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 Objections
1. Claims 4, 8, and 13-14 are objected to because of the following informalities: in claim 4, “its” should be replaced with a proper antecedent noun. In claim 8, “wherein knife” should be --wherein the knife--. In claim 13, “Removing” should be –removing--. In claim 14, “it” should be replaced with a proper antecedent noun. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
2. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by
sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“a knife assembly” and “a rotation mechanism” recited in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
3. 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.
4. Claim 2, 6, 13-14 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 2, “ wherein the removable cutting blade, when detached from the knife, is more flexible and/or weaker than the knife as a whole” is confusing. First, “more flexible” and “weaker” are relative terms, and it is unclear to what degree the cutting blade must be more flexible or weaker. Second, the claim does not specify how the blade becomes more flexible or weaker after removal.
Regarding claim 6,”the cutting blade holder” lacks antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 13, “insulation sheathes of power cables” is unclear and inconsistent with claim 1, which specifies a single power cable with an insulation sheath.
Regarding claim 14, “replacing the cutting edge by removing the cutting blade” is confusing, as the cutting blade is being replaced, not the cutting edge. It should read; “replacing the cutting blade by removing the cutting blade.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
5. 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.
6. Claims 1-5, 8, and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Morris et al. (2022/0231493 A1), hereinafter Morris, provided with the IDS filled on 08/30/2024. Regarding claim 1, Morris teaches a rotational cutting device 100 for the removal of material 18 from an insulation sheath of a power cable 10, the device comprising: a knife assembly 140 having a knife 170 comprising a cutting edge 185 for peeling off material from the insulation sheath; and a rotation mechanism 120 for rotational movement of the knife assembly 140 relative to the power cable 10; wherein the cutting edge 185 of the knife 170 is provided by a removable cutting blade 180 and wherein the removable cutting blade is a microtomy blade or a surgical blade. See Figs. 1-3 in Morris. It should be noted that the blade 180 is considered to be a microtomy or surgical blade because it can be used in a microtome or for surgical operations. The claim does not specify any structure to distinguish the blade from a conventional blade or from the blade taught by Morris.
Regarding claim 2, Morris teaches everything noted above including that removable cutting blade 180, when detached from the knife, is more flexible and/or weaker than the knife as a whole. When the removal cutting blade 180 is removed from it support 200 and knife 170, it is inherently more flexible and weaker.
Regarding claim 3, Morris teaches everything noted above including that the knife 170 includes a cutting blade holder 200 for holding the cutting blade 180, and wherein the cutting blade holder 200 is configured for engaging and releasing (via screw 152; Fig. 3) the cutting blade 180.
Regarding claim 4, Morris teaches everything noted above including that the cutting blade holder 200 is configured to clamp onto the cutting blade 180 at an upper surface (defined by the upper surface of the holder 200; Fig. 3) and a lower surface (defined by the lower surface of the holder 200; Fig. 3) that extend across the cutting blade 180 from its cutting edge 185.
Regarding claim 5, Morris teaches everything noted above including that the cutting blade holder 200 comprises an angle adjustment mechanism (defined by the body 145 which rotated about the pin 112 to change the angle of the holder 200; Fig. 3) for adjusting the angle of the cutting blade 180 relative to an axial direction of the power cable and/or relative to a radial direction (as the holder pivots via the pivot mechanism in a radial direction; Fig. 3) of the power cable 10.
Regarding claim 8, Morris teaches everything noted above including that the knife 170 includes a base plate 200 for positioning between the cutting edge and the power cable such that when in use the base plate 200 is on the bottom of the knife assembly 140 (Fig. 7) adjacent to the cutting edge 185 and adjacent to the power cable 10.
Regarding claim 12, Morris teaches everything noted above including that the cutting blade comprises a non-straight cutting edge (as the cutting edge 185 is curved; Fig. 3) with curvature along the cutting edge and/or curvature perpendicular to the cutting edge.
Regarding claim 13, Morris teaches a method for removal of material from insulation sheaths of power cables comprising the steps of: removing material from insulation sheathes of power cables 10 with the device of claim 1.
Regarding claim 14, Morris teaches everything noted above including that the step of replacing the cutting edge by removing the cutting blade 180 (as being a replaceable cutting blade) from the knife and replacing it with a new cutting blade.
