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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on August 26th, 2024 and April 7th, 2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Page 4, Line 4: “hydraulic crimperfree from” should read --hydraulic crimper free from die change--
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 7, and 11 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, Line 17: “that force” should read --that the force--
Claim 7, Line 11: “second measurement generates table” should read --second measurement lookup table--
Claim 11, Line 4: “in cylindrical” should read --cylindrically--
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 6 and 11 are 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.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “the first relative distance in Line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “the second relative distance in Lines 9-10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the cylindrical connecting part" in Lines 6-7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the component force" in Line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the component force of the connected one of the movable part" in Lines 10-11. It is unclear what “the component force” is referring to. Thus, rendering the claim indefinite.
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 (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 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.
Claims 1-5 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Skinner et al. (US20220226979A1), hereinafter “Skinner”.
Regarding Claim 1, Skinner discloses a hydraulic crimper free from die change (Figs. 1-20) comprising: a die (Fig. 3, Element 114) including a fixed component (see annotated Fig. 3 of Skinner reproduced below) and a movable component (see annotated Fig. 3 of Skinner reproduced below); wherein a distance sensing unit (Fig. 3, Element 150) is installed to the fixed component (see annotated Fig. 3 of Skinner reproduced below) for sensing a relative distance (¶0039, Lines 12-16; ¶0045, Lines 1-10) between the moveable component (see annotated Fig. 3 of Skinner reproduced below) and the fixed component (see annotated Fig. 3 of Skinner reproduced below) and thus correspondingly generates a distance sensing signal (¶0045, Lines 10-13); a main body (see annotated Fig. 3 of Skinner reproduced below) connected to the die (Fig. 3, Element 114) and comprising: a hydraulic jack (Fig. 3, Element 108), having a thrust rod (Fig. 3, Element 200), a pipeline (Fig. 3, Element 124), a hydraulic pump (Fig. 3, Element 104), and a hydraulic sensor (Fig. 3, Element 122; ¶0062, Lines 9-13); wherein, the pipeline (Fig. 3, Element 124) connects the hydraulic pump (Fig. 3, Element 104) to the thrust rod (Fig. 3, Element 200), and the hydraulic sensor (Fig. 3, Element 122; ¶0062, Lines 9-13) senses a force (¶0069, Lines 1-3; ¶0081, Lines 23-33) on the pipeline (Fig. 3, Element 124) to generate a pressure signal (¶0069, Lines 3-4; ¶0062, Lines 9-13); a control unit (Fig.2, Element 50), electrically connected (Fig. 2; ¶0040) to the distance sensing unit (Fig. 3, Element 150), the hydraulic pump (Fig 2, Element 104) and the hydraulic sensor (Fig.3, Element 122; Fig. 2; ¶0040) to receive the distance sensing signal (¶0081, Lines 17-21) and the pressure signal (¶0088, Lines 11-13); wherein, the control unit (Fig.2, Element 50) controls the hydraulic pump (¶0037; ¶0070-0071) to pressurize the pipeline (Fig. 3, Element 124) according to a start signal (¶0070-0071)to push the thrust rod (Fig. 3, Element 200) toward the moveable component (see annotated Fig. 3 of Skinner reproduced below) such that the moveable component (see annotated Fig. 3 of Skinner reproduced below) crimps a cable connector (¶0052; ¶0070-0071); wherein, when the control unit (Fig.2, Element 50) determines that force (¶0071) on the pipeline (Fig. 3, Element 124) is greater than or equal to a pressure threshold (¶0070-0071) according to the pressure signal (¶0071), the control unit (Fig.2, Element 50) calculates an outer diameter of the cable connector (¶0089) according to the received distance sensing signal (¶0089); wherein, the control unit (Fig.2, Element 50) controls the hydraulic jack (Fig. 3, Element 108; ¶0050-0053) to push the thrust rod (Fig. 3, Element 200) toward the moveable component (see annotated Fig. 3 of Skinner reproduced below) for a crimping distance (¶0089-0090) according to an instruction (¶0089-0090) that corresponds to the outer diameter of the cable connector (¶0089-0090), and further controls the hydraulic jack (Fig. 3, Element 108; ¶0071-0072) to retract the thrust rod (Fig. 3, Element 108; ¶0071-0072).
PNG
media_image1.png
494
843
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 3 of Skinner
Regarding Claim 2, Skinner anticipates the hydraulic crimper free from die change as claimed in Claim 1 as explained above.
