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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 20 January 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-20 are pending. Applicant's amendments have overcome each and every objection and rejection under 35 USC 112 previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 19 September 2025, except for any objection(s) and/or rejection(s) under 35 USC 112 repeated below.
Information Disclosure Statement
The listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(a) because the drawings are not black and white line drawings. Further, MPEP 608.02(VII)(B) explains that grayscale drawings are not ordinarily permitted. The Applicant should submit black and white line drawings.
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(s) 1-8 and 13-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. No. 4,753,007 to Weller in view of US Pat. No. 5,671,833 to Edwards et al.
Regarding claim 1, Weller discloses a cable cutter (see Figs. 1-2) for cutting an armor from an armored cable (see col. 1, lines 36-38), the cutter comprising:
a housing (including lower housing 10 and upper housing 14) configured to receive the armored cable (see the housing receiving a cable illustrated in phantom in Fig. 2);
a cutting blade 26 mounted to the housing for rotation about a drive axis (see Fig. 1, where the drive axis is along the length of drive shaft 24; see also col. 2, lines 51-59); and
a user operated crank handle 30 (the handle is further considered as including member 32; however, for brevity the handle is referred to as handle 30) mounted to the housing (see Fig. 1; noting also that consistent with the present application ‘mounted to the housing’ encompasses an indirect mounting) to:
b. rotate about a crank handle axis (an axis passing through the drive shaft 24; see col. 2, lines 51-59) when the crank handle is in an operating position (the operating position shown in Figs. 1 and 2) with the crank handle 30 operably coupled to the cutting blade 26 to rotate the cutting blade 26 about the drive axis in response to a user rotating the crank handle 30 about the crank handle axis (see Fig. 1 and col. 2, lines 51-59).
Regarding claim 2, Weller discloses that the housing comprises an upper housing 14 and a lower housing 10 (see Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 3, Weller discloses that the upper housing 14 is connected to the lower housing 10 to pivot between a ready position (shown in phantom in Fig. 2; this position being a ‘ready position’ because the blade 26 is spaced outside the cable channel 12) and a cutting position (shown in solid in Fig. 2; see col. 2, lines 46-50 and col. 3, lines 3-9).
Regarding claim 4, Weller discloses that the upper and lower housings 14 and 10 are grip housings configured to be grasped by a hand of a user (see Figs. 1-2, where the relatively narrow, elongated shape of the housings 14 and 10 results in the housings being considered as ‘grip’ housings; see also col. 4, lines 27-31).
Regarding claim 5, Weller discloses that the crank handle 30 and the cutting blade 26 are mounted to the upper housing 14 (see Figs. 2 and 5) and the lower housing 10 comprises an elongate conduit guide channel 12 extending along a longitudinal axis (see Fig. 2 – the longitudinal axis extends in a left-right direction along the plane of the page) to receive a length of the armored cable and locate the armored cable relative to the cutting blade 26 (see the cable shown in phantom in Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 6, Weller discloses a drive shaft 24 mounted in the housing to rotate about the drive axis (see Fig. 1 and col. 2, lines 54-59), and wherein the cutting blade 26 is carried on the drive shaft 24 for rotation therewith about the drive axis (see Fig. 1 and col. 2, lines 54-59).
Regarding claim 7, Weller discloses that the crank handle 30 is directly connected to the drive shaft 24 (see Fig. 1, showing direct contact between the handle 30 and shaft 24; see also col, 2 lines 54-59).
Regarding claim 13, Weller discloses that the cutting blade 26 is a disc shaped cutting blade 26 (see Figs. 1 and 5; noting also that the circular shape of the blade 26 is evident to one of ordinary skill in the art from the fact that the blade 26 is rotatable, and a non-circular shaped blade would produce an inconsistent cutting depth, which is not desirable).
Regarding claim 14, Weller discloses a cable cutter (see Figs. 1-2) for cutting an armor from an armored cable (see col. 1, lines 36-38), the cutter comprising:
a housing (including lower housing 10 and upper housing 14) configured to receive the armored cable (see the housing receiving a cable illustrated in phantom in Fig. 2);
a cutting blade 26 mounted to the housing for rotation about a drive axis (see Fig. 1, where the drive axis is along the length of drive shaft 24; see also col. 2, lines 51-59); and
a user operated crank handle 30 (the handle is further considered as including member 32; however, for brevity the handle is referred to as handle 30) mounted to the housing (see Fig. 1; noting also that consistent with the present application ‘mounted to the housing’ encompasses an indirect mounting) to:
b. rotate about a crank handle axis (an axis passing through the drive shaft 24; see col. 2, lines 51-59) when the crank handle is in an operating position (the operating position shown in Figs. 1 and 2) with the crank handle 30 operably coupled to the cutting blade 26 to rotate the cutting blade 26 about the drive axis in response to a user rotating the crank handle 30 about the crank handle axis (see Fig. 1 and col. 2, lines 51-59),
wherein a portion of the crank handle 30 is spaced from the housing with the handle 30 in the operating position (see Fig. 1 – there is a spacing in a direction along the plane of the page in a vertical direction between the housing and crank handle 30).
