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 .
Drawings
1. Figures 11-13 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art—
because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. 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.
It should be noted that Figs. 11-13 are described in paragraphs [0004]-[0006] under the heading of “Description of Related Art.” Accordingly, these figures should be labeled as “Prior Art” in the drawings.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
2. 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.
3. Claims 1-9 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.
Regarding claim 1, “A split-type device” is unclear. It is not clear what device could constitute a slit-type device. The claim does not provide any structural boundaries for what constitute a “slit-type” device, and it is not clear what components or characteristics are required for a device to fall within this category. For example, it is not clear whether any device capable of splitting material, such as a hacksaw, would qualify as “a split-type device.”
Regarding claim 1, the claim recites the cutting mechanism, the flat cutting part, the large-toothed cutting part, the small-toothed cutting part, and connectors as separate components. However, the specification as well as claim 5 state that the cutting mechanism comprises the flat, large-toothed, small-toothed cutting parts, and connectors, showing these are subcomponents of the cutting mechanism, not separate elements. This inconsistency makes the scope of claim 1 unclear.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation stating that “the power mechanism comprises the driving part, the frame, the moving part, and the pressing part” is unclear. The claim also recites the power mechanism, the driving part, the frame, the moving part, and the pressing part as separate components at the beginning of the claim. Therefore, it is unclear whether the frame, the moving part, and the pressing part are individual components of the split-type device or they are subcomponents included within the power mechanism.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation “the moving part is mounted below the frame and is configured for moving the power mechanism” is unclear. Because
The moving part is recited as a component of the power mechanism, it is not clear how a component of the power mechanism can be configured to move the power mechanism as a whole. Furthermore, it is unclear whether the moving part and the frame are intended to be components of the power mechanism or separate components of the claimed device.
Regarding claim 5, it is not clear whether “first connectors,” “second connectors,” and “third connectors” are part of the connectors recited in claim 1 or additional, distinct connectors. It should be noted that claim 8, recites, “the connectors comprise the first connectors, the second connectors, and the third connectors.” In this case, it is suggested that claim 5 clarifies that the connectors comprise first connectors, second connectors, and third connectors.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
4. 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.
5. Claim 1, as best understood, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Wabnegger et al. (2015/0270034 A1) hereinafter Wabnegger. Regarding claim 1, as best understood, Wabnegger discloses a split-type device for continuously and rapidly separating (or capable of separating) a steel cord belt, comprising a power mechanism 10 (shown in Fig. 3), a driving part 52 (defined as pulling wheels which drive the workpiece towards the cutting mechanism or provides all pulling force for the cable in the direction F of the cable 16; Fig. 6 and paragraph [0047]), a frame 50, a moving part (represented by the wheels of the power mechanism 10; Fig. 3), a pressing part 40’ (Fig. 6), a cutting mechanism (20, 26, 28; Fig. 5), a flat cutting part 70 (having a planar body or flat body 70b and a single linear cutting edge 70a; Fig. 12 and paragraph [0057]), a large-toothed cutting part 28 (as a large tooth connected to a base; Fig. 9), a small-toothed cutting part 62 (as tooth element, with a notch 62a, connected to the wheel 60; Fig. 11), connectors (defined as the bolts connected the rollers 52, 54 to the bracket 50a; Fig. 6), wherein the power mechanism comprises the driving part 52, the frame 50, the moving part, and the pressing part 40’; the driving part 52 and the pressing part 40’ are mounted on the frame 50; and the driving part 52 and the pressing part 40’ are configured for driving and clamping the steel cord belt; the moving part (defend as the wheels; Fig. 10) is mounted below the frame 50 and is configured for moving the power mechanism 10. See Figs. 1-12 in Wabnegger.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. 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.
7. Claim 2, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wabnegger in view of Hurst (2,973,549). Regarding claim 2, as best understood, Wabnegger teaches that the driving part 52 includes a power roller (52a, 52b; Fig. 6) that pulls the workpiece (i.e., the cable) towards the cutting mechanism. However, Wabnegger does not explicitly teach that the driving part further comprises a motor, a motor base, a gearbox, and a driving gear, the motor serves as a power source and power is transmitted to the power roller through an output shaft of the gearbox, and the driving gear is mounted on the power roller on one side of the motor. However, Hurst teaches a driving part 13, 17, 19, 21; Fig. 1) that comprises a motor 17, a motor base (i.e., the base connected under the motor; Fig. 1) , a gearbox 19, a power roller 13, and a driving gear 21, the motor is mounted on the motor base, the motor serves as a power source and power is transmitted to the power roller 13 through an output shaft (Fig. 1) of the gearbox, and the driving gear 21 is mounted on the power roller 13 on one side of the motor 17. See Figs. 1-3 in Hurst. It should be noted that Hurst does not explicitly disclose that the motor is mounted on the motor base by bolts. However, the Examiner takes Official Notice that the use of bolts to mount a motor on a base is old and well known in the art. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide Wabnegger’s power roller with the drive mechanism, as taught by Hurst, in order to drive the roll and produce a pulling force for the power roller.
