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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 8, lines 8-11, filed 7/20/2026, with respect to FIG. 1 of the drawings have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection of 5/19/2026 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 8, lines 12-13, filed 7/20/2026, with respect to the abstract of the disclosure have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection of 5/19/2026 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 10, lines 9-18, filed 7/20/2026, with respect to claim 1 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The non-statutory double patenting rejection of 5/19/2026 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 9, lines 1-12, filed 7/20/2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-15 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new grounds of rejection is made in view of Bucktal, Kincel et al. US 5,613,530, and O’Donovan.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-5, 7-9, 11, 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bucktal et al. in view Kincel et al. US 5,613,530, Kusakari et al. DE 4300247 A1, and O'Donovan et al.. US 5,613,530 is a published patent hereinafter to be referred to as the Kincel patent, and DE 4300247 A1 is a published patent application hereinafter to be referred to as the Kusakari patent.
Regarding claim 1, Bucktal discloses an automatic tool for tensioning and severing a strap (Bucktal – 700; FIG. 7), comprising a housing (Bucktal –702; FIG. 7) having a barrel portion extending between a distal housing end portion and a proximal housing end portion along a longitudinal axis, and a handle portion extending away from the barrel portion in a direction different to the longitudinal axis (Bucktal FIG. 7); a reel magazine assembly (Bucktal – 310; FIG. 7) configured to retainingly receive at least one strap reel and provide a rotation of the at least one strap reel about a strap reel center axis, wherein the rotation is directed so as to wind up a strap (Bucktal – 308; FIG. 5) coiled up onto the at least one strap reel (Bucktal – 310)(Bucktal Description, Page 4, Lines 24-27; FIG. 3); a feeder mechanism in the barrel portion (Bucktal –318, 324, 326; FIG. 3; Description, Page 4, Line 45) and configured to receive an end portion of the strap from the at least one strap reel and move the strap in a direction along the longitudinal axis (Bucktal Description, Page 4, Lines 47-48; FIG. 3); a cut-off mechanism in the barrel portion (Bucktal – 320; FIG. 7) and configured to cut the strap (Bucktal Description, Page 6, Lines 11-12: the wire cutting device (320) to cut off the cable bundle); and a drive unit (Bucktal – 328, FIG. 3) configured to drive the feeder mechanism (Bucktal – 318) so as to selectively move the strap towards the distal housing end portion or towards the reel magazine assembly, and actuate the cut-off mechanism at a predetermined condition (Bucktal Description, Page 5, Lines 1-3; Description, Page 6, Lines 9-13; FIG. 3). However, Bucktal fails to disclose the least one strap reel is viewable through a reel cover located above and pivotably mounted to the housing; a locking heads magazine assembly in the barrel portion and configured to store a plurality of locking heads and supply one locking head at the time for use with the strap; and a cut-off mechanism in the barrel portion and configured to move the one locking head from the locking heads magazine assembly into a loading position ready for engagement with the strap.
Kincel teaches a strap reel (Kincel – 76; FIG. 1) viewable through a reel cover (Kincel – 194,196; FIG. 1) located above and mounted to the housing (Kincel Col. 9, lines 66-67, Col. 10, lines 1-2; FIG. 1). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the reel magazine assembly, disclosed by Bucktal, to include a reel cover located above and mounted to the housing, as taught by Kincel, wherein such location of the reel and reel cover in relationship to the handle below provide ease in manipulation of the automatic tool (See Kincel Col. 3, Lines 12-14).
Kusakari teaches a strap reel (Kusakari – 2; FIG. 1) viewable through a reel cover (Kusakari – 106; FIG. 19) pivotably mounted to the housing (Kusakari – 101, 102; FIG. 19)(Kusakari Para [0033]: a coil cover, one side wall of which is pivotably mounted to pivot about the support shaft). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the reel cover taught by Kincel, to be pivotably mounted to the housing, as taught by Kusakari, to allow one access to the strap reel. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to combine the teachings of Kincel with Kusakari.