Skinner further discloses the hydraulic crimper free from die change (Figs. 1-20) further comprising: a memory unit (Fig. 2, Element 80), electrically connected (Fig. 2; ¶0039-0040) to the control unit (Fig.2, Element 50) and storing the pressure threshold (¶0039; ¶0079) and an outer diameter crimping distance lookup table (¶0039; ¶0079); wherein the control unit (Fig.2, Element 50) creates the instruction (¶0089-0092) according to the outer diameter (¶0089-0092) and the outer diameter crimping distance lookup table (¶0089-0092) to control the hydraulic jack (Fig. 3, Element 108; ¶0050-0053; ¶0089-0092) to push the thrust rod (Fig. 3, Element 200; ¶0089-0092) to the crimping distance (¶0089-0092).
Regarding Claim 3, Skinner anticipates the hydraulic crimper free from die change as claimed in Claim 2 as explained above.
Skinner further discloses the hydraulic crimper free from die change (Figs. 1-20) further comprising: an input unit (Fig. 2, Element 20; ¶0042, Lines 1-4) electrically connected (Fig. 2) to the control unit (Fig. 2, Element 50); wherein, when the control unit (Fig. 2, Element 50) receives a setting mode signal (¶0070; ¶0078) generated by the input unit (¶0070; ¶0078), the control unit (Fig. 2, Element 50) enters a setting mode (¶0070; ¶0078), and when the control unit (Fig. 2, Element 50) receives a use mode signal (¶0070-0071; ¶0080) generated by the input unit (¶0070; ¶0078-0079), the control unit (Fig. 2, Element 50) exits the setting mode (¶0070; ¶0078) and enters the use mode (¶0070-0071; ¶0078-0080); wherein, when the control unit (Fig. 2, Element 50) is in the setting mode (¶0070; ¶0078) and the control unit (Fig. 2, Element 50) receives a setting parameter signal (¶0070; ¶0078) generated by the input unit (¶0070; ¶0078), the control unit (Fig. 2, Element 50) updates the outer diameter crimping distance lookup table (¶0083) stored in the memory unit (Fig. 2, Element 80) according to the setting parameter signal (¶0070; ¶0078); wherein, when the control unit (Fig. 2, Element 80) is in the use mode (¶0070-0071; ¶0080) and receives the start signal (¶0070-0071; ¶0080) generated by the input unit (¶0070; ¶0078), the control unit (Fig. 2, Element 50) starts to determine the instruction (¶0070; ¶0081; ¶0089-0092) according to the outer diameter (¶0089-0092) and the outer diameter crimping distance lookup table (¶0089-0092) to control the hydraulic jack (Fig. 3, Element 108; ¶0050-0053; ¶0089-0092) to push the thrust rod (Fig. 3, Element 200; ¶0089-0092) to the crimping distance (¶0089-0092).
Regarding Claim 4, Skinner anticipates the hydraulic crimper free from die change as claimed in Claim 2 as explained above.
Skinner further discloses the hydraulic crimper free from die change (Figs. 1-20) further comprising: a communication unit (Fig. 2, Element 20; ¶0042), electrically connected (Fig. 2) to the control unit (Fig. 2, Element 50) for communication connection ( ¶0042; ¶0084) to an external device (¶0042); wherein, when the control unit (Fig. 2, Element 50) receives a set parameter signal (¶0070; ¶0078) from the external device (Fig. 2, Element 20; ¶0042) through the communication unit (¶0042), the control unit (Fig. 2, Element 50) updates the outer diameter crimping distance lookup table (¶0079-¶0083) stored in the memory unit (Fig. 2, Element 80; ¶0079-¶0083) based on the set parameter signal (¶0079-¶0083).
Regarding Claim 5, Skinner anticipates the hydraulic crimper free from die change as claimed in Claim 1 as explained above.
Skinner further discloses wherein, the distance sensing unit (Fig. 3, Element 150) further includes at least one optical distance sensor (¶0047), and the at least one optical distance (¶0047) measures the relative distance (¶0045; ¶0039, Lines 12-16) of the moveable component (see annotated Fig. 3 of Skinner reproduced above) relative to the fixed component (see annotated Fig. 3 of Skinner reproduced above) in an optical manner (¶0047) to generate the distance sensing signal (¶0045, Lines 10-20).
