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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
1. 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.
2. Claims 1, 4-15, and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated Liao (2016/0172828 A1), provided with the IDS submitted on 09/12/2024. Regarding claim 1, as best understood, Liao teaches a cable-shaving tool 1 for shaving of a cable jacket, the tool comprising: a first housing shell 10; a second housing shell 20 configured to engage (via hinge member Fig. 3) the first housing shell 10; a cable groove 112 extending through a length of at least one of the first housing shell 10 and the second housing shell; a blade assembly (40, 321) securable in at least one of the first housing shell and the second housing shell 20; and a cable ramp 50 disposed in a cavity opposite the blade 40, the cable ramp having a movable cable shelf 51 extending along the cable ramp, the cable shelf moving towards the blade 40 to urge the cable toward the blade when the first and second housing shells are in an operating position, wherein, during shaving operation, the cable ramp 50 urges the cable jacket against a control surface (defined by the surface of the indentation that receives a portion of the cable when the shells are in a closed position; Fig. 4) and the blade initiates a cut of a predetermined depth into the cable jacket upon moving the cable-shaving tool along a length of the cable. See Figs. 2-5B in Liao.
Regarding claim 4, Liao teaches everything noted above including a resilient member 52 between a bottom surface of the cable ramp 50 to normally bias the cable ramp towards the blade 40.
Regarding claim 5, Liao teaches everything noted above including that the resilient member 52 is a compression spring or a rubber gasket.
Regarding claim 6, as best understood, Liao teaches everything noted above including that the biasing member 52 biases only a single end (defined by the protrusion extending downward from the bottom surface of the ram 50; Fig. 3) of the cable shelf towards the blade 40.
Regarding claim 7, Liao teaches a cable-shaving tool for shaving of a cable jacket from a cable, the tool comprising: a first housing shell 20 having a control surface (defined by the surface of the indentation that receives a portion of the cable when the shells are in a closed position; Fig. 3) on a bottom surface; a blade 40 secured to the first housing shell 20, the blade having a cutting surface positioned at the control surface; a second housing shell 10; a cable ramp 50 in the second housing shell 10, the cable ramp defining a first cable groove 112 along a stripping direction of the cable with the first cable groove operatively associated with the cutting surface when the first and second housing shells are in a closed position; and a resilient member 52 between the cable ramp 50 and the second housing 10, the resilient member 52 normally biasing the cable ramp 50 towards the control surface so that a portion of the cable in the first cable groove is against the control surface (Fig. 5B), when the first and second housing shells (20, 10) are in the closed position, such that the cutting surface initiates a cut of a first predetermined depth into the cable jacket of the portion when the cable is moved relative to the cutting surface in the stripping direction. See Figs. 2-5B in Liao.
Regarding claim 8, as best understood, Liao teaches everything noted above including that the resilient member 52 is a compression spring or a rubber gasket.
Regarding claim 9, as best understood, Liao teaches everything noted above including that the biasing member 52 is engaged to the second housing shell 10 at a pivot point so that the resilient member 52 biases only a single end of the cable ramp towards the control surface.
Regarding claim 10, Liao teaches everything noted above including a hinge (not numbered, shown in Fig. 3) securing the first and second housing shells (20, 10) to one another for movement between the closed position and an open position.
Regarding claim 11, Liao teaches everything noted above including that the hinge comprises a hinge pin (Fig. 3) that is parallel to the stripping direction.
Regarding claim 12, Liao teaches everything noted above including that the blade 40 is removably secured to the first housing shell 20.
Regarding claim 13, Liao teaches everything noted above including that the
the blade 40 is secured to an upper surface of the first housing shell 20.
Regarding claim 14, Liao teaches everything noted above including that the
first housing shell 20 includes a first chip clearance channel 212 (at least receiving some chips during shaving of the cable jacket) extending entirely through the first shell housing, the cutting surface extending through the first chip clearance channel into the first cable groove. See Fig. 3 in Liao.
Regarding claim 15, Liao teaches everything noted above including that the first chip clearance channel is positioned so that a cut portion of the cable jacket protrudes from the first chip clearance channel to remove the cut portion from within the first and second shell housings.
Regarding claim 21, Liao teaches everything noted above with respect to claim 1, including that the predetermined depth is controlled by a spacing between an edge of the blade 40 and the control surface (defined by the side of the second front end 21 against which the wire is urged when the first and second clip bodies are closed; see paragraphs [0026] and [0029], and Figs. 5A-5B), wherein adjusting device (30) adjusts the exposed length of blade 40 to establish the desired blade projection relative to the control surface. The retractable seat (50) having seat body (51) is urged by elastic member (52) toward the blade so that the cable jacket is urged against the control surface (paragraph [0029]; Figs. 5A-5B), whereby the blade immediately engages the cable jacket upon relative movement of the tool and cable to initiate the cutting operation with substantially no clearance between the cable jacket and the blade at the point of engagement (i.e., a zero-clearance cut).
