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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 10-16-2025 has been entered.
Claims 1, 9-10, and 12-13 were amended. Claims 2-6, and 11 were cancelled. New Claims 19-20 were presented. Claims 1, 7-10, 12-20 are pending and examined in this action.
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 12-18 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.
In re Claim 7, “wherein the rotating shear blade is mounted on a blade mount” is indefinite. A “blade mount” was previously introduced and “a shear blade” is “received in a blade receptacle,” in Claim 1. Is Applicant claiming a second blade mount in Claim 7? As best understood, the claim only requires one blade and one blade mount. The claims were examined as best understood. Appropriate correction is required.
In re Claim 8, “wherein the blade mount comprises a blade receptacle configured to receive the rotating shear blade,” is indefinite. As best understood, this scope is already claimed in Claim 1, which states “a shear blade received in a blade receptacle.” It is unclear if Applicant is claiming a second blade receptacle. As best understood, the claim only requires one blade and one blade receptacle. The claims were examined as best understood. Appropriate correction is required.
In re Claim 12, “a rotating blade receptacle that is eccentric to the fixed blade receptacle for receiving the rotating blade assembly” is indefinite in view of “a shear blade received in a blade receptacle.” It is unclear if Applicant is claiming three blades or two blades. The claims were interpreted as requiring two blades, i.e., a rotating blade/shear blade and a fixed blade. The claims were examined as best understood. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1, 7-10, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 3,379,080 to Massa in view of US 2007/0214648 to Lazarevic and US 3,279,059 to Keiter.
In re Claim 1, Massa teaches a method for cutting a strand (Massa is for cutting “pipes and the like” ), comprising the steps of:
a) providing a strand cutter (see the Assembly of Figs. 1-4), the strand cutter comprising: a drive assembly (see Figs. 1-4, motor #30 and #120/122/124);
a clamp assembly mechanically coupled to the drive assembly (see Figs. 1-4, #54/54/54/62/62), wherein the clamp assembly comprises curved clamping faces that include strand-receiving grooves that cooperate to define a strand channel through which a strand may pass (see Fig. 2 and 4, #54 has lines which define grooves); and
a rotating shear blade assembly comprising a blade mount having a strand slot portion and a shear blade received in a blade receptacle (cutting tool #78 is received in an a slot which is the blade mount/ strand slot),
wherein the strand slot portion and the shear blade cooperate to define a cutting strand slot through which a strand may pass (see Figs. 1-4, the strand slot portion and the shear blade cooperate to define a strand slot), wherein rotating blade assembly is coupled to engage the drive assembly so as to allow the transmission of torque from the drive assembly to the rotating blade assembly upon actuation of a trigger which causes power to flow to the drive assembly (see Fig. 1, #32),
b) moving the strand cutter into engagement with a strand by moving the strand cutter laterally on to the strand through the strand channel and the cutting strand slot until the strand is received in the clamp assembly (the user inserts to the workpiece into the strand channel and the cutting strand slot to cut the workpiece); and
c) using the drive assembly to apply torque to the rotating blade assembly by actuating the trigger until the strand is cut (see Col. 5, ll. 7-46).
Massa does not teach a drive assembly powered by a battery. However, Lazarevic teaches that it is known in the art of cutting strand-type workpieces to make a cutter battery powered (see Lazarevic, Fig. 1, #34). In the same field of invention, cutters for strand-type workpieces, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date, to power the stcutre of Massa with a battery, as taught by Lazarevic. Doing so allows the device to be self-contained (see Lazarevic) thereby not requiring power from a wall plug, thereby allowing the device to be operated in areas without power.
If it is argued that Massa does not teach curved clamping faces that include strand-receiving grooves, the claims are rejected in view of Keiter. Keiter teaches that it is known in the strand gripping art to provide strand-receiving grooves (see Keiter, Fig. 2, #46). In the same field of invention, grippers for strands, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date to add the grooves #46 of Keiter to the grippers of Massa. Doing so prevent slipping when engaged with a pipe to be cut (see Keiter, Col. 2, ll. 24-27)
In re Claim 7, modified Massa, in re Claim 1, teaches wherein the rotating shear blade is mounted on a blade mount (see Fig. 1-5, #78 is mounted in a blade mount – the claim was examined as best understood).