Regarding Claim 10, Skinner anticipates the hydraulic crimper free from die change as claimed in Claim 1 as explained above.
Skinner further discloses wherein the instruction (¶0088-0089) corresponding to the outer diameter (¶0088-0089) includes a retraction distance (¶0088-0089) corresponding to the outer diameter (¶0088-0089); after the control unit (Fig. 2, Element 50) controls the hydraulic jack (Fig. 3, Element 108) to push the thrust rod (Fig. 3, Element 200) to the crimping distance (¶0088-0089) towards the movable component (see annotated Fig. 3 of Skinner reproduced above), the control unit (Fig. 2, Element 50) controls the hydraulic jack (Fig. 3, Element 108) to retract the thrust rod (Fig. 3, Element 200) based on the retraction distance (¶0088-0089).
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 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 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Skinner in view of Zdravkovic et a. (US20060243013A1), hereinafter “Zdravkovic”.
Regarding Claim 6, Skinner anticipates the hydraulic crimper free from die change as claimed in Claim 5 as explained above.
Skinner further discloses wherein, the optical distance sensor (¶0047) at least includes a first distance sensor (¶0047), and the thrust rod (Fig. 3, Element 200) pushes the movable component (see annotated Fig. 3 of Skinner reproduced above) in a first direction (Fig. 3; ¶0050-0053; ¶0089-0092); wherein, the first distance sensor (¶0047) is oriented in the first direction (Fig. 3; ¶0050-0053; ¶0089-0092) facing the movable component (see annotated Fig. 3 of Skinner reproduced above) to measure the first relative distance (¶0039, Lines 12-16; ¶0045, Lines 1-10) between the movable component (see annotated Fig. 3 of Skinner reproduced above) and the fixed component (see annotated Fig. 3 of Skinner reproduced above), and generates a first distance sensing signal (¶0045, Lines 10-13).
Skinner fails to disclose wherein the optical sensor at least include a second distance sensor; the second distance sensor is oriented in an opposite direction of the first direction facing the movable component to measure the second relative distance between the movable component and the fixed component and generates a second distance sensing signal; wherein, when the control unit calculates the outer diameter of the cable connector based on the received distance sensing signals, the control unit calculates the outer diameter of the cable connector based on the received first distance sensing signal and the second distance sensing signal.
Nonetheless, Zdravkovic teaches wherein, a second distance sensor (see annotated Fig. 2 of Zdravkovic reproduced below; ¶0016, Lines 9-12); the second distance sensor (see annotated Fig. 2 of Zdravkovic reproduced below) is oriented in an opposite direction (see annotated Fig. 2 of Zdravkovic reproduced below) of the first direction (see annotated Fig. 2 of Zdravkovic reproduced below) facing the movable component (see annotated Fig. 2 of Zdravkovic reproduced below) to measure the second relative distance (¶0015-0016) between the movable component and the fixed component (see annotated Fig. 2 of Zdravkovic reproduced below) and generates a second distance sensing signal (¶0015-0016); wherein, when the control unit (¶0015-0016) calculates the outer diameter of the cable connector (¶0015-0016) based on the received distance sensing signals (¶0015-0016).
Skinner and Zdravkovic are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor of material deforming. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claim invention to incorporate the teachings of Zdravkovic of using a second distance sensor wherein the second distance sensor is oriented in an opposite direction of the first direction facing the movable component to measure the second relative distance between the movable component and the fixed component and generates a second distance sensing signal into the hydraulic crimper free from die change disclosed by Skinner and modified by Zdravkovic to provide individual sensors capable of sensing displacement of the movable component.
After modifications, the prior art combination of Skinner and Zdravkovic further teaches wherein, when the control unit (Zdravkovic - ¶0015-0016; Skinner - Fig. 2, Element 50) calculates the outer diameter of the cable connector (Zdravkovic - ¶0015-0016; Skinner - ¶0089) based on the received distance sensing signals (Zdravkovic - ¶0015-0016; Skinner - ¶0089), the control unit (Zdravkovic - ¶0015-0016; Skinner - Fig. 2, Element 50) calculates the outer diameter (Zdravkovic - ¶0015-0016; Skinner - ¶0089) of the cable connector (Skinner - ¶0089) based on the received first distance sensing signal (Skinner - ¶0089) and the second distance sensing signal (Zdravkovic-¶0015-0016).
