incising knives for cutting into a sheathing, a film and/or into a shielding of the cable (see portion of translation disclosing, “it will be cutter 19 for a perimeter cut”).
In reference to claim 19, Foreign Reference discloses that the processing surfaces of the first tools and the second tool are arranged in the same plane (see Figure 2).
In reference to claim 20, Foreign Reference discloses a further second tool (i.e. right 21, Figure 2) is provided, the processing surface of which is arranged in the same plane as the second tool (Figure 2).
In reference to claim 22, Foreign Reference discloses that the second drive device (23) for moving the second tool has at least one actuating plunger (23a) 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 (Figure 4) so that it cannot rotate together with the tool holder (Again, note that since the second drive device is spaced apart from the tool holder 17, it cannot rotate together with the tool holder, see Figure 4) and/or the further drive device (23) is configured as a parallel gripper (see Figure 4), preferably configured as a pneumatic parallel gripper (see portion of translation disclosing, “air cylinder 23”).
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 18, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Foreign Reference (JP H0454410U, translation included herewith) in view of Berger et al. (2021/0273427).
In reference to claim 18, Foreign Reference discloses the claimed invention as previously mentioned above and further disclose that the at least one second tool (i.e. left 21 and right 21) is designed as a slicing knife for cutting through the cable (see portion of translation disclosing, “Similarly, cutter 21 for a Direction of movement cut is supported by holder 20 as shown in Drawing 4.”), but lacks,
the cutting edges thereof are preferably configured to be V-shaped.
However, Berger et al. teach that it is old and well known in the art at the time the invention was made to provide blades having cutting edges that are V-shaped (see paragraph 22 and Figure 6a).
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 cutting edges of the at least one second tool, of Foreign Reference, with the known technique of providing the V-shaped cutting edges, as taught by Berger et al., and the results would have been predictable. In this situation, one could provide a more advantageous and versatile device that more effectively removes insulation during normal operation (paragraph 22).
Claims 21 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Foreign Reference (JP H0454410U, translation included herewith) in view of Sayyadi et al. (5320002) or Locher (5950505).
In reference to claims 21 and 29, Foreign Reference 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 Foreign Reference, 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).
Claims 23 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Foreign Reference (JP H0454410U, translation included herewith) in view of Locher et al. (2011/0219927).
In reference to claim 23, Foreign Reference 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 Foreign Reference, 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 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Foreign Reference (JP H0454410U, translation included herewith) 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, Foreign Reference 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 Foreign Reference, 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 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Foreign Reference (JP H0454410U, translation included herewith) in view of Sorg (2022/0239078).
In reference to claim 26, Foreign Reference 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 Foreign Reference, 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, Foreign Reference discloses that the cable can be moved relative to the tool holder (paragraph 169) along the axis of rotation (see direction R in Figure 1).
Claim 30, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Foreign Reference (JP H0454410U, translation included herewith) in view of Sugawara (11804687) or Deng (2021/0194225).
In reference to claim 30, Foreign Reference discloses the claimed invention as previously mentioned above, but lacks,
the tool holder is moved relative to the cable along the axis of rotation, wherein the first tools are located in a third position.
However, Sugawara teaches that it is old and well known in the art at the time the invention was made to provide a rotatable tool holder (11) that is axially movable (i.e. from slide 3) relative to a cable (W) along an axis of rotation (at L in Figure 3, similar to the axis of rotation in Foreign Reference), wherein first tools (23) are located in a third position (i.e. a closed or a non-fully opened position, Figure 1).
In addition, Deng also teaches that it is old and well known in the art at the time the invention was made to provide a tool holder (100) that is movable relative to a cable (10) along the axis of the cable (similar to the axis of rotation in Foreign Reference), wherein the first tools are located in a third position (i.e. a closed or a non-fully opened position, 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 tool holder, of Foreign Reference, with the known technique of providing the axially movable tool holder, as taught by Sugawara or Deng, and the results would have been predictable. In this situation, one could provide a more advantageous and versatile folding-back apparatus for the end portion of the coaxial electric wire for advancing the opening pipe can be disposed behind the rotation body, a structure is simplified (Column 4, Lines 6-11 of Sugawara) or that provides a folding-back apparatus that allows the (see Abstract of Deng).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Long (5797299) discloses a wire cutting and stripping device having V-shape cutting blades (64 and 64’, Figure 2).
Blickenstorfer et al. (2022/0052514) also show that it is known to provide multiple tools (23) on a rotatable tool flange (21, Figure 1).
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