Regarding claim 22, Liao teaches everything noted above with respect to claim 7, including that the first predetermined depth is controlled by a spacing between an edge of the cutting surface of blade 40 and the control surface (defined by the side of the second front end 21 contacted by the wire during operation; paragraphs [0026] and [0029]; Figs. 5A-5B), the cutting depth being established by the adjusted exposed length of blade 40 relative to the control surface. Further, resilient member (52) normally biases retractable seat (50) toward the control surface so that the cable supported on seat body (51) is urged against the control surface (paragraph [0029]; Figs. 5A-5B), whereby the cutting surface immediately engages the cable jacket upon movement of the tool relative to the cable to initiate the cutting operation with substantially no clearance between the cutting surface and the cable jacket at initial engagement (i.e., a zero-clearance cut).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. 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.
4. Claims 2-3 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liao in view of Cook, JR (2,627,768), hereinafter Cook. Regarding claims 2-3, Liao teaches everything noted above except that the cable groove comprises at least two cable grooves; and the blade includes at least two cutting portions, wherein the at least two cutting portions provide cable shavings at different depths. However, Cook teaches a cable-shaving tool including a first shell having two cable grooves 8; and a blade 14 includes at least two cutting portions 16, wherein the at least two cutting portions provide cable shavings at different depths. See Figs. 1-4 in Cook. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide Liao’s cable-shaving tool with the grooves and the blade with cutting portions, as taught by Cook, in order to facilitate shaving or cutting cables with different diameters.
Regarding claim 16, Liao, as modified by Cook, teaches everything noted above including a second cable groove (Fig. 2 in Cook) in a cable ramp 10, the second cable groove being along the stripping direction, and wherein the second cable groove is operatively associated with a cutting surface when a first and second housing shells (1-2) are in the closed position.
Regarding claim 17, Liao, as modified by Cook, teaches everything noted above including a partition (as shown in Fig. 2) between the first and second cable grooves.
Regarding claim 18, Liao teaches everything noted above including that the biasing member (52; Fig. 5B in Liao) normally biases the cable ramp towards the control surface so that a portion of the cable in the second cable groove is against the control surface, when the first and second housing shells are in the closed position, such that the cutting surface initiates a cut of a second predetermined depth into the cable jacket of the portion when the cable is moved relative to the cutting surface in the stripping direction.
Regarding claim 19, Liao teaches everything noted above including that the first housing shell includes a first chip clearance channel and a second chip clearance channel 212 (Fig. 5B in Liao) extending entirely through the first shell housing, the cutting surface extending through the first and second chip clearance channels into the first and second cable grooves, respectively.
Regarding claim 20, Liao teaches everything noted above including that the first and second chip clearance channels are positioned so that cut portions of the cable jacket protrude from the first and second chip clearance channels, respectively, to remove the cut portions from within the first and second shell housings.
Response to Arguments
5. Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Liao fails to disclose the claimed operative relationship between the cable ramp, the control surface, and the blade because Liao attributes cut-depth selection to adjustment of the blade rather than to the control surface. However, claim 1 does not require that the control surface itself establish or determine the predetermined depth of cut, nor does it exclude a blade having an adjustable cutting depth. Rather, claim 1 requires that the cable ramp urge the cable jacket against a control surface and that the blade initiate a cut of a predetermined depth upon movement of the tool along the cable. As disclosed in Liao, the retractable seat 50 (the clamp ramp) is biased by elastic member 52 such that the wire is urged against one side of the second front end 21 (see, e.g., paragraph [0029] and Figs. 5A-5B). This corresponds to the claimed relationship in which the movable cable-supporting structure urges the cable toward an opposing control surface while the blade initiates the shaving cut. The fact that Liao additionally provides an adjusting mechanism for setting blade exposure prior to use does not negate or contradict this disclosed relationship. Once adjusted, the blade exposure establishes a predetermined cutting depth during the shaving operation.
