DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I claims 1-7 in the reply filed on 6-2-2026 is acknowledged. The restriction is made final.
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 4 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. The language “and/or” is indefinite because it is not clear what structure is actually required by the claim.
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 retaining device adapted to attach” in claim 1, line 3.
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 § 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.
Claim(s) 1,3 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by College et al. (5,676,010). College discloses straightening wire (78) of varying diameter (col. 6, lines 33-37) which is used in wire processing including cable terminal manufacturing (col. 1, lines 14-16). College discloses a wire straightener (Fig. 3) including a cable connection module (62; Fig. 3) that is configured to be detachably connected (col. 3, lines 15-18) to a wire processing machine (60; col. 3, lines 15-18). The cable connection module (62) includes a cable module frame (70) that carries an upper roller support (90; Fig. 5) supporting an upper roller group (92,94,96; col. 3, lines 41-42) and a lower roller support (110; col. 3, lines 51-53) supporting a lower roller group (112,114,116,118). The upper roller group (92,94,96) and the lower roller group (112,114,116,118) are configured for guiding a cable (cylindrical product; wire, 78) alternately (col. 3, lines 56-58 and col. 5, lines 47-48) between the rollers (Fig. 12). The upper roller support (90) is displaceable relative to the bottom roller support (110) in an opening and closing direction (vertically, Fig. 10; col. 5, lines 36-38 and 44-46) and is driven by roller support driving means (160; col. 5, lines 60-63) to straighten different diameter cables (col. 6, lines 27-32). The wire (78) is retained in the cable connection module (62) by force from a handle (212) which is screwed to close the upper roller support against the lower roller support (col. 5, lines 41-47) and retain the wire within roller grooves (100; Fig. 7) for deflection by the upper roller group and lower roller group. Regarding claim 4, the cable connection module (62) is detachably connected by the cable module frame (70) to the cable processing machine (60) by screws (68; Fig. 3).
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) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over College et al. (5,676,010) in view of Korf (3,348,400). College does not disclose that the retainer includes two opposing jaws that hold the cable. Korf teaches (col. 6, lines 1-2 and 63-74) that clamping devices (41,42) comprise jaws (45,46) that are configured to clamp wire (11) in a straightening device (14), the clamping jaws (col. 7, lines 43-52) grip the wire and hold it to provide a length of wire (11d) for working. The straightening device comprises a plurality of alternative rollers (14,14c; col. 3, lines 71-75) for straightening the length of wire. It would have been obvious to the skilled artisan prior to the effective filing date of the present invention to clamp the wire of College with opposing jaws as taught by Korf in order to grip a wire to obtain a predetermined length of wire that is to be processed in the cable processing machine.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over College et al. (5,676,010) in view of Kim (KR 2003/73181). College does not disclose that drive rollers are movable laterally in lateral insertion openings. Kim teaches a straightening device (100) having rollers (1) that are driven by a driving means (140) and are configured to be laterally movable (Fig. 5) in lateral roller insertion openings (6) extending radially, by lateral roller retraction means (3,4,7,8) so that the rollers (1) frictionally grip and convey a cylindrical workpiece through the straightening rollers (2; [31], lines 1-3 and 8-10). It would have been obvious to the skilled artisan prior to the effective filing date of the present invention to laterally retract a pair of drive rollers to connect to the cable and drive the cable through the straightening device as taught by KR.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over College et al. (5,676,010) in view of Moore et al. (2017/0040780). College does not disclose that the cable connection module is connected to a cable bundle. Moore teaches [0043] a cable connection module (20; Fig. 4) comprising grooved rollers (24) that are configured to roll over a cable bundle (10; [0070],[0072]) to straighten the cable bundle and Moore teaches that the cable connection module (Figs. 18 and 19) is configured to hold the cable bundle suspended between supports ([0069], lines 1-4). It would have been obvious to the skilled artisan prior to the effective filing date of the present invention to connect the cable connection module of College to a cable bundle at any longitudinal position of the cable bundle as taught by Moore in order to roll the cable connection module over the cable bundle for straightening.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over College et al. (5,676,010) in view of Enyedy (2012/0160897). College does not disclose a machine readable identifier. Enyedy teaches a wire rolling module (200; [0020]) that has a machine readable identifier (201). It would have been obvious to the skilled artisan prior to the effective filing date of the present invention to provide the cable connection module of College with a machine readable identifier as taught by Enyedy in order to identify that the module is used for a predetermined cable size.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDWARD THOMAS TOLAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4525. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5.
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, Chris Templeton can be reached at 571-270-1477. 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.
/EDWARD T TOLAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3725
Prosecution Insights