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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1-5 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.
Regarding Claim 1, the limitation "a pair of cutting portions" is as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim exactly what constitutes a portion. In order to examine the claims an advance prosecution, Examiner has interpreted the limitation to mean any part of a whole.
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.
(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.
Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Townsend, et alia (US 3,237,300), hereinafter Townsend.
Regarding Claim 1, Townsend discloses a wire stripper ( Col 1, Ln 9; as illustrated in at least Fig 1) comprising:
a plier head (2) (as illustrated in at least Fig 1) having a pair of cutting portions (4), (Col 2, Ln 30-32) the pair of cutting portions having a plurality of pairs of semicircular jaws (7), (7a) (Col 2, Ln 32; as illustrated in at least Fig 1); and
a handle assembly (3) (Col 2, Ln 52; as illustrated in at least Fig 1) pivoted to the plier head (Col 3, Ln 35-39);
where the handle assembly has a pair of arms (1), the pair of arms have a positioning member (14), (16) (Col 2, Ln 51-58; as illustrated in at least Fig 1) and a cutting member (6), (6a) (Col 2, Ln 31-32; as illustrated in at least Fig 1) opposing each other at upper inner sides thereof, the positioning member being provided with a transverse groove (11) (Col 2, Ln 42-43) and a longitudinal groove (18) (Col 3, Ln 5-8), the cutting member having a round cutting edge (Col 2,Ln Ln 42-43; as illustrated in Fig 1), and the round cutting edge being aligned with the transverse groove as illustrated in Fig 1/2).
Regarding Claim 2, Townsend discloses all aspects of the claimed invention, as stated above. Townsend further discloses the positioning member and the cutting member are each secured to one of the pair of arms by a screw member (as illustrated in Fig 1).
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.
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Townsend, in view of Yoshimori (US 6,138,362), hereinafter Yoshimori.
Regarding Claim 3, Townsend discloses all aspects of the claimed invention, as stated above. Townsend is silent to the positioning member is made of plastic.
Yoshimori teaches a wire stripper (1) having a positioning member (8) made of plastic (Col 2, Ln 38, 50-54, respectively). A skilled Artisan would recognize the utility of plastic in that it may be easily formed and is durable, providing economy in manufacture and longevity in use.
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the wire stripper, as disclosed by Townsend, to a include a positioning member (8) made of plastic, as taught by Yoshimori, in order to provide economy in manufacture and longevity in use.
Regarding Claim 4, Townsend discloses all aspects of the claimed invention, as stated above. Townsend is silent to the round cutting edge is made of metal.
Yoshimori teaches a wire stripper (1) (Col 2, Ln 38) having a round cutting edge is made of metal (Col 4, Ln 4). A skilled Artisan would recognize the utility of metal cutting blades in that they may be easily formed and is durable, providing economy in manufacture and longevity in use.
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the wire stripper, as disclosed by Townsend, to a include a round cutting edge is made of metal, as taught by Yoshimori, in order to provide economy in manufacture and longevity in use.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Townsend, in view of Williams (US 1,566,297), hereinafter Williams.
Regarding Claim 5, Townsend discloses all aspects of the claimed invention, as stated above. Townsend is silent to a rotatable spacer having an eccentric pivot.
Williams teaches a wire stripper (as illustrated in at least Fig 2), having a rotatable spacer (14) having an eccentric pivot (Col 2, Ln 90-93). Williams further teaches a plurality of rotatable positioning points for adjusting a distance between the cutting member and the positioning member to provide a plurality of different stripping depths (Col 2, Ln 93-101). Williams further teaches various sizes of wires may be stripped using this arrangement, a design which would be recognized by a skilled Artisan as providing economy in use.
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the wire stripper, as disclosed by Townsend, to a include a cutting member further includes a rotatable spacer having an eccentric pivot and a plurality of rotatable positioning points for adjusting a distance between the cutting member and the positioning member to provide a plurality of different stripping depths, as taught by Williams, in order to provide economical use of the tool.
Examiner notes the limitation "rotatable spacer" is recited without criticality, and the DISLCOSURE of the INSTANT APPLICATION fails to provide any definition as to the intent or use of the spacer, with regard to any facilitating of spacing or making space between objects, either in the apparatus or the use of the apparatus. Examiner has therefore interpreted the limitation to mean a rotatable element, having no further definition.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 3,010,205 to Pearl teaches a wire stripper.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Fred C Hammers whose telephone number is (571)272-9870. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 0080-1700.
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.
/FRED C HAMMERS/
Examiner
Art Unit 3724
/BOYER D ASHLEY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3724