In re Claim 8, modified Massa, in re Claim 1, teaches wherein the blade mount comprises a blade receptacle configured to receive the rotating shear blade (see Figs. 1-4, #78 is mounted in a blade receptacle configured to receive #78).
In re Claim 9, modified Massa, in re Claim 1, teaches wherein the rotating shear blade comprises two drive faces (see Massa, Fig. 4, #78 faces both #13 as well as#11).
In re Claim 10 modified Massa, in re Claim 1, teaches wherein the drive faces are planar and parallel (see Massa, Fig. 1, #78 both faces are planar and parallel).
In re Claim 19, modified Massa, in re Claim 1, teaches wherein the clamp assembly is a spring-loaded clamp assembly (see Figs. 1-4, #54/62).
Claims 12, 14-15, 16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 3,379,080 to Massa in view of US 2007/0214648 to Lazarevic, JP H10249630 A, and further in view of US 3,279,059 to Keiter.
In re Claim 12, Massa teaches a method for cutting a strand (see Figs. 1-4, structure for cutting a pipe or the like which is a strand), comprising the steps of:
a) providing a strand cutter (see assembly of Figs. 1-4), the strand cutter comprising:
a drive assembly (see Figs. 1-4, motor #30 and #120/122/124) whereupon actuation of a trigger (see Fig. 1, #32) causes power to flow to the drive assembly;
a clamp assembly (see Figs. 1-4, #54/54/54/62/62) mechanically coupled to the drive assembly, wherein the clamp assembly comprises curved clamping faces that include strand-receiving grooves (see Fig. 2 and 4, #54 has lines which define grooves) that cooperate to define a strand channel through which a strand may pass (aperture which the workpiece is location); and
a rotating blade assembly comprising a blade mount having a strand slot portion and a shear blade received in a blade receptacle (cutting tool #78 is received in an a slot which is the blade mount/ strand slot), wherein the strand slot portion and the shear blade cooperate to define a cutting strand slot through which a strand may pass (see Figs. 1-4, the strand slot portion and the shear blade cooperate to define a strand slot),
wherein the rotating blade assembly is coupled to engage the drive assembly so as to allow the transmission of torque from the drive assembly to the rotating blade assembly (see Col. 5, ll. 7-46),
b) moving the strand cutter into engagement with a strand by moving the strand cutter laterally on to the strand through the strand channel and the cutting strand slot until the strand is received in the clamp assembly (the user inserts to the workpiece into the strand channel and the cutting strand slot to cut the workpiece); and
c) using the drive assembly to apply torque to the rotating blade assembly until the strand is cut (see Col. 5, ll. 7-46);
a rotating blade receptacle for receiving the rotating blade assembly (structure that receives cutting blade/tool #78).
wherein the strand cutter further comprises a nose piece (see Fig. 4, #13), wherein said nose piece comprises a nose piece body comprising a strand slot through which a strand may pass (see Fig. 4, aperture in Fig. 13),
Massa does not teach a drive assembly powered by a battery; and a fixed blade receptacle for receiving a fixed blade and a rotating blade receptacle that is eccentric to the fixed blade receptacle for receiving the rotating blade assembly.
However, Lazarevic teaches that it is known in the art of cutting strand-type workpieces to make a cutter battery powered (see Lazarevic, Fig. 1, #34). In the same field of invention, cutters for strand-type workpieces, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date, to power the stcutre of Massa with a battery, as taught by Lazarevic. Doing so allows the device to be self-contained (see Lazarevic) thereby not requiring power from a wall plug, thereby allowing the device to be operated in areas without power.
Additionally, Durfee teaches that it is known to provide a fixed blade receptacle for receiving a fixed blade and a rotating blade receptacle that is eccentric to the fixed blade receptacle for receiving the rotating blade assembly.