Applicant further argues that Liao’s retractable seat 50 and seat body 51 merely position and clamp the wire and therefore cannot correspond to the claimed cable ramp and movable cable shelf. This argument is likewise unpersuasive because anticipation is based on what the prior art discloses, not on the terminology used to describe individual components. Liao discloses a movable wire-supporting member disposed opposite the blade that supports the wire, moves under the influence of elastic member 52, and urges the wire toward the opposing housing during operation. These structural and functional characteristics reasonably correspond to the claimed cable ramp and movable cable shelf. Likewise, Applicant’s characterization of the opposing surface as merely a clamping surface does not distinguish the claimed control surface. The claim merely requires a surface against which the cable is urged during shaving so that the blade initiates the cut, not that the surface independently determines cutting depth or performs any additional function beyond locating the cable relative to the blade.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to independent claim 7 are similarly not persuasive. Claim 7 recites that the biasing member biases the cable ramp toward the control surface so that a portion of the cable in the cable groove is against the control surface and the cutting surface initiates a cut of a first predetermined depth. Liao expressly discloses that elastic member 52 biases retractable seat 50 such that the wire is positioned against one side of the second front end 21 due to the elastic force provided by the elastic member (paragraph [0029]; Fig. 5B). This disclosure teaches the claimed biasing relationship regardless of whether Liao also describes the wire as being “clamped and fixed.” The claim does not exclude clamping or require that the control surface alone establish cutting depth. Instead, the predetermined depth is achieved during operation after the blade has been adjusted to the desired exposure, which is consistent with the claim language. Accordingly, Liao discloses the claimed arrangement of a spring-biased movable cable-supporting member urging the cable against an opposing surface while the blade initiates a cut of predetermined depth as the tool is moved along the cable.
Applicant’s arguments improperly import limitations into claims 1 and 7 that are not recited. Specifically, Applicant argues that the claims require the control surface, in cooperation with the cable ramp, to independently determine the depth of cut. However, neither independent claim 1 or 7 contains such a limitation. The claims require only that the cable be urged against a control surface while the blade initiates a predetermined-depth cut during movement of the tool. Liao expressly teaches these structural and functional relationships. Therefore, Applicant has not identified a structural or functional distinction between the claimed invention and the disclosure of Liao sufficient to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102. The rejection is therefore maintained.
In regards to new claims 21-22, applicant argues that Liao fails to disclose that the predetermined depth is “controlled by a spacing between an edge of the blade and the control surface.” However, the claims do not require any particular mechanism by which the spacing is established, nor do they exclude adjustment of the blade relative to the control surface prior to operation. As disclosed in Liao, adjusting device 30 adjusts the exposed length of blade 40 through hole 212 (paragraphs [0025]-[0026]), while elastic member 52 urges retractable seat 50 and the supported wire toward one side of the second front end 21 (paragraph [0029]; Figs. 5A-5B). Thus, after the blade has been adjusted to the desired position, the spacing between the edge of blade 40 and the opposing control surface defines the depth to which the blade penetrates the cable jacket during the stripping operation. The fact that the spacing is established by adjustment of the blade does not remove it from the scope of the claim, as the claim merely requires that the predetermined depth be controlled by that spacing and does not require the spacing to be fixed, non-adjustable, or established in any particular manner.
Applicant further argues that Liao fails to disclose a cable ramp or resilient member urging the cable toward the control surface so that the blade immediately engages the cable jacket to initiate a zero-clearance cut. This argument is likewise unpersuasive. As previously set forth, retractable seat 50 reasonably corresponds to the claimed cable ramp, seat body 51 corresponds to the movable cable shelf, and elastic member 52 urges the retractable seat toward the second front end 21, thereby urging the cable into engagement with the opposing control surface (paragraph [0029]; Figs. 5A-5B). Because the cable is continuously biased against the control surface during operation, the cable jacket is maintained in the predetermined cutting position relative to blade 40 such that, upon relative movement of the tool and cable, the blade immediately contacts and initiates cutting of the cable jacket. Accordingly, the claimed “immediately engages” limitation is satisfied by the disclosed arrangement.
Applicant has also not identified any definition in the present application that requires the recited “zero-clearance cut” to denote a particular structural relationship beyond the immediate engagement of the cable jacket by the blade while the cable is maintained against the control surface. The claims do not recite that the blade physically contacts the control surface, that there is literally zero spacing between the blade and the control surface, or any other specific geometric limitation. Rather, the claims recite the functional result that the cable is urged toward the control surface so that the blade immediately engages the cable jacket to initiate the cut. As discussed above, Liao expressly discloses that elastic member 52 continuously urges the wire toward the opposing surface while blade 40, having a predetermined projection established by adjusting device 30, immediately engages the cable jacket during the stripping operation. Therefore, Liao discloses the claimed functional relationship, and Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive of reversible error in the rejection.
Conclusion
6. All claims are either identical to or patentably indistinct from claims in the application prior to the entry of the submission under 37 CFR 1.114 (that is, restriction would not be proper) and all claims could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the application prior to entry under 37 CFR 1.114. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action after the filing of a request for continued examination and the submission under 37 CFR 1.114. See MPEP § 706.07(b). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
7. 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
July 10, 2026
Prosecution Insights