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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of group I, corresponding claims 1-5 in the reply filed on 05/29/2026 is acknowledged. Examiner also reviews the amendments of the withdrawn claims, Claims 6-18 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected group (they lack the same or corresponding special technical features, for an example, the technical feature of “two further blades” in claim 2 that are not required on the invention of claims 6-18, and conversely, the technical feature of “an ejection part” in claims 6, 16 that is not required in claim 1…).
Thus, Claims 1-5 are examined below. Please note that if the independent claim is later determined to be allowable, the withdrawn claims properly dependent therefrom will be properly considered and rejoined.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 02/29/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because there are 35 figures have not been thoroughly checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in these figures. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. Therefore, the phrase, last line of the abstract “ Methods for stripping a cable are also provided” is not assisted readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The lengthy specification (38 pages) has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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 1-5 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 1, “a first tool part and a second tool part, which can be mounted exchangeably in tool jaws of a hand-held tool and can be moved together by the tool jaws, for enclosing a cable, wherein the cable has a cable core and an insulating sheath” is unclear what it is trying to claim. Reading at Applicant’s specification, it appears to disclose structures of the first and second parts of the hand-held tool for stripping or removing a sheath of a cable, however, as the claim body is written, it is for serving to separate the cable that is conflicted with the specification and how the helical line of the tool parts serve to separate the cable.
The scope of claim 2 “two further blades are provided on each of the two tool parts” is unclear whether the two further blades refers the exchangeable further blades as set forth in claim 1 or additional further blades (spare blades). Claims 4-5 have the same issue. If Applicant is trying to claim spare further blades, Claim should be claimed a kit or an accessories.
For examination purposes, as best understood, Examiner is interpreting the “issues above” as below and all claims dependent from claim 1 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being dependent from the rejected parent claim.
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.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koji (JP 2014204653 A and Translation) in view of Mark (EP 0780943 A1).
Regarding claim 1, as best understood, Koji shows a first tool part and a second tool part (20a, 20b, Figure 1), mounted exchangeably in tool jaws of a hand-held tool and moved together by the tool jaws, for enclosing a cable (see both tools are formed a cylindrical shape while both tools are closed together, they can be exchangeably), wherein the cable has a cable core and an insulating sheath (see Figures 2a, 2b), each tool part comprising:
a body (where the reference “20” is pointing in Figure 1) which forms a receiving region which encloses a region of the cable which is semicircular in cross-section, the receiving region having a longitudinal dimension and a transverse dimension (see Figure 1);
a plurality of blades (2 blades 25a and 2 blades 25b), each blade having a blade tip and the blade tips delimit a clearance in which it is provided to receive the cable core, and wherein further the blade tips, when the tool parts are moved together, extend to form a helical line (see Figure 1 and see the sheath of the cable is removed); and
an exchangeable further blade provided at least at one end of the receiving region when viewed in a direction of the longitudinal dimension (as it is written, it is unclear how the further blade is exchangeable, therefore, see two blades 23a and two blades 23b can be exchanged by exchanging the tools), forms a boundary at the end of the receiving region, is configured to be fastened at the end, extends in a direction of the transverse dimension of the receiving region, and is provided as a separating blade which extends into the cable core and serves to separate the cable (see the issue above, this blade having a central arc cutting edge is for removed the sheath of the cable, based on the issue, it is best understood, the ended blades 23a or 23b are separated the sheath of the cable as seen in Figures 2a, 2b).
If one still argues that the tools are not interchangeable or exchangeable and the further blades are not exchangeable.
Mark shows first and second tool parts (Figures 3a-5) having first and second dies (34, 36) being identical (Col. 6, line 14), wherein the dies can be interchangeable or exchangeable (since they are identical).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the first and second tools of Koji to be interchangeable or exchangeable on either tool jaws, as taught by Mark, in order to allow conveniently and quickly mounted the tools on the hand-held tool (without sorting which tool to be on first or second jaws).
Regarding claim 2, as best understood, the modified first and second tool parts of Koji shows that two further blades are provided on each of the two tool parts.
Regarding claim 3, the modified first and second tool parts of Koji shows that the helical line is of multi-start design (see the multi-start thread in figure 1 of Koji).
Regarding claim 4, the modified first and second tool parts of Koji shows that different types of further blades are provided.
Examiner takes Official Notice that it has long been known to have blades that have different cutting edges (for examples, V shapes or arc shapes or semicircular shapes or tapered shapes). Art examples can be provided if challenged, as they are numerous. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) to have different shapes (types) of the blades for predictable potential options to separate a sheath from a cable, which provides the exact same results, a person with ordinary skill in the art has good reason to pursue the known potential options for separating the sheath from the cable with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 5, as best understood, the modified first and second tool parts of Koji shows that a further blade is provided as a stripping blade which does not extend or does not extend substantially into the cable core (see Figure 1 of Koji and Figure 5 of Mark).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. GB 2181986 A shows identical first and second tools that can be interchangeable.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NHAT CHIEU Q DO whose telephone number is (571)270-1522. The examiner can normally be reached 8AM-5PM EST.
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.
/NHAT CHIEU Q DO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724 7/24/2026
Prosecution Insights