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 09/03/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-4, 6-17, and 19-20 are pending in the application.
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-17, and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over JAN VOOGD (US 2179581 A) in view of Kerstetter et al. (20220399702 A1) and further in view of Cairns (US 4677702 A) and further in view of Wilson et al. (US 20040118251 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 6, 9, 15, and 19-20, JAN VOOGD discloses a hand tool (fig. 1) for stripping wire, comprising: a first handle and a second handle (40/48); a first base member (20) having a first jaw section (2) and a second base member (26) having a second jaw section (4), the first base member and the second base member being pivotally coupled to the first handle and the second handle (42/50);
a clamping portion corresponding to the first jaw section (12/14) and defining a clamping plane (figs. 1-2), the clamping portion having a bottom clamping member defining a clamping plane (14) and a top clamping member (12); and
a stripping blade set (16/64), including a fixed blade (16) disposed on a first side (top side) of the second jaw (4) and a movable blade disposed on a second side (bottom side) of the second jaw (4, fig. 2); wherein the fixed blade and the movable blade form a first stripping hole, a second stripping hole, and a third stripping hole (plurality of aligned small cutting notches 70), the first stripping hole, second stripping hole, and the third stripping hole each having different offset from the clamping plane, wherein the holes each having a midpoint offset from each other and from the clamping plane by a different distance than each other (fig. 2 shows offset since 64 is angle relative to 16, pages 1-2, figs. 1-9).
JAN VOOGD fails to explicitly discloses the first stripping hole, second stripping hole, and the third stripping hole each having a midpoint at a different offset from the clamping plane wherein a midpoint of the second stripping hole is offset, perpendicular to the clamping plane by 0.015 inches above the first stripping hole and the midpoint of the third stripping hole is offset perpendicular to the clamping plane by 0.015 inches above the second stripping hole and wherein the first stripping hole has a radius of 0.052 inches, the second stripping hole has a radius of 0.069 inches, and the third stripping hole has a radius of 0.069 inches.
Kerstetter et al. teaches a hand tool (10, fig. 1) for stripping wire, comprising: a first handle and a second handle (16/12); a first base member (12) having a first jaw section (recess having springs 17 and counterbore 29) with a first stripping hole, second stripping hole, and the third stripping hole (40,41,42 and 43,44,45) each having a midpoint at a different offset from the clamping plane (“centers of each of the first plurality of holes 40,41,42 (as well as the second plurality of openings 43,44,45, figs. 2-3 and 5) are offset from one another in a vertical direction” [0024]).
Kerstetter et al. states “radial distance corresponds to an inner diameter, or marginally less than an inner diameter, of the layer of the cable desired to be cut and/or stripped in the associated holes” [0024].
Cairns teaches hand tool (10) for crimping electrical connectors having a die cutters with cutting edges (plurality of die cutting edges 25), spacers 120 and 122 with a guide plate 100 having a first stripping hole, second stripping hole, and the third stripping hole (110 and 111) each having a midpoint at a different offset from the clamping plane (“graduated in size and correspond to the diameter of insulated wire of the appropriate gage size of the underlying die cutter edges” col. 1, lines 52-67, col. 2, lines 1-52, figs. 1-3).
Wilson et al. also further teaches hand-held wire stripper 10 with two handles (16/17) two base members (12/13), jaws (18 and 19) cutting edges 26 and 27 with semi-circular recesses 30 and 31 that form circular openings with (“five sets of stripper recesses provided, the insulation can be stripped from 12, 14, 16, 18 and 20 gauge wire (1.0, 1.3, 1.6, 2.0 and 2.6 mm)” [0025-0026], figs. 1-7).
Given the teachings of JAN VOOGD to have a offset stripping holes, 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 stripping holes with having the first stripping hole, second stripping hole, and the third stripping hole each having a midpoint at a different offset from the clamping plane wherein a midpoint of the second stripping hole is offset, perpendicular to the clamping plane by 0.015 inches above the first stripping hole and the midpoint of the third stripping hole is offset perpendicular to the clamping plane by 0.015 inches above the second stripping hole and wherein the first stripping hole has a radius of 0.052 inches, the second stripping hole has a radius of 0.069 inches, and the third stripping hole has a radius of 0.069 inches to have precise adjustment of different diameter wires (avoid overshoot/damage to a wire), ensure only the insulation is being cut and/or for leverage purposes as taught by Kerstetter et al., Cairns and Wilson et al. Also, a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1995) and “mere scaling up of a prior art process capable of being scaled up, if such were the case, would not establish patentability in a claim to an old process so scaled.” In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976), 531 F.2d at 1053, 189 USPQ at 148.). Further a desired range such as the midpoint of the stripping holes offset to the other stripping holes would have been obvious since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Moreover, In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
Regarding claims 2-4, 7-8, 10-14, 16-17, and 20, JAN VOOGD discloses a first link rod pivotally coupled to the first handle and the clamping portion and a second link rod pivotally coupled to the second handle and the movable blade (42/50), wherein the first handle and second handle are symmetrical and pivotally coupled to each other, wherein each of the first stripping hole, second stripping hole, and third stripping hole are offset from each other (fig. 2), wherein the stripping blade set further forms a fourth stripping hole having a midpoint having a same offset from the clamping plane as at one of the first stripping hole (four holes shown, fig. 1), second stripping hole, or third stripping hole, wherein the second stripping hole has a larger radius than the first stripping hole, wherein the stripping blade set further forms a third stripping hole having an offset from the clamping plane by a same distance as at one at one of the at least two stripping holes and having an offset from the clamping plane by a different distance than the at least two stripping holes (fig. 2 shows offset since 64 is angle relative to 16, pages 1-2, figs. 1-9).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks, filed 09/03/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-20 under 35 U.S.C 112 and the drawing objections have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the 35 U.S.C 112 rejection and the drawing objections have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of JAN VOOGD (US 2179581 A) in view of Kerstetter et al. (20220399702 A1) and further in view of Cairns (US 4677702 A) and further in view of Wilson et al. (US 20040118251 A1).
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-4, 6-17, and 19-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference 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