PNG
media_image2.png
485
539
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 2 of Zdravkovic
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Skinner in view of Zdravkovic as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Ricard (FR2635285A1), hereinafter "Ricard". For text citation of Ricard refer to the machine translation provided by the Examiner.
Regarding Claim 7, the prior art combination of Skinner and Zdravkovic renders the hydraulic crimper free from die change as claimed in Claim 6 unpatentable.
The prior art combination of Skinner and Zdravkovic further teaches further comprising: a memory unit (Skinner - Fig. 2, Element 80) electrically connected (Skinner - Fig. 2; ¶0039-0040) to the control unit (Skinner - Fig.2, Element 50) and storing the pressure threshold (Skinner - ¶0039; ¶0079), a first measurement lookup table (Skinner - ¶0039; ¶0079), and a second measurement lookup table (Skinner - ¶0039; ¶0079); wherein, when the control unit (Skinner - Fig. 2, Element 50) calculates the outer diameter (Skinner - ¶0089) of the cable connector (Skinner - ¶0089) based on the first distance sensing signal (Skinner - ¶0089) and the second distance sensing signal (Zdravkovic-¶0015-0016), the control unit (Skinner - Fig. 2, Element 50) generates a first outer diameter result (Skinner - ¶0089-0092) based on the first distance sensing signal (Skinner - ¶0089-0092) and the first measurement lookup table, (Skinner - ¶0089-0092) generates a second outer diameter result (Skinner - ¶0089-0092) based on the second distance sensing signal (Zdravkovic-¶0015-0016) and the second measurement generates table (Skinner - ¶0089-0092).
The prior art combination of Skinner and Zdravkovic fails to teach and then averages the first and second outer diameter results to calculate the outer diameter of the cable connector.
Nonetheless, Ricard teaches averaging the first (Page 7, Lines 24-29, d1) and second distance results (Page 7, Lines 24-29, d2) to calculate a weighted average (Page 7, Lines 24-29, z1) based on the first and second distances results (Page 7, Lines 24-29, d1 and d2).
Skinner, Zdravkovic, and Ricard are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor of distance sensors. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claim invention to recognize the advantages of averaging measured results and incorporate these teachings of Ricard into the hydraulic crimper free from die change disclosed by Skinner and further modified by Zdravkovic to then average the first and second outer diameter results to calculate the outer diameter of the cable connector to adjust the crimping distance with high precision (Page 7, Lines 6-10).
Claim 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Skinner in view of Zdravkovic as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Puzio et al. (US20150040632A1), hereinafter “Puzio”.
Regarding Claim 8, the prior art combination of Skinner and Zdravkovic renders the hydraulic crimper free from die change as claimed in Claim 6 unpatentable as explained above.
The prior art combination of Skinner and Zdravkovic further teaches further comprising: an input unit (Skinner - Fig. 2, Element 20; ¶0042, Lines 1-4) electrically connected (Skinner - Fig. 2) to the control unit (Skinner - Fig. 2, Element 50); a screen unit (Skinner - ¶0042) electrically connected (Skinner - Fig. 2; ¶0042) to the control unit (Skinner - Fig. 2, Element 50); wherein, when the control unit (Skinner - Fig. 2, Element 50) calculates the outer diameter (Skinner - ¶0089) of the cable connector (Skinner - ¶0089) ; wherein, when the control unit (Skinner - Fig. 2, Element 50) receives a confirmation signal (¶0058) from the input unit (Skinner - Fig. 2, Element 20; ¶0042, Lines 1-4), the control unit (Skinner - Fig. 2, Element 50) further controls the hydraulic jack (Skinner - Fig. 3, Element 108; ¶0058; ¶0037) to push the thrust rod (Skinner - Fig. 3, Element 200) to the crimping distance (Skinner - ¶0089-0090) based on the instruction (Skinner - ¶0089-0090).
However, the prior art combination of Skinner and Zdravkovic fails to teach wherein the control unit controls the screen unit to display an outer diameter information corresponding to the outer diameter.
Nonetheless, Puzio teaches wherein the control unit (¶0127) controls the screen unit (¶0127) to display an outer diameter information (¶0127) corresponding to the outer diameter (¶0127).