O’Donovan teaches a locking heads magazine assembly in the barrel portion (O’Donovan –244; FIG. 26) and configured to store a plurality of locking heads and supply one locking head at the time for use with the strap (O’Donovan Description, Page 9, Lines 54-57); and a cut-off mechanism in the barrel portion (O’Donovan – 252; FIG. 28) and configured to move the one locking head from the locking heads magazine assembly into a loading position ready for engagement with the strap (O’Donovan Description, Page 11, Lines 15-20).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the automatic tool for tensioning and severing a strap disclosed by Bucktal to include a locking heads magazine assembly and modify the cut-off mechanism to move one locking head from the locking heads magazine assembly into a loading position, as taught by O’Donovan, to minimize an excess material “tail” resulting when a cable tie is secured around an object or a bundle of object. The inclusion of the locking heads magazine eliminates reliance of using a one size fits all cable, wherein the length of the cable tie used is adaptable for each particular application, thus eliminating the tail to be cut off (See O’Donovan Description, Page 2, Lines 13-18).
Regarding claim 2, Bucktal in view of Kincel, Kusakari, and O’Donovan discloses the automatic tool (See claim 1 rejection above), wherein the drive unit includes at least one first electric motor (Bucktal – 328; FIG. 3), a switch unit (Bucktal –316; FIG. 7), a tension selector unit (Bucktal – 338; FIG. 7) configured to provide a reference parameter indicative of a desired maximum tension of the strap, and a controller (Bucktal – 314; FIG. 7) operatively coupled to any one of the at least one first electric motor (Bucktal – 328), the switch unit (Bucktal – 316) and the tension selector unit (Bucktal – 338)(Bucktal FIG. 3).
Regarding claim 3, Bucktal in view of Kincel, Kusakari, and O’Donovan discloses the automatic tool (See claim 2 rejection above), wherein the controller (Bucktal – 314) is configured to receive signals from the switch unit (Bucktal – 316) (Bucktal Description, Page 4, Lines 31-32) and the tension selector unit (Bucktal – 338)(See Bucktal FIG. 7) and control said feeder mechanism and the cut-off mechanism (Bucktal Description, Page 4, Lines 38-39; Description, Page 5, Lines 11-12).
Regarding claim 4, Bucktal in view of Kincel, Kusakari, and O’Donovan discloses the automatic tool (See claim 3 rejection above), wherein the controller (Bucktal – 314) is configured to monitor a predetermined performance parameter of the at least one first motor (Bucktal – 328) that is indicative of an existing tension in the strap, and compare said predetermined performance parameter to the reference parameter provided by the tension selector unit (Bucktal – 338)(Bucktal, Description, Page 4, Lines 53-56; See FIG. 3).
Regarding claim 5, Bucktal in view of Kincel, Kusakari, and O’Donovan discloses the automatic tool (See claim 4 rejection above), wherein the predetermined performance parameter of the at least one first electric motor (Bucktal – 328) is an electric current corresponding to the load of the electric motor (Bucktal Description, Page 4: signals from a controller (314) of the roller (326) is controlled by actuator (328), actuator (328) in response to the pipe 332).
Regarding claim 7, Bucktal in view of Kincel, Kusakari, and O’Donovan discloses the automatic tool (See claim 4 rejection above), wherein the predetermined condition is met when the existing tension in the strap is greater than or equal to a desired maximum tension defined via the reference parameter of the tension selector unit (Bucktal – 338; See Bucktal FIG. 3 wherein tension selector unit 338 is in communication with display 342) (Bucktal Description, Page 4, Lines 38-43).
Regarding claim 8, Bucktal in view of Kincel, Kusakari, and O’Donovan discloses the automatic tool (See claim 2 rejection above), wherein the switch unit includes a trigger member (Bucktal – 316; FIG. 7) configured to affect activation and deactivation of the at least one first electric motor, and a switch member configured to set the drive direction of the at least one first electric motor (Bucktal Description, Page 4, Lines 38-39; Page 4, Lines 45-48).
Regarding claim 9, Bucktal in view of Kincel, Kusakari, and O’Donovan discloses the automatic tool (See claim 2 rejection above), wherein the tension selector unit (Bucktal – 338) includes a user interface having a display screen (Bucktal – 342, FIG. 3) and one or more buttons for a user input corresponding to a desired strap tension (Bucktal Description, Page 4, Lines 53-56).
Regarding claim 11, Bucktal in view of Kincel, Kusakari, and O’Donovan discloses the automatic tool (See claim 1 rejection above), wherein the feeder mechanism (Bucktal – 318) includes a first roller (Bucktal – 324) and a second roller (Bucktal – 326) that are rotatable by the first electric motor (Bucktal – 328)(Bucktal Description, Page 4, Lines 45, 57; Page 5, Line 1), wherein the position of the second roller (Bucktal – 326) is biased against the first roller (Bucktal – 324)(Bucktal FIG. 3), and wherein the strap is driven by rotation of the first roller (Bucktal – 324) and the second roller (Bucktal – 326) when fed between the first roller (Bucktal – 324) and the second roller (Bucktal – 326) (Bucktal Description, Page 5, Lines 2-3).
