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 .
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, 10, and 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Stepan (5,243,882).
Regarding claim 1, Stepan teaches a method comprising:
creating, by an electrical cable preparation device, a retention band of a jacket layer of one or more layers of an electrical cable by at least:
positioning, by the electrical cable preparation device, a tool head 3 of the electrical cable preparation device at a longitudinal starting position a distance from an end of the electrical cable 10;
adjusting (by levers 6), by the electrical cable preparation device, a radial depth of at least one cutting tool of the tool head to a target cutting depth; and
rotating (by motor 25), by the electrical cable preparation device, the tool head with the at least one cutting tool at the target cutting depth; and
responsive to creating the retention band, removing, by the electrical preparation device, an inner portion of the jacket layer between the longitudinal starting position and a longitudinal position defined by a target cutback length associated with the jacket layer.
See Fig. 1.
Regarding claim 10, Stephan teaches setting the cutting tool at a desire longitudinal position on the cable.
Regarding claim 11, sensor data compiling by a mechanical resistance (spring force 18, 70) is best seen in Fig. 1.
Claims 1, 3, and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Horrocks (3,869,791).
Regarding claim 1, Horrocks teaches a method comprising:
creating, by an electrical cable preparation device, a retention band of a jacket layer of one or more layers of an electrical cable by at least:
positioning, by the electrical cable preparation device, a tool head 1 of the electrical cable preparation device at a longitudinal starting position a distance from an end of the electrical cable 4;
adjusting, by the electrical cable preparation device, a radial depth of at least one cutting tool 51 of the tool head to a target cutting depth; and
rotating, by the electrical cable preparation device, the tool head with the at least one cutting tool at the target cutting depth; and
responsive to creating the retention band, removing, by the electrical preparation device, an inner portion of the jacket layer between the longitudinal starting position and a longitudinal position defined by a target cutback length associated with the jacket layer.
See Fig. 1.
Regarding claims 3 and 4, a drive 59 is rotated (screw or unscrew) for adjusting a radial position of the blade 51.
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.
Claims 2 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stepan (5,243,882) in view of Matthews (3,820,420).
The method of Stepan is cable of cutting a plurality of depths on a cable. However, Stepan does not teach the step of making a spiral cut.
Matthews teaches a method of stripping a cable in a spiral form. See Fig. 1.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to add a step of stripping a cable in a spiral form as taught by Matthew to the method of Stepan for stripping cables that requires stripping in a spiral form.
Claims 2, 4, 5, 7, 12, 13, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Horrocks (3,869,791) in view of Matthews (3,398,610).
Regarding claims 2 and 12, the method of Horrocks is cable of cutting a plurality of depths on a cable. However, Stepan does not teach the step of making a spiral cut.
Matthews teaches a method of stripping a cable in a spiral form. See Fig. 1.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to add a step of stripping a cable in a spiral form as taught by Matthew to the method of Horrocks for stripping cables that requires stripping in a spiral form.
Regarding claim 4, a drive 59 is rotated (screw or unscrew) for adjusting a radial position of the blade 51. See Fig. 1 in Horrocks.
Regarding claim 5, Horrocks teaches method substantially as claimed except for the limitations in the bolded texts comprising:
inserting, by an electrical cable preparation device, at least one cutting tool 51 of a tool head 1 of the electrical cable preparation device into at least one layer of an electrical cable to a first depth;
rotating, by the electrical cable preparation device, the tool head a partial rotation with the at least one cutting tool at the first depth to create a tab;
retracting, by the electrical cable preparation device, the at least one cutting tool to a second depth; and
performing, by the electrical cable preparation device, a spiral cut with the at least one cutting tool at the second depth.
See Fig. 1.
The method of Horrocks is cable of cutting a plurality of depths on a cable. However, Stepan does not teach the step of making a spiral cut.
Matthews teaches a method of stripping a cable in a spiral form. See Fig. 1.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to add a step of stripping a cable in a spiral form as taught by Matthew to the method of Horrocks for stripping cables that requires stripping in a spiral form.
Regarding claim 7, a drive 59 is rotated (screw or unscrew) for adjusting a radial position of the blade 51. See Fig. 1 in Horrocks.
Regarding claim 13, a computing device 72 is best seen in Fig. 1. It sets up different cutting depths on a cable.
Regarding claim 14, a plurality of rollers 65 are best seen in Fig. 8.
Claims 6, 8, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Horrocks (3,869,791) in view of Matthews (3,398,610) as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Symington et al. (2017/0012412), hereinafter Symington.
Regarding claim 6, the modified method of Horrocks teaches the invention substantially as claimed except for moving the tool head along a linear slide.
Amrein teaches a method of preparing an electrical cable comprising a tool head 124 guided along a linear slide (42, 44, 40) for automatically preparing a large cable. See Fig. 7.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Horrocks with the step of sliding the cutting head along a linear slide as taught by Symington for automatically preparing a large cable.
Regarding claim 8, a drive 59 is rotated (screw or unscrew) for adjusting a radial position of the blade 51. See Fig. 1 in Horrocks.
Regarding claim 10, Horrock teaches the invention substantially as claimed except for the cutting tool being set at a desire longitudinal position on a cable by a computing device.
Stephan teaches setting a cutting tool at a desire longitudinal position on a cable by a computing device. See Fig. 1.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to automate the cable preparation device of Horrock by providing a computing device as taught by Stepan for automatically setting the cutting tool at a desire location on a cable by a computing device for precisely cutting the cable.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 07/21/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s argument with respect to Stepan and Horrocks, claims 1 and 5 do not teach the structure of the band and the detail structure of the cable preparation device that transform the cable sheath at each step to form the band. Claims 1 and 5 just partially and broadly claim the steps of cutting the cover sheath into a band such as setting up the cutting tool at a longitudinal distance on the cable, setting a cutting depth, and rotating the cutting tool to cut the sheath. Those are broad steps occurring to any cable stripping device. Therefore, Stepan and Horrocks read on those partial and broad steps.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 PHONG H NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-4510. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8-5.
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 at 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.
/PHONG H NGUYEN/Examiner, Art Unit 3724