Skinner, Zdravkovic, and Puzio are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor of material deforming. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claim invention to incorporate the teachings of Puzio of providing the control unit with capabilities of controlling the screen unit to display an outer diameter information corresponding to the outer diameter into the hydraulic crimper free from die change disclosed by Skinner and modified by Zdravkovic so that the operator can accept or reject the displayed outer diameter information (¶0127).
Regarding Claim 9, the prior art combination of Skinner, Zdravkovic, and Puzio renders the hydraulic crimper free from die change as claimed in Claim 8 unpatentable as explained above.
The prior art combination of Skinner, Zdravkovic, and Puzio further teaches wherein when the control unit (Skinner - Fig. 2, Element 50) receives a rejection signal (Skinner - ¶0086-0087) from the input unit (Skinner - Fig. 2, Element 20; ¶0042), the control unit (Skinner - Fig. 2, Element 50) exits an operating mode (Skinner - ¶0086-0087) and enters a setting mode (Skinner - ¶0086-0087); wherein, when the control unit (Skinner - Fig. 2, Element 50) is in the setting mode (Skinner - ¶0086) and receives a setting parameter signal (Skinner - ¶0088) from the input unit (Skinner - Fig. 2, Element 20; ¶0042), the control unit (Skinner - Fig. 2, Element 50) updates the instruction (Skinner - ¶0088-0092) corresponding to the outer diameter (Skinner - ¶0088-0092) based on the setting parameter signal (Skinner - ¶0088-0092).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Skinner in view of Nilsson (SE464107B), hereinafter “Nilsson”. For text citation of Nilsson refer to the machine translation provided by the Examiner.
Regarding Claim 11, Skinner anticipates the hydraulic crimper free from die change as claimed in Claim 1 as explained above.
Skinner further discloses wherein the movable component (see annotated Fig. 3 of Skinner reproduced above) of the die (Figs. 1-20) further includes: multiple movable parts (Fig. 3, Element 116) for crimping the cable connector (¶0052; ¶0070-0071).
However, Skinner fails to disclose a connecting part, extending in cylindrical along one axis, and connected to one of the movable parts; an adjustable ring adjustably mounted around the cylindrical connecting part; wherein, when the thrust rod pushes the movable component, the thrust rod pushes the connecting part to move along the axis , thereby moving the movable parts through the component force of the connected one of the movable parts; wherein, when the connecting part moving along the axis contacts the fixed component, the connecting part stops moving along the axis.
Nonetheless, Nilsson teaches a connecting part (Fig. 3, Element 22), extending in cylindrical along one axis (Fig. 3), and connected to one of the movable parts (Fig. 3, Element 11); an adjustable ring (Fig. 3, Element 29) adjustably mounted (Fig. 3, Element 22) around the cylindrical connecting part (Fig. 3); wherein, when the thrust rod (Fig. 4, Element 10) pushes the movable component (Fig. 3, Element 11), the thrust rod (Fig. 4, Element 10) pushes the connecting part (Fig. 3, Element 22) to move along the axis (Fig. 3), thereby moving the movable parts (Fig. 3, Element 11, 13, and 16) through the component force (¶0013-0014) of the connected one of the movable parts (Fig. 3, Element 11); wherein, when the connecting part (Fig. 3, Element 11) moving along the axis (Fig.3) contacts the fixed component (Fig. 3, Element 31), the connecting part (Fig. 3, Element 22) stops moving along the axis (¶0020-0021).
Skinner and Nilsson are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor of crimping tools. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claim invention to incorporate the teachings of Nilsson of using a connecting part, extending in cylindrical along one axis, and connected to one of the movable parts; an adjustable ring adjustably mounted around the cylindrical connecting part; wherein, when the thrust rod pushes the movable component, the thrust rod pushes the connecting part to move along the axis , thereby moving the movable parts through the component force of the connected one of the movable parts; wherein, when the connecting part moving along the axis contacts the fixed component, the connecting part stops moving along the axis into the hydraulic crimper free from die change as disclosed by Skinner to provide a distance adjustment device for steplessly adjusting the distance between the connector pressing member, when this is located in its retracted position, and said locating device (¶0001).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US20180309256A1, US20210328399A1, & US5195353A – Crimping Tool
EP3396796A1, & AT509196B1– Distance/Displacement Sensor
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALONDRA MICHELLE ORTIZ-ORTIZ whose telephone number is (571)272-9539. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7-5PM ET.
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.
/A.M.O./Examiner, Art Unit 3725
/Christopher L Templeton/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3725
Prosecution Insights