Regarding claim 13, Bucktal in view of Kincel, Kusakari, and O’Donovan discloses the automatic tool (See claim 1 rejection above), wherein the cut-off mechanism (Bucktal – 320) includes a blade member (Bucktal – 354) slidingly moveable between a first position disengaged from the loaded strap and a second position cuttingly engaged with the loaded strap (Bucktal Description, Page 5).
Regarding claim 14, Bucktal in view of Kincel, Kusakari, and O’Donovan discloses the automatic tool (See claim 13 rejection above), wherein the drive unit includes a second electric motor (Bucktal – 356; FIG. 3) operatively coupled with the controller (Bucktal – 314, FIG. 3) and configured to acuate the cut-off mechanism at the predetermined condition (Bucktal Description, Page 4, Lines 38-43).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bucktal in view of Kincel, Kusakari, and O'Donovan as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Berns EP 0111831 B1 and Hempe et al. CN 112550799 A. EP 0111831 B1 is published patent hereinafter to be referred to as the Berns patent and CN 112550799 A is published patent hereinafter to be referred to the Hempe patent.
Regarding claim 6, Bucktal in view of Kincel, Kusakari, and O'Donovan discloses the automatic tool (See claim 4 rejection above), however, Bucktal in view of Kincel, Kusakari, and O'Donovan fails to disclose wherein the automatic tool includes a connecting member disposed between the feeder mechanism and the cut-off mechanism, and an extensometer arranged to detect a deformation of the connecting member, the deformation being indicative of the existing tension in the strap, and wherein the controller is configured to monitor a signal received from the extensometer and compare the signal to the reference parameter provided by the tension selector unit.
Berns teaches a connecting member (Berns – 44, FIGS. 2-4) disposed between a clamping block and a bearing pin/roller/tensioning lever assembly. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the automatic tool for tensioning and severing a strap disclosed in Bucktal in view of Kincel, Kusakari, and O'Donovan to include a connecting member disposed between two points, wherein the connecting member is subject to a tension force, as taught by Berns, so as to provide support at both ends of the connecting member. (See Berns Claims, Lines 3-10).
Hempe teaches an extensometer arranged to detect a deformation of the connecting member, the deformation being indicative of the existing tension in the strap, and wherein the controller is configured to monitor a signal received from the extensometer and compare the signal to the reference parameter provided by the tension selector unit (Hempe Description, Page 2 line 18: the sensing system is configured to sense a specific amount of force used by the cable tie by the electromechanical tensioning system; Page 9, Example 23: the sensing system comprises one or more strain gauges, the strain gauge is configured to measure the reaction force, and the processor is further configured to use one or more strain gauges to determine the reaction force.).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the automatic tool for tensioning and severing a strap disclosed in Bucktal in view of Kincel, Kusakari, and O'Donovan to include an extensometer arranged to detect a deformation of a connecting member, as taught by Hempe, to provide consistent tension to a cable tie (See Hempe Description, Page 3, last paragraph: the cable tie applying tool presented herein eliminates these wear and fatigue problems, therefore, during the service life of the cable tie applying tool, it can provide the cable tie with consistent tension.).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bucktal in view of Kincel, Kusakari, and O'Donovan as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Matsuoka et al. CN 100522745 C. CN 100522745 C is a published patent hereinafter to be referred to as the Matsuoka patent.
Regarding claim 10, Bucktal in view of Kincel, Kusakari, and O'Donovan discloses the automatic tool (See claim 2 rejection above), however, Bucktal in view of Kincel, Kusakari, and O'Donovan fails to disclose the automatic tool includes at least one RFID reader operatively coupled with the controller and configured to receive information from a corresponding RFID tag.
Matsuoka teaches a binding machine comprising a RFID reader (Matsuoka – 9, FIG. 4) configured to receive information from a corresponding RFID tag (Matsuoka Description, Page 4 last paragraph: RF tag reader mounted on the reinforcing steel bar binding machine of 9, comprising a signal transmitting part, a receiving part and a transceiving control part… transmitted wave the same wave frequency with the RF tag reader 9 is sent from the RF tag, the RF tag reader 9 of the receiving part, the receiving resonance circuit from RF tag 36 sent by radio wave).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the automatic tool for tensioning and severing a strap disclosed by Bucktal in view of Kincel, Kusakari, and O'Donovan to include an RFID reader, wherein the controller of the automatic tool is coupled with the RFID reader configured to receive information from a corresponding RFID tag, as taught by Matsuoka, to provide a means for identifying the cables to be bound by the automatic tool, and any associated binding information (See Matsuoka Description Page 2, line 38: according to the RF tag sends radio recognition wire type and conveying quantity and torque of the wire control device for controlling.).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bucktal in view of Kincel, Kusakari, and O'Donovan as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Thieme et al. CN 105916773 B. CN 105916773 B is a published patent hereinafter to be referred to as the Thieme patent.