7. Claims 1-5, 8, and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Krist et al. (2022/0393447 A1), hereinafter Krist, as provided with the IDS filled on 08/30/2024. Regarding claim 1, Krist teaches a rotational cutting device 10 for the removal of material from an insulation sheath of a power cable 122, the device comprising: a knife assembly 11 having a knife 14 comprising a cutting edge (defined by cutting edge of the blade 16) for peeling off material from the insulation sheath; and a rotation mechanism (40-42, 72; Fig. 4) for rotational movement of the knife assembly 11 relative to the power cable 122; wherein the cutting edge of the knife 14 is provided by a removable cutting blade 16 and wherein the removable cutting blade is a microtomy blade or a surgical blade. See Figs. 1-12 in Krist. It should be noted that the blade 16 is considered to be a microtomy or surgical blade because it can be used in a microtome or for surgical operations. The claim does not specify any structure to distinguish the blade from a conventional blade or from the blade taught by Krist.
Regarding claim 2, Krist teaches everything noted above including that removable cutting blade 16, when detached from the knife, is more flexible and/or weaker than the knife as a whole. When the removal cutting blade 16 is removed from it support and knife 14, it is inherently more flexible and weaker.
Regarding claim 3, Krist teaches everything noted above including that the knife 14 includes a cutting blade holder 28 for holding the cutting blade 16, and wherein the cutting blade holder 28 is configured for engaging and releasing (via screw 24; Fig. 2) the cutting blade 16.
Regarding claim 4, Krist teaches everything noted above including that the cutting blade holder 28 is configured to clamp (via screws 24) onto the cutting blade 16 at an upper surface and a lower surface that extend across the cutting blade 16 from its cutting edge.
Regarding claim 5, Krist teaches everything noted above including that the cutting blade holder 28 comprises an angle adjustment mechanism (20, 34; Fig. 2) for adjusting the angle of the cutting blade 16 relative to an axial direction of the power cable and/or relative to a radial direction of the power cable 10.
Regarding claim 8, Krist teaches everything noted above including that the knife 14 includes a base plate 28 for positioning between the cutting edge and the power cable such that when in use the base plate 28 is on the bottom of the knife assembly adjacent to the cutting edge and adjacent to the power cable 122.
Regarding claim 13, Krist teaches a method for removal of material from insulation sheaths of power cables comprising the steps of: removing material from insulation sheathes of power cables 122 with the device of claim 1.
Regarding claim 14, Krist teaches everything noted above including that the step of replacing the cutting edge by removing the cutting blade 16 (as being a replaceable cutting blade) from the knife and replacing it with a new cutting blade.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
8. 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.
9. Claims 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morris. Regarding claim 9, Morris does not explicitly teach that the device comprises a heater and/or a cooler for changing the temperature of the base plate. However, Examiner takes Official Notice that the sue of a heating mechanism or a cooling mechanism to heat or cool a base of a blade is old and well known in the art.
Regarding claims 10-11, Morris teaches everything noted above except that the cutting blade, or the cutting edge thereof, is manufactured from synthetic sapphire, diamond, a ceramic, or a glass material. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to form the cutting edge or the cutting blade from the material specified above, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
10. Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krist in view of Stuckart (6,435,068). Regarding claim 6, Krist teaches everything noted above except that the blade has multiple cutting edges, and the cutting blade holder is configured to hold the cutting blade in different rotational orientations in order to permit the cutting blade to be rotated to switch from a first cutting edge to another cutting edge. However, Stuckart teaches a blade 60 including multiple cutting edges 66, and a cutting blade holder 18 is configured to hold the cutting blade in different rotational orientations in order to permit the cutting blade 60 to be rotated to switch from a first cutting edge 66 (when becomes worn) to another cutting edge 66. See Figs. 1-7 in Stuckart. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide the blade of Krist’s cutting apparatus with the multiple cutting edges, as taught by Stuckart, in order to selectively position different cutting edges with respect to the blade holder when one of the cutting edges becomes worn, for cutting cable sheaths.
Regarding claim 6, Krist, as modified by Stuckart, teaches everything noted above including that the cutting blade 60 comprises two cutting edges located opposite one another, or more than two cutting edges forming sides of a polygonal shape. See Fig. 3 in Stuckart.
11. Claims 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krist. Regarding claim 9, Krist does not explicitly teach that the device comprises a heater and/or a cooler for changing the temperature of the base plate. However, Examiner takes Official Notice that the sue of a heating mechanism or a cooling mechanism to heat or cool a base of a blade is old and well known in the art.
