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 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: “cutting module” “Heating Module” “roller module” and “neutral handling module” in claims 1, 7 and 14.
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.
Claims 1-20 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.
Claim 7 requires “and one or more subassemblies” in line 3, but requires at least two or more specific subassemblies in the claim—as at “a neutral handling module” … “a cutting module” … “a roller module” and “a heating module.” It is not clear how applicant intends the phrase “ one or more” to be interpreted consistently with the requirement that at least four distinct subassemblies perform functions in the claim.
This same issue arises in claim 14 (and therefore its dependent chain).
A similar issue is present with respect to claim 1, which requires “one or more subassemblies including a cutting module, a heating module, a roller module, and a neutral handling module,” where, it cannot be determined whether applicant is requiring claim 1 to have a showing of all four subassemblies—or if any single subassembly is sufficient to meet the claim. The requirements of claim 7 and 14 seem to indicate the former, and therefore the language “one or more” is confusing in this context. It is also confusing because the claim already requires two subassemblies—the sensor module and the processing module.
Claim 1, 7 and 14 requires “advanced cable preparation” which is subjective—advanced is neither a term of art nor a term with an objective definition that a person of ordinary skill would understand as relating to a specific concept.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sorg (US 2022/0399693) in view of Martin (US 2018/0287353) and Nielson US 11,909,161.
Regarding claim 1, Sorg discloses an advanced cable preparation system (‘for processing an electrical cable’ abstract, inter alia) for removing layers of an electric cable (See e.g. [0001] and Figure 3-5 which shows removal of the sheath and braids from the outside portion of a cable with an interior coaxial cable within 23) .
Sorg discloses a sensor module including a sensor for determining one or more cable parameters; (*See “[0049] A sensor installation can be used for determining the stripping position, in particular for detecting the first stripping position, the assembly position(s) and/or further stripping positions, or for measuring the cable and potentially preassembled plug connector components in order for the folding position to be determined, respectively. The sensor installation can preferably have at least one optical sensor, for example a camera, a light curtain and/or a light barrier.”)
Sorg does not disclose a processing module including a processor and a memory unit, wherein the processing module is designed to process data collected from the sensor module; however, the presence of the sensor (noted above) and its stated function of ‘measuring the cable’ implies there is some data processing going on—to coordinate the function of stripping with the data generated by the stated measurement taking place by the sensor of Sorg. Martin (US 2018/0287353) discloses a controller (190) for a cable processing tool which may be a computer with a memory – “As noted above, the cable processing apparatus 100 includes the controller 190 that controls the operation of the drive system 170. The controller 190 may be any suitable controller such as a programmable logic controller, a series of solenoids, and/or a computer processor including non-transitory computer program code configured to effect operation of the cable processing apparatus 100 as described herein.” ([0071]). It would have been obvious to add a processing module with processor and memory as taught by Martin to achieve the implicit function of the sensor described above—to measure cable and adapt the cable process to the sensed condition of the cable (at least its diameter).
Sorg discloses one or more subassemblies including a cutting module, a heating module, a roller module, and a neutral handling module (10 figure 2-5 handles the braided portion which is a neutral handling module, as best understood). As best understood this clause requires at least one subassembly, and not all the named subassemblies.
Sorg lacks the same type of claimed communication module designed to connect to an interface module. The use of an interface and a communication module which permits connectivity is known in the art, as shown in Martin: “The controller 190 may include any suitable operator interface 191 that includes any suitable controls…” and as seen in, e.g. Figure 1A, there is a connection line drawn between controller and the interface, which is therefore the module for communication since it couples and directs input from the interface to the controller. It would have been obvious to add a controller interface and communication module as taught in Martin, since doing so permits operators to interact with and instruct or change the programming of the controller directly.
Sorg does not disclose using a housing including an outer frame and one or more handle devices; Sorg is concerned with the cable processing itself, and not where the elements of the cable processor are mounted—either in a desk-tool or a hand tool.
In the same field of cable end processing, the use of housings and handles is well known, as evidenced by Nielson US 11,909,161. Nielson discloses a housing (130) including an outer frame (the skinning and supports to 130 as shown in figures 1 and 2) and one or more handle devices (131 figure 2 and figure 3—where it is being held in a hand). Nielson discloses that the handle is useful for “… handle 131 for carrying the cable treatment member 130 and a tooling means 150.”) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to add a frame and housing to Sorg, since the view of Sorg is incomplete and must exist in a real environment, and as shown in Nielson, the use of a frame and a handle are desirable in the field of cable preparation, since it permits movement and carrying of the tooling to the location where the cable needs preparation.
Regarding claim 2, While Sorg lacks wherein the housing further includes an aperture designed to accept the electric cable, (because Sorg does not give details on the housing of the tool) the Nielson reference discusses the need to admit cable to the tooling via a sealing engagement: “further having a workpiece opening for inserting a cable end (7) in a first side of said sealed work.” See 4 figure 4 showing the cable being inserted through the opening to be worked on in the sealed interior 143. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to add a housing and aperture as taught by Nielson, since doing so permits the cable to access the tooling within a housing and be operable, as shown in the Nielson device.