However, JP H10249630 A teaches that it is known in the art of cutting strand-type workpieces to provide a fixed blade (see JP H10249630 A, Fig. 8, #66) in combination with the rotating blade (see JP H10249630 A, Fig. 8, #67) to cut a longitudinal workpiece. Doing so is the substation of one known blade arrangement for another known blade arrangement to cut a longitudinal workpiece (see MPEP 2143, I, B).
Providing a fixed blade and pivoting blade of Massa on the device of Massa would provide a fixed blade receptacle for receiving a fixed blade and a rotating blade receptacle that is eccentric to the fixed blade receptacle for receiving the rotating blade assembly.
If it is argued that Massa does not teach curved clamping faces that include strand-receiving grooves, the claims are rejected in view of Keiter. Keiter teaches that it is known in the strand gripping art to provide strand-receiving grooves (see Keiter, Fig. 2, #46). In the same field of invention, grippers for strands, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date to add the grooves #46 of Keiter to the grippers of Massa. Doing so prevent slipping when engaged with a pipe to be cut (see Keiter, Col. 2, ll. 24-27)
In re Claim 14, modified Massa, in re Claim 1, teaches wherein the replaceable shear blade comprises a first drive face, a second drive face, and a blade edge see Massa, Fig. 4, #78 faces both #13 as well as#11, as well as an edge for cutting).
In re Claim 15, modified Massa, in re Claim 1, teaches wherein the first drive face and the second drive face are each configured to engage a corresponding surface in the rotating blade receptacle (see Massa, Fig. 4, #78 faces both #13 as well as#11).
In re Claim 16, modified Massa, in re Claim 12, teaches wherein the first drive face and the second drive face are planar and parallel to each other (see Massa, Fig. 1, #78 both faces are planar and parallel).
In re Claim 18, modified Massa, in re Claim 12, teaches wherein the clamp assembly is a spring- loaded clamp assembly (see Massa, Figs. 1-4, #54/62).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 3,379,080 to Massa in view of US 2007/0214648 to Lazarevic, JP H10249630 A, and US 3,279,059 to Keiter, and further in view of US 3,807,047 to Sherer.
In re Claim 13, modified Massa, in re Claim 12, does not teach wherein the rotating shear blade is a replaceable shear blade. However, Sherer teaches that it is known in the art to secure a blade via bolts (see Sherer, Fig. 5, #107/72). In the same field of invention, cutting strand-type workpiece, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to secure a blade by way of fasteners, such as bolts. Doing so allows the user to disassemble the device, to clean or replace parts, including a dull blade. This is within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 3,379,080 to Massa in view of US 2007/0214648 to Lazarevic and US 3,279,059 to Keiter, and further in view of US 3,807,047 to Sherer.
In re Claim 20, modified Massa, in re Claim 1, does not teach wherein the shear blade is a replaceable shear blade. However, Sherer teaches that it is known in the art to secure a blade via bolts (see Sherer, Fig. 5, #107/72). In the same field of invention, cutting strand-type workpiece, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to secure a blade by way of fasteners, such as bolts. Doing so allows the user to disassemble the device, to clean or replace parts, including a dull blade. This is within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 3,379,080 to Massa in view of US 2007/0214648 to Lazarevic, JP H10249630 A, and US 3,279,059 to Keiter, and further in view of US 5,085,541 to Simpson.
In re Claim 17, modified Massa, in re Claim 1, does not teach wherein the first drive face and the second drive face are angled with respect to each other.
However, Simpson teaches that it is known in the art to provide a blade wherein the first drive face and the second rive face are angled with respect to each other (see Fig. 1, #21).
In the same field of invention, cutting blades, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date, to make the first drive face and the second drive face angled with respect to each other, as taught by Simpson. Doing so allows the ease of removal as well as positively position the workpiece (see Simpson, Col.1 , ll. 25-47 and Col. 2, ll. 10-25).
Response to Amendments
Applicant’s amendment have overcome the prior 35 USC § 112 (a) and (b) rejections. However, the amendment have introduced new 35 USC § 112(b) rejections – see above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN RILEY whose telephone number is (571)270-7786. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30 AM - 5:00 PM.
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, Adam Eiseman can be reached at 571-270-3818. 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.
/JONATHAN G RILEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724