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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the first stripping hole, second stripping hole, and the third stripping hole each having different offset from the clamping plane and how the blades only cut the insulation and not the wire must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, because the specification, while being enabling for hand tool for stripping wire with handles having clamping jaws with one blade having a fixed blade and a movable blade cutting blades in which the fixed blade and the movable blade form a first stripping hole, a second stripping hole, and a third stripping hole, does not reasonably provide enablement for the first stripping hole, second stripping hole, and the third stripping hole each having different offset from the clamping plane (claims 1-20) and how the blades only cut the insulation and not the wire and the holes each having a midpoint offset from each other and from the clamping plane by a different distance than each other (claims 9 and 15). The specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make the invention commensurate in scope with these claims. Although the specification discloses the holes are offset the drawings do not show this offset feature(s) and it is not clear how the cutting holes are offset and further how they only cut the insulation and not the wire.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-4, 7-17, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by JAN VOOGD (US 2179581 A).
Regarding claims 1, 9, and 15, 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).
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).
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) 5-6 and 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over JAN VOOGD (US 2179581 A) in view of JESKE et al. (US 20030041382 A1) and further in view of Yagawa (US 5269206 A).
Regarding claims 5-6 and 18-19, JAN VOOGD fails to explicitly discloses 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.
Yagawa teaches a similar hand tool (fig. 1) having guide plates 21 and 22 arc shaped recesses 25 which are of a configuration to fit around and grip wires/cables forming stripping holes that are offset to avoid cutting the core wire and only the insulation (col. 3, line 20- col. 4, line 67, claims 1 & 4, figs. 1-11)
JESKE et al. teaches a similar hand tool (10) having lever members 12 and 13 with handles16 and 17 having offset jaws (18/19) that form a plurality of semi-circular recesses 44 and 45 that plurality of circular openings when the jaws 18 and 19 are closed and configured such that the “openings are sized to accommodate standard wire gauges of coaxial cables so that the oblique surfaces 34 and 35 surrounding the openings cut through insulation around the wire or cable but does not cut into the conductor” [0025] and “stripper section 38A has a plurality of three sided stripper recesses 44A… angled oblique surfaces surrounding the openings of the two larger recesses 44A allow the insulation to be removed by rotating the wire stripper 10A around wire or cable” [0031] and teaches having the teeth (40A) a the tip end ([0023-0032], figs. 1-10)
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 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 Yagawa and JESKE 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.
Conclusion
Additional prior art considered pertinent: see form 892.
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