Regarding claim 6, Sorg discloses the cable preparation system of claim 1 further comprising: a clamping module (for example,[0105]: “A clamping device for securing the electrical cable against rotation during processing can be provided. Fixing the cable so as to be secured against rotation is typically advantageous for automated processing of the cable. Axially securing the electrical cable by means of the clamping device, permanently or only during specific processing steps, is also possible.” And at ]0137] : “The clamping device 3, or the clamping jaws 4, respectively, can be specified to hold the cable 2 so as to be secured against rotation.”), a sliding module *(e.g. See linear sliding movement at 11 figure 1-2 , or a combination thereof.
Claim(s) 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sorg (US 2022/0399693) in view of Martin (US 2018/0287353) and Nielson US 11,909,161 as applied to claims 1-2, and 6 above, and further in view of McDermott (US 5,457,877).
Regarding claims 3 and 4, Sorg lacks any discussion of how the device is powered—and does not specifically disclose a power module, wherein the power module is provided in a form of one or more battery units. Sorg does disclose the movement of one or more subassemplies, as seen in the figures 3-5 and discussion surrounding at least element 10.
McDermott (US 5,457,877) discloses a cable cutter device which is movable to site work for cables, and as such is the same field or problem applicant presents in claims 3 and 4, as to the need for power to drive the operations on the cable seen in Sorg. Sorg omits any disclosure of powering the device, presumably because all those of ordinary skill are able to power devices when the device is known to require power and movement, as disclosed in Sorg. Here, McDermott discusses the reason to use specifically battery power: “Normally, in the field, the cable 46 is fixed in place, e.g., being attached to and strung between telephone poles, and the apparatus 10 is moved relative to the cable 46. Also, the power tool 20 is preferably self-powered, by means of a chargeable battery, hence without an extending power cord.”
Therefore, the reasons to select battery power for cable cutting devices is that it makes them self-powered without the need for an extending power cord—and also it makes them suitable for work in “the field” where the cables may need to be worked on. In the same field of endeavor, it would have been obvious to add a battery ‘power module’ to Sorg, in order to power the functions of stripping and preparing the cable terminal in Sorg without using a mains power source, so the device would be usable in the ‘field’.
Claim(s) 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sorg (US 2022/0399693) in view of Martin (US 2018/0287353) and Nielson US 11,909,161 as applied to claims 1, 2, 6 above, and further in view of Evans (US 2016/0036208).
Regarding claim 5, Sorg does not disclose a motor module with one or more motors. Sorg does disclose items like clamps and neutral stripping wheels (*10) and mold portions to move and take action. In general, anything which causes such action could reasonably be called a “motor” since it provides a motive force—a force of action. Here, the addition of suitable motor elements is suggested by the disclosure of Sorg, which requires movement and motive forces to operate as disclosed. The silence of Sorg as to the presence of motors is indicative that motors are well known and can be implemented as a routine manner to accomplish the functions seen in Sorg, and other functions motors are known to achieve. Evans specifically discusses the use of “motors” including “linear or other actuators” to move components similar to Sorg which are also involved in an automated process of stripping layers on a cable: “ In yet other aspects, the sensors may detect the current draw on the motors of the linear or other actuators that move one or more of the first and second shielding grippers 101, 102, shielding fanner 103 and shielding folder 104 such that when the current rises above a predetermined level the movement of one or more of the first and second shielding grippers 101, 102, shielding fanner 103 and shielding folder 104 stops, and the controller 100C issues suitable commands for proceeding to a next processing step as those steps described herein.”
Here, it is apparent that in the field of controllable cable processors, it would have been obvious to add motors to provide the motive force to operate the known subassemblies of a cable processing tool such as Sorg, as taught to be effective in Evans, as set forth above, with the specific functions of being controlled by a controller, and sensing the cable, and fanning the shielding and gripping and processing the cable as shown therein.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-20 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.
While the closest art known in the field of cable stripping automatically has been shown above, the specific cable preparation machine including all of cutting module, neutral handling module, and a sensor module to perform the specific steps as claimed is not seen to be obvious or anticipated. Specifically, while Sorg includes an equivalent to a neutral handling module, it is not the same as that which is claimed in claims 7 and 14. Further, the requirements of scoring an insulation shield (claim 7) or shaving the insulation shield (claim 14) is not seen to be known in the same manner as claimed and with a reason to combine this specific processing step with the other (broadly known) elements which may be individually seen in the cited prior art, but their particular combination as claimed in the method claims 7 or 14 are not seen in the art known.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEAN M MICHALSKI whose telephone number is (571)272-6752. The examiner can normally be reached Typically M-F 6a-3:30p East Coast Time.
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 Ashley can be reached at (571) 270-3818. 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.
SEAN M. MICHALSKI
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3724
/SEAN M MICHALSKI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724