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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 07/07/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-10 and 12-25 are pending in the application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 6th - 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.
Claim 1 limitation “adjusting means for adjusting a position of a tool” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation 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.
Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claim 1 has been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves 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 § 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.
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, 12-14, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over BLICKENSTORFER et al. (WO 2020119916 A1) in view of GHOSH et al. (US 20220234113 A1) and further in view of GOTO (JP 2000354315 A).
Regarding claims 1-2, 12-14, and 20, BLICKENSTORFER et al. discloses a rotary tool holding apparatus/cable stripping device (100) comprising
a rotor (19) having a rotor base (plate and conical portion shown, figs. 3 and 5) and comprising a segmented rotor end face (21),
whereby at least a first rotor segment (figs. 1-5 and 7-8) has one or more tool holding areas with tools (23) arranged in the tool holding areas, wherein at least the first rotor segment is fastened to the rotor base (figs. 1-5 and 7-8) and
wherein the first rotor segment is electrically connected to a device for detecting contact from an electrical conductor (pages 7-8) and discloses the plurality of tool holding areas (23) is provided which extend over a similar angular division, arranged respectively in a multiplicity of tool holding areas, in a defined fraction of the tool holding areas, or in all tool holding areas, the tools (23) being identical or functionality complementary to one another (figs. 1-8 show the angular division with multiplicity of tool holding areas for tools 23) and wherein at least one of the tool holding areas has an adjusting means (18) for adjusting a position of a tool (23) arranged in the relevant tool holding area (abstract, pages 11-17, figs. 1-8).
BLICKENSTORFER et al. fails to disclose the tool comprises an electrically conductive material or formed from such a material, a rotor base made at least in part of an electrically conductive material, the first rotor segment at least in part of an electrically conductive material and is electrically insulated from the rotor base and at least some of the other rotor segments, wherein electrical insulation between the rotor base and at least some of the rotor segments and/or between at least some of the rotor segments among themselves is provided by an insulating layer which has an electrically insulating material or is formed from an electrically insulating material.
GHOSH et al. teaches a rotary tool holding apparatus (100) with a rotor base made at least in part of an electrically conductive material (metallic network 1123 [0041]), a first rotor segment (184/1124) at least in part of an electrically conductive material [0041] and is electrically insulated from the rotor base and at least some of the other rotor segments (porous network of voids, insulating base plate 134 “electrically insulating ceramic material” [0041, 0048], fig. 5), wherein electrical insulation between the rotor base and at least some of the rotor segments and/or between at least some of the rotor segments among themselves is provided by an insulating layer which has an electrically insulating material or is formed from an electrically insulating material ((0035-0049], figs. 1-5).
GOTO also teaches a rotary tool holding apparatus (100) with a base (support member for blade 30 and conductor tube 20 is also electrically insulated from surrounding members) made at least in part of an electrically conductive material, a first segment at least in part of an electrically conductive material and is electrically insulated from the base (insulating sheet on blade 30 support member) and at least some of other blade segments (30a/b), wherein electrical insulation between the base and at least some of the segments and/or between at least some of the segments among themselves is provided by an insulating layer (insulating sheet) which has an electrically insulating material or is formed from an electrically insulating material wherein at least one of the tool holding areas has an adjusting means (moving blade 30a by another pulse motor against static blade 30b) for adjusting a position of a tool (30a) arranged in the relevant tool holding area with electrically connected to a device (capacitance detection circuit 34 ) for detecting contact from an electrical conductor (electrodes monitored for cutting depth with capacitance detection circuit 34 [0020-0026], figs. 1-16).
Given the teachings of BLICKENSTORFER et al. to have a rotor with rotor segments with one or more tool holding areas, it 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 to modify the tool to comprise an electrically conductive material or formed from such a material, the rotor base made at least in part of an electrically conductive material, the first rotor segment at least in part of an electrically conductive material and is electrically insulated from the rotor base and at least some of the other rotor segments wherein electrical insulation between the rotor base and at least some of the rotor segments and/or between at least some of the rotor segments among themselves is provided by an insulating layer which has an electrically insulating material or is formed from an electrically insulating material to have protective electronic insulating ceramics or other insulators, improved electronic communication and/or for electronic routing purposes as taught by GHOSH et al. and GOTO.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-10, 17-18, and 21-25 are allowed.
Claims 15-16 and 19 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.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Reasons for Allowable Subject Matter
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: the prior art of record fails to teach or render obvious a rotary cable stripping device comprising all the structural and functional limitations and further comprising, amongst other limitations/features, a rotor base with rotor segments made partially of an electrically conductive material with tool receiving areas, the rotor segments arranged in an electrically insulated manner from portions of the other rotor segments and electrically connected to a device for detecting contact with an electrical conductor so tools (cutting knives) can perform wire stripping with wire core detection to avoid damaging the wire core. Though BLICKENSTORFER et al. (WO 2020119916 A1) teaches a rotary cable stripping device, it would not be obvious to modify rotary cable stripping device with having the electrically conductive material with tool receiving areas and insulating areas with tools that perform wire stripping with wire core detection to avoid damaging the wire without having to add different materials for a variety of portions of the rotary base, the tools, and the electronics. Having the efficiency of having the tools/cutting knives placed/oriented correctly on the cable provided an effective feedback/prevention of damaging the wire core and provides a fast, quality cable stripping device.
While various features of the claimed subject matter are found individually in the prior art, a skilled artisan would have to include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure to combine or modify the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed subject matter, and thus obviousness would not be proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). There is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine or modify the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention, and thus obviousness would not be proper. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-10 and 12-25 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on all references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Additional prior art considered pertinent: see form 892.
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 ROBERT LONG whose telephone number is (571)270-3864. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9am-5pm, 8-9pm (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, SHELLEY SELF can be reached at (571) 272-4524. 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 F LONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3731
Prosecution Insights