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 invention I (claims 1-10) and
Species A (Figs. 7-9C) in the reply filed on 02/03/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim Interpretation
2. 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.
3. 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 motor unit” recited in claims 3 and 10; and
“a clamp assembly” recited in claim 8.
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 § 112
4. 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.
5. Claim 9 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.
Regarding claim 9, “the guide plate,” “the plurality of jaws,” and “the jaw carrier” lack antecedent basis.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
6. 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.
7. Claims 1-3, 5, 8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Miller et al. (7,984,553 B1), hereinafter Miller. Regarding claim 1, Miller teaches a cable stripping assembly for removing a cable jacket 18 from a cable 10, the assembly comprising: a main body 24 extending along a central axis (Fig. 8) and including a cavity 30 configured to receive the cable; a window 36 in the main body 24 in communication with the cavity 30; and a blade 58 including a cutting edge 62, the blade 58 coupled to the main body 24 adjacent the window 36 with the cutting edge 62 at least partially in the cavity 30, wherein the blade 58 is rotatable relative to the main body 24 (as pivots or rotates relative to the main body 24) about a pivot axis 52 to vary a distance between the cutting edge 62 and the central axis. See Figs. 1-15 in Miller.
Regarding claim 2, Miller teaches everything noted above including that the blade 58 is biased (by spring 56) to rotate the cutting edge 58 toward the central axis.
Regarding claim 3, Miller teaches everything noted above including a motor unit (defined by the motor of the tool connected to the end 114 of the cable stripping assembly) configured to drive the main body 24 about the central axis.
Regarding claim 5, Miller teaches everything noted above including an adjustment bar 44 configured to engage the blade 58 to rotate the blade about the pivot axis.
Regarding claim 8, Miller teaches everything noted above including a clamp assembly (120, 122, 124, 126; Fig. 9) coupled to the main body 24 and configured to hold the cable in the cavity, the clamp assembly including a jaw carrier (defined by the springs 124 and screws 126), a guide plate 122, and a plurality of jaws 120 supported by the jaw carrier (124, 126) and configured to engage the cable jacket of the cable.
Regarding claim 10, Miller teaches everything noted above including a motor unit including a housing (defined by the housing of the tool), a motor disposed in the housing, and an output end 114 (Fig. 5 in Miller) driven to rotate by the motor, wherein the main body 24 is coupled for corotation with the output end. It should be noted that the tool such as a drill has inherently a motor and a motor housing.
8. Claims 1-2 and 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Matthews (3,572,189). Regarding claim 1, Matthews teaches a cable stripping assembly for removing a cable jacket 14 from a cable 10, the assembly comprising: a main body 20 extending along a central axis (Fig. 3) and including a cavity 22 configured to receive the cable 10; a window (defined by the lip 40; Figs. 3-4) in the main body 20 in communication with the cavity 22; and a blade 44 including a cutting edge 62, the blade 58 coupled to the main body 20 adjacent the window with the cutting edge 58 at least partially in the cavity 22 (Fig. 3), wherein the blade 44 is rotatable (via pivot pin 48) relative to the main body 20 about a pivot axis (defined by the pivot axis of the pin 48; Figs. 3-5) to vary a distance between the cutting edge 58 and the central axis. See Figs. 1-5 in Matthews.
Regarding claim 2, Matthews teaches everything noted above including that the blade 44 is biased (by spring 40) to rotate the cutting edge 58 toward the central axis.
Regarding claim 4, Matthews teaches everything noted above including that the pivot axis is inclined (laterally away from the central axis) relative to the central axis (where the cable 10 is located). See Fig. 1 in Matthews.
Regarding claim 5, Matthews teaches everything noted above including an adjustment bar 46 configured to engage the blade 44 to rotate the blade about the pivot axis.
9. Claims 1 and 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Hoffa (4,869,135). Regarding claim 1, Hoffa teaches a cable stripping assembly for removing a cable jacket from a cable 20, the assembly comprising: a main body 22 extending along a central axis 32 (Fig. 6) and including a cavity (defined by an entire cavity or space inside the body 22 which includes an opening 21 to receive the cable 20; Fig. 4) configured to receive the cable 20; a window (defined by the apertures in the plate 13 for receiving arms 110, 111; Fig. 6) in communication with the cavity; and a blade (63, 110; 64, 111) including a cutting edge, the blade (63, 110; 64, 111) coupled to the main body 20 adjacent (or near) the window with the cutting edge at least partially in the cavity, wherein the blade (63, 110; 64, 111) is rotatable (or pivotable) relative to the main body 20 about a pivot axis (112, 113; Fig. 6) to vary a distance between the cutting edge and the central axis 32. See Figs. 1-6 in Hoffa.
Regarding claim 5, Hoffa teaches everything noted above including an adjustment bar 101 configured to engage the blade (63, 110; 64, 111) to rotate the blade about the pivot axis (112, 113).
Regarding claim 6, Hoffa teaches everything noted above including that the adjustment bar 101 is slidable relative to the main body 20, the blade includes a cam surface (120, 121), the adjustment bar 101 includes a wedge surface (115, 116) configured to engage the cam surface (120, 121) of the blade, and sliding movement of the adjustment bar causes rotation of the blade.
Regarding claim 7, Hoffa teaches everything noted above including that the blade rotates about the pivot axis in a plane, and wherein the adjustment bar is slidable within the plane. It should be noted that a vertical plane passes through the axis 32 and the trough the pivot axis 112, 113 and also the adjustment bar 101. See Fig. 6 in Hoffa.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
10. 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.
11. Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller in view of Troy (2017/0040783 A1). Regarding claim 8, it could be argued that Miller does not explicitly teach a clamp assembly coupled to the main body and configured to hold the cable in the cavity, the clamp assembly including a jaw carrier, a guide plate, and a plurality of jaws supported by the jaw carrier and configured to engage the cable jacket of the cable. However, Troy teaches a cable stripping assembly including a clamp assembly coupled to a main body (12, 46) and configured to hold a cable in a cavity 28 (Fig. 4), the clamp assembly including a jaw carrier 44, a guide plate 40, and a plurality of jaws 30 supported by the jaw carrier 44 and configured to engage the cable jacket of the cable. See Figs. 1-4 in Troy. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide Miller’s cable stripping assembly with the clamping mechanism, as taught by Troy, in order to firmly hold the cable during cut and enhance the cutting of the cable.
Regarding claim 9, as best understood, Miller, as modified by Troy, teaches everything noted above including that he guide plate 40 includes a plurality of arcuate slots 74 and each of the plurality of jaws travels along an associated one of the plurality of arcuate slots 74, and rotation of the jaw carrier relative to the guide plate 40 moves the plurality of jaws radially inward.
Conclusion
12. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to
applicant’s disclosure.
Morris et al. (2022/0069552 A1), Wirth (2010/0269637 A1), Zick et al. (2013/0074345 A1), Economu (4,117,749), and Murphy (3,623,384) teach a cable stripping assembly.
13. 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) 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.
/GHASSEM ALIE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724
February 10, 2026