Regarding claim 15, Weller discloses that the housing comprises an upper housing 14 and a lower housing 10 (see Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 16, Weller discloses that the upper housing 14 is connected to the lower housing 10 to pivot between a ready position (shown in phantom in Fig. 2; this position being a ‘ready position’ because the blade 26 is spaced outside the cable channel 12) and a cutting position (shown in solid in Fig. 2; see col. 2, lines 46-50 and col. 3, lines 3-9).
Regarding claim 17, Weller discloses that the crank handle 30 and the cutting blade 26 are mounted to the upper housing 14 (see Figs. 2 and 5) and the lower housing 10 comprises an elongate conduit guide channel 12 extending along a longitudinal axis (see Fig. 2 – the longitudinal axis extends in a left-right direction along the plane of the page) to receive a length of the armored cable and locate the armored cable relative to the cutting blade 26 (see the cable shown in phantom in Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 18, Weller discloses a drive shaft 24 mounted in the housing to rotate about the drive axis (see Fig. 1 and col. 2, lines 54-59), and wherein the cutting blade 26 is carried on the drive shaft 24 for rotation therewith about the drive axis (see Fig. 1 and col. 2, lines 54-59) and the crank handle 30 is directly connected to the drive shaft 24 (see Fig. 1, showing direct contact between the handle 30 and shaft 24; see also col, 2 lines 54-59).
Weller fails to disclose that the crank handle is to: a. pivot about a pivot axis between a stored position and an operating position, and c. not rotate freely about the crank handle axis when the crank handle is in the stored position; wherein the cable cutter has a more compact form factor with the crank handle in the stored position than with the crank handle in the operating position, as required by claim 1. Weller also fails to disclose that the crank handle is releasably retained in the stored position as required by claim 8. Continuing, Weller fails to disclose that the crank handle is to: a. pivot about a pivot axis between a stored position and an operating position, and c. not rotate freely about the crank handle axis when the crank handle is in the stored position; wherein a portion of the crank handle is positioned closely adjacent the housing with the handle in the stored position, as required by claim 14. Weller also fails to disclose that the crank handle is releasably retained in the stored position as required by claim 19.
Edwards, though, teaches a cable device having a crank handle 22 that is to: a. pivot about a pivot axis (a pivot axis extending into and out of the page through relative to Fig. 1, with the pivot axis defined by pin 23; compare Figs. 1 and 4) between a stored position (shown in Fig. 4) and an operating position (shown in Fig. 1), and c. not rotate freely about a crank handle axis when the crank handle 22 is in the stored position (see Fig. 4 and col. 5, lines 19-26; the crank handle 22 does not rotate freely about the crank handle axis, which is a vertical axis through axle 24 relative to Fig. 4, when in the stored position because a knob 44 of the crank handle 22 is received in indentation 42 in the stored position, thus obstructing the crank handle 22 from rotating), and wherein the cable device has a more compact form factor with the crank handle 22 in the stored position than with the crank handle 22 in the operating position (compare Figs. 1 and 4 and see col. 5, lines 19-26, where a form factor of the device measured in a left-right direction along the plane of the page relative to Fig. 1 with the figure oriented with the reference characters upright is more compact when the crank handle 22 is in the stored position than in the operating position – the crank handle 22 does not protrude in front of the device in the stored position as can be seen in Fig. 4; also, the form factor is more compact in a width direction measured in an up-down direction along the plane of the page relative to Fig. 1 oriented with the reference characters upright because the knob 44 is received in indentation 42 in the stored position as shown in Fig. 4 rather than protruding outward in a form-factor increasing manner in the operating position as shown in Fig. 1). [Claim 1] Edwards teaches that the crank handle 22 is releasably retained in the stored position (compare Figs. 1 and 4 and see col. 5, lines 19-26; the crank handle 22 can be unfolded from the position of Fig. 4 to the position of Fig. 1). [Claims 8 and 19] Edwards further teaches that, in addition to the features of Edwards discussed above with respect to claim 1, that a portion of the crank handle 22 is positioned closely adjacent the housing with the handle 22 in the stored position (see Fig. 4, relative to Fig. 4, a portion of the handle 22 under the tip of the lead line for reference character ‘22’ is closely adjacent the housing with the handle 22 in the stored position) and is spaced from the housing with the handle 22 in the operating position (see Fig. 1; the portion of the handle 22 below the tip of the lead line for reference character ‘22’ in Fig. 4 is spaced from the housing in the operating position as can be seen in Fig. 1 because the handle 22 is rotated 180 degrees to position this portion of the handle 22 on an outer side of the handle 22 in the operating position as shown in Fig. 1 rather than on an inner side of the handle adjacent the housing in the stored position as shown in Fig. 4). [Claim 14] Edwards further teaches that the compact size of the cable device can be enhanced by employing the crank handle as a folding crank handle, where the crank handle folds between operating and stored positions (see col. 5, lines 19-26).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art make the crank handle of Weller pivotable in the manner disclosed by Edwards. This modification is advantageous to enhance the compact size of the cable cutter of Weller, at least in the stored position, because in the stored position the knob 32 of the crank handle 30 of Weller, as modified, would be positioned more closely to the housing and the handle 30 (being angled away from the housing in the operating position as shown in Fig. 1 of Weller) would be angled toward the housing in the stored position.