Regarding claims 10-11, Krist teaches everything noted above except that the cutting blade, or the cutting edge thereof, is manufactured from synthetic sapphire, diamond, a ceramic, or a glass material. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to form the cutting edge or the cutting blade from the material specified above, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
To the degree that it could be argued that Morris’s blade is not a microtome or surgical blade, the rejection below is applied.
12. Claims 1-5 and 8-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morris in view of Ducret (5,337,479) or Baugher (2006/0222467 A1) or Myer (2021/0291395 A1). Regarding claim 1, Morris teaches a rotational cutting device 100 for the removal of material 18 from an insulation sheath of a power cable 10, the device comprising: a knife assembly 140 having a knife 170 comprising a cutting edge 185 for peeling off material from the insulation sheath; and a rotation mechanism 120 for rotational movement of the knife assembly 140 relative to the power cable 10; wherein the cutting edge 185 of the knife 170 is provided by a removable cutting blade 180 and wherein the removable cutting blade is a microtomy blade or a surgical blade. See Figs. 1-3 in Morris. It should be noted that the blade 180 is considered to be a microtomy or surgical blade because it can be used in a microtome or for surgical operations. The claim does not specify any structure to distinguish the blade from a conventional blade or from the blade taught by Morris.
However, it could be argued that Morris’s blade is not a microtome or surgical blade. Ducret teaches a cable cutter apparatus including a blade (28b) that is a surgical quality blade (col. 1, lines 45-50) for cutting cables. See Figs. 1-5 in Ducret. Baugher also teaches a cutter 10 for cutting an elongated material (M). Baugher also teaches that the cutter includes a blade 30 formed from a surgical
steel (paragraph [0018]). Mayer also teaches a cutter 10 for removable of outside material from elongated workpiece 12. Mayer further teaches that the cutter includes a blade 28 that is a surgical blade (paragraph [0005]). See Figs. 1-18B in Mayer.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the blade of Morris to be a surgical-quality blade (a surgical blade), as taught by Ducret or Baugher or Mayer, in order to produce a clean cut in insulation sheathes of cables.
Regarding claim 2, Morris teaches everything noted above including that removable cutting blade 180, when detached from the knife, is more flexible and/or weaker than the knife as a whole. When the removal cutting blade 180 is removed from it support 200 and knife 170, it is inherently more flexible and weaker.
Regarding claim 3, Morris teaches everything noted above including that the knife 170 includes a cutting blade holder 200 for holding the cutting blade 180, and wherein the cutting blade holder 200 is configured for engaging and releasing (via screw 152; Fig. 3) the cutting blade 180.
Regarding claim 4, Morris teaches everything noted above including that the cutting blade holder 200 is configured to clamp onto the cutting blade 180 at an upper surface (defined by the upper surface of the holder 200; Fig. 3) and a lower surface (defined by the lower surface of the holder 200; Fig. 3) that extend across the cutting blade 180 from its cutting edge 185.
Regarding claim 5, Morris teaches everything noted above including that the cutting blade holder 200 comprises an angle adjustment mechanism (defined by the body 145 which rotated about the pin 112 to change the angle of the holder 200; Fig. 3) for adjusting the angle of the cutting blade 180 relative to an axial direction of the power cable and/or relative to a radial direction (as the holder pivots via the pivot mechanism in a radial direction; Fig. 3) of the power cable 10.
Regarding claim 8, Morris teaches everything noted above including that the knife 170 includes a base plate 200 for positioning between the cutting edge and the power cable such that when in use the base plate 200 is on the bottom of the knife assembly 140 (Fig. 7) adjacent to the cutting edge 185 and adjacent to the power cable 10.
Regarding claim 9, Morris does not explicitly teach that the device comprises a heater and/or a cooler for changing the temperature of the base plate. However, Examiner takes Official Notice that the sue of a heating mechanism or a cooling mechanism to heat or cool a base of a blade is old and well known in the art.
Regarding claims 10-11, Morris teaches everything noted above except that the cutting blade, or the cutting edge thereof, is manufactured from synthetic sapphire, diamond, a ceramic, or a glass material. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to form the cutting edge or the cutting blade from the material specified above, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claim 12, Morris teaches everything noted above including that the cutting blade comprises a non-straight cutting edge (as the cutting edge 185 is curved; Fig. 3) with curvature along the cutting edge and/or curvature perpendicular to the cutting edge.