8. Claim 1, as best understood, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kou et al (CN 115179357 A), hereinafter Kou, provided with the IDS filled on 06/18/2024, in view of Arita (2004/0079209 A1) and Endo et al. (2015/0273720), hereinafter Endo. It should be noted that English translation of Kou is attached. Regarding claim 1, as best understood, Kou teaches a split-type device for continuously and rapidly separating a steel cord belt, comprising a power mechanism (shown in Fig. 1), a driving part (31, 311), a frame 1, a moving part 116, a pressing part 32, a cutting mechanism 2, a flat cutting part 211, a small-toothed cutting part 211, connectors (22; on both sides of the cutter 21; Figs. 4-5), and a holding mechanism 115, wherein the power mechanism comprises the driving part (31, 311), the frame 1, the moving part 116, and the pressing part 32; the driving part (31, 311) and the pressing part 32 are mounted on the frame 1; and the driving part (31, 311) and the pressing part 32 are configured for driving and clamping the steel cord belt; the moving part 116 is mounted (at least partially) below the frame 1 and is configured for moving the power mechanism. See Figs. 1-12 in Kou.
It can be said that Kou does not teach a large-toothed cutting part. However, Arita discloses a split-type device for cutting continuously a steel cord belt 8 including a cutting mechanism 14 (Fig. 5) having a large-toothed (12, 13; Fig. 13) cutting part. It should be noted that the cylindrical blade 13 is considered to be a large tooth of the cutting part 12, 13. See Fig. 5 in Artita. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide Kou’s cutting apparatus with another cutting part as a large-toothed cutting part, as taught by Artita, in order to cut the rubber around the steel cards of the steel cord belt and thereby facilitate separating the robber or shield form the steel cords of the belt.
It could be argued that the Kou does not explicitly teach that the moving part mounted below the frame. However, Endo teaches a cutting apparatus including a moving part (as the wheels, not numbered, under the frame 3) mounted under a frame 3. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to mount the moving part of Kou’s cutting apparatus, as modified by Arita, under the frame, since mounting configuration of the moving part taught by Kou or Endo are art-recognized equivalents that achieve same function and result.
9. Claim 2, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kou in view of Arita Endo in view of Hurst. Regarding claim 2, as best understood, Kou teaches everything noted above including that the driving part (31, 311) further comprises a motor 311, a motor base (which is inherently connected to the motor), a gearbox (shown, but not numbered, located adjacent the motor 311; Fig. 1), and a driving gear (which inherently connected to power roller 31 to drive the power roller), the motor serves as a power source and power is transmitted to a power roller 31 through an output shaft of the gearbox, and the driving gear is mounted on the power roller on one side of the motor 311.
It could be argued that Kou does not explicitly teach a gear box, driving gear, a base motor and the motor are connected via bolts, and the motor serves as a power source and power is transmitted to a power roller 31 through an output shaft of the gearbox. However, Hurst teaches a driving part 13, 17, 19, 21; Fig. 1) that comprises a motor 17, a motor base (i.e., the base connected under the motor; Fig. 1) , a gearbox 19, a power roller 13, and a driving gear 21, the motor is mounted on the motor base, the motor serves as a power source and power is transmitted to the power roller 13 through an output shaft (Fig. 1) of the gearbox, and the driving gear 21 is mounted on the power roller 13 on one side of the motor 17. See Figs. 1-3 in Hurst. It should be noted that Hurst does not explicitly disclose that the motor is mounted on the motor base by bolts. However, the Examiner takes Official Notice that the use of bolts to mount a motor on a base is old and well known in the art.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide the drive mechanism of Kou’s apparatus, as modified above, with the gear box, driving gear, and motor arrangement, as taught by Hurst, in order to facilitate rotation of the drive roller.
Allowable Subject Matter
10. Claims 3-9 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
It should be noted that Wabnegger and Kou, as modified above, do not teach
the specific parts of the pressing part set forth in claim 3.
Conclusion
11. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to
applicant’s disclosure.
Still et al. (4,572,046), Kawashima et al. (4,569,265), Geschwender (3,684,618), and Matsudaris (2012/0160075 A1) teach a split-type device.
Harris (4,044,444) teaches a motor connected to a motor base via bolts.
12. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GHASSEM ALIE whose telephone number is (571) 272-4501. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:30 am-5:00 pm 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 on (571) 27. 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.
/GHASSEM ALIE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724 November 26, 2025