Claim(s) 9-12 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weller as modified by Edwards as applied to claims 1 and 14 above, respectively, and further in view of US Pub. No. 2008/0047147 A1 to Ducret, as evidenced by US Pub. No. 2006/0207112 A1 to Dunn et al. and US Pat. No. 3,822,731 to Keymer.
Regarding claim 9, Weller, as modified, discloses that the crank handle 30 comprises an elongate torque transmission member 30 (see Fig. 1 of Weller; the handle 30 is considered as further including member 32, whereas the transmission member is merely element 30) having a central portion that is curved (see Fig. 1 of Weller – the central portion of the transmission member is curved near each of its two ends, with one curve being adjacent drive shaft 24 and another curve being adjacent knob 32), the central portion positioned closely adjacent the housing with the handle in the stored position (see Fig. 1 of Weller and the modification of Weller to make the handle 30 pivotable above – by rotating the handle 180 degrees about the axis of the drive shaft in Fig. 1, and then pivoting the handle 30 back toward the housing, the central portion is positioned closer to the housing in the stored position than in the operating position, noting also that the curve in the transmission member 30 in the stored position, where the handle is rotated relative to the position illustrated in Fig. 1, causes the transmission member 30 to curve toward the housing rather than away from the housing as shown in Fig. 1; note that ‘closely adjacent’ is considered as satisfied by any position of the central portion that is closer than the position of the central portion when in the operating position) and spaced from the housing with the handle 30 in the operating position (see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 10, Weller, as modified, discloses that the crank handle further comprises a round shaped grip member 32 carried on the torque transmission member 30 (see Figs. 1 and 2).
Regarding claim 11, Weller, as modified, discloses that the grip member 32 is positioned adjacent an end of the housing with the handle 30 in the stored position (this feature is evident from Fig. 1 of Weller – i.e., when the handle is rotated 180 degrees about an axis of drive shaft 24, and then pivoted back toward the housing as permitted by the modification of Weller in view of Edwards above, the grip member 32 becomes position adjacent the housing).
Regarding claim 12, Weller, as modified, discloses that the grip member 32 does not extend past a side surface of the housing located on an opposite side of the housing from the handle with the handle in the stored position (see the annotated Fig. below, where the extension between element 38 and the outer end of the knob 32 is repeated to illustrate that even when the handle 30 is pivoted so that the knob 32 is adjacent the housing, the knob 32 still does not extend far enough to pass beyond the side surface of the housing). Alternatively, the features of claim 12 are obvious as evidenced by Edwards, since Edwards teaches providing a pivoting crank handle in order to provide a compact device. In view of Edwards’s teachings, one of ordinary skill in the art is motivated to make the footprint of the cable cutter of Weller, as modified, as small as possible. This motivation leads one of ordinary skill in the art to configure the handle so that the grip member does not extend past the side surface in order to minimize space.
PNG
media_image1.png
452
676
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 20, Weller, as modified, discloses that the crank handle comprises an elongate torque transmission member 30 defining the portion of the crank handle (see Fig. 1 of Weller).
Weller, as modified, is considered as failing to disclose that the transmission member of the crank handle is ridged as required by claims 9 and 20.
Ducret, though, teaches a transmission member 22 of a crank handle that is ridged (the transmission member is ridged due to its curvature between the end adjacent the blade and the end adjacent the knob – this is the same manner in which the inventive transmission member is ‘ridged’).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the transmission member of Weller, as modified, to be ridged in as taught by Ducret. First, spacing savings of a crank handle in a stored position is a known concern (see Edwards at col. 5, lines 19-26; see Dunn at paragraph 20), and it is further known in the art to shape a crank handle to conform to an adjacent body when in a stored position (see Keymer at Fig. 5). Thus, by making the transmission member of Weller, as modified, to be ridged as taught by Ducret, the space occupied by the crank handle in the stored position is reduced and the crank handle in the stored position better conforms to the geometry of the body – both of these features are desired in view of Dunn and Keymer. Moreover, this modification is obvious under KSR Rationale B – simple substitution because the modification is merely exchanging one crank handle of a cable cutter for another, where both handles perform the exact same function of rotating a blade, so that the results of this substitution are predictable.
Response to Arguments
Regarding the objection to the drawings related to the drawings failing to be black and white line drawings, the Applicant does not address this issue in particular in the Remarks dated 20 January 2026. The objection is maintained as set forth above.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) the rejections of claims under 35 USC 102 and 35 USC 103 are against the St. Palley reference (US Pat. No. 2,642,651). These arguments have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection set forth above does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. In particular, following Applicant’s amendments to claims 1 and 14, the examiner cites the Edwards reference for features related to the folding of the crank handle, where the crank handle does not freely rotate about the crank handle axis in the stored position.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. 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 EVAN H MACFARLANE whose telephone number is (303)297-4242. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7:30AM to 4:00PM MT.
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) 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.
/EVAN H MACFARLANE/Examiner, Art Unit 3724