Regarding claim 12, Bucktal in view of Kincel, Kusakari, and O'Donovan discloses the automatic tool (See claim 11 rejection above), however, Bucktal in view of Kincel, Kusakari, and O'Donovan fails to disclose the automatic tool, wherein a first roller gear is coupled to the first roller and a second roller gear is coupled to the second roller, the first and second roller gears being driven by the first electric motor.
Thieme teaches a first roller gear coupled to a first roller (Thieme Description Page 4 line 17: first driving device 75. the first driving device by a reduced driver comprising a plurality of gears 51 with control cam plate 50 connecting to and driving the control cam disc; FIG. 2) and a second roller gear is coupled to the second roller (Thieme Description Page 4, line 24: second drive device 76 itself, by a reduced driver 61 and belt transmission 62 and 63, 64 connected on each end of the rotary roller. the rotary roller 64 through a reduction gear 65; FIG. 2)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the automatic tool for tensioning and severing a strap disclosed by Bucktal in view of Kincel, Kusakari, and O'Donovan to couple a first roller gear to the first roller and a couple a second roller gear to the second roller, as taught by Thieme, wherein the first and second roller gears are driven by the first electric motor of the automatic tool given that it is known within the art that a gear is a means for a motor to transfer a rotational force produced by a spinning shaft of the motor.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bucktal in view of Kincel, Kusakari, and O'Donovan as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Bretti et al. EP 0297337 A1. EP 0297337 A1 is a published patent hereinafter to be referred to as the Bretti patent.
Regarding claim 15, Bucktal in view of Kincel, Kusakari, and O'Donovan discloses the automatic tool (See claim 14 rejection above), wherein the blade member (Bucktal – 354) is operably coupled to the second electric motor (Bucktal – 356), however, Bucktal in view of Kincel, Kusakari, and O'Donovan fails to disclose wherein the blade member is operably coupled to the second electric motor via a rotating cam member configured to move the blade member between the first position and the second position.
Bretti teaches an apparatus for automatically binding bundles of electric cables, wherein a blade member (Bretti – 152; FIG. 9) is operably coupled to a rotating cam member configured to move the blade member between the first position and the second position (Bretti Description, Page 7: As carriage 136 advances while pushed by carriage 110, cam 154b of lever 154 becomes disengaged. As lever 154 lifts under the action of springs 160, knife (152) lowers.).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the automatic tool for tensioning and severing a strap disclosed by Bucktal in view of Kincel, Kusakari, and O'Donovan to include a rotating cam member configured to move the blade member, as taught by Bretti, given that it is known in the art that a cam is a device that converts rotational motion into linear motion perpendicular to the rotational axis of the cam.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bucktal in view of Kincel, Kusakari, and O'Donovan as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Dyer et al. US 4,997,011. US 4,997,011 is a published patent henceforth to be referred to as the Dyer patent.
Regarding claim 16, Bucktal in view of Kincel, Kusakari, and O'Donovan disclose the automatic tool (See claim 1 rejection above), however, Bucktal in view of Kincel, Kusakari, and O'Donovan fails to disclose the automatic tool which includes an adjustment knob located at the proximal housing end portion and orientated along the longitudinal axis.
Dyer teaches an adjustment know (Dyer – 182; FIG. 1) located at the proximal housing end portion and orientated along the longitudinal axis (See Dyer FIG. 1). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the automatic tool, discloses by Bucktal in view of Kincel, Kusakari, and O'Donovan, to include an adjustment knob located at the proximal housing end portion and orientated along the longitudinal axis, as taught by Dyer, wherein the adjustment knob provides a means for adjusting the tension (See Dyer Col. 9, Lines 41-44).
Conclusion
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 DARLINGTON N IBEKWE whose telephone number is (571)272-2474. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8am - 4:00pm.
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, Christopher 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.
D.N.I.
Patent Examiner
Art Unit 3725
/Christopher L Templeton/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3725
Prosecution Insights