Regarding claim 13, Morris teaches a method for removal of material from insulation sheaths of power cables comprising the steps of: removing material from insulation sheathes of power cables 10 with the device of claim 1.
Regarding claim 14, Morris teaches everything noted above including that the step of replacing the cutting edge by removing the cutting blade 180 (as being a replaceable cutting blade) from the knife and replacing it with a new cutting blade.
To the degree that it could be argued that Krist’s blade is not a microtome or surgical blade, the rejection below is applied.
13. Claims 1-5 and 8-11, 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krist in view of Ducret or Baugher or Mayer. Regarding claim 1, Krist teaches a rotational cutting device 10 for the removal of material from an insulation sheath of a power cable 122, the device comprising: a knife assembly 11 having a knife 14 comprising a cutting edge (defined by cutting edge of the blade 16) for peeling off material from the insulation sheath; and a rotation mechanism (40-42, 72; Fig. 4) for rotational movement of the knife assembly 11 relative to the power cable 122; wherein the cutting edge of the knife 14 is provided by a removable cutting blade 16 and wherein the removable cutting blade is a microtomy blade or a surgical blade. See Figs. 1-12 in Krist. It should be noted that the blade 16 is considered to be a microtomy or surgical blade because it can be used in a microtome or for surgical operations. The claim does not specify any structure to distinguish the blade from a conventional blade or from the blade taught by Krist.
However, it could be argued that Krist’s blade is not a microtome or surgical blade. Ducret teaches a cable cutter apparatus including a blade (28b) that is a surgical quality blade (col. 1, lines 45-50) for cutting cables. See Figs. 1-5 in Ducret.
Baugher also teaches that the cutter includes a blade 30 formed from a surgical
steel (paragraph [0018]). Mayer also teaches a cutter 10 for removable of outside material from elongated workpiece 12. Mayer further teaches that the cutter includes a blade 28 that is a surgical blade (paragraph [0005]). See Figs. 1-18B in Mayer.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the blade of Krist to be a surgical-quality blade (a surgical blade), as taught by Ducret or Baugher or Mayer, in order to produce a clean cut in insulation sheathes of cables.
Regarding claim 2, Krist teaches everything noted above including that removable cutting blade 16, when detached from the knife, is more flexible and/or weaker than the knife as a whole. When the removal cutting blade 16 is removed from it support and knife 14, it is inherently more flexible and weaker.
Regarding claim 3, Krist teaches everything noted above including that the knife 14 includes a cutting blade holder 28 for holding the cutting blade 16, and wherein the cutting blade holder 28 is configured for engaging and releasing (via screw 24; Fig. 2) the cutting blade 16.
Regarding claim 4, Krist teaches everything noted above including that the cutting blade holder 28 is configured to clamp (via screws 24) onto the cutting blade 16 at an upper surface and a lower surface that extend across the cutting blade 16 from its cutting edge.
Regarding claim 5, Krist teaches everything noted above including that the cutting blade holder 28 comprises an angle adjustment mechanism (20, 34; Fig. 2) for adjusting the angle of the cutting blade 16 relative to an axial direction of the power cable and/or relative to a radial direction of the power cable 10.
Regarding claim 8, Krist teaches everything noted above including that the knife 14 includes a base plate 28 for positioning between the cutting edge and the power cable such that when in use the base plate 28 is on the bottom of the knife assembly adjacent to the cutting edge and adjacent to the power cable 122.
Regarding claim 9, Krist does not explicitly teach that the device comprises a heater and/or a cooler for changing the temperature of the base plate. However, Examiner takes Official Notice that the sue of a heating mechanism or a cooling mechanism to heat or cool a base of a blade is old and well known in the art.
Regarding claims 10-11, Krist teaches everything noted above except that the cutting blade, or the cutting edge thereof, is manufactured from synthetic sapphire, diamond, a ceramic, or a glass material. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to form the cutting edge or the cutting blade from the material specified above, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claim 13, Krist teaches a method for removal of material from insulation sheaths of power cables comprising the steps of: removing material from insulation sheathes of power cables 122 with the device of claim 1.
Regarding claim 14, Krist teaches everything noted above including that the step of replacing the cutting edge by removing the cutting blade 16 (as being a replaceable cutting blade) from the knife and replacing it with a new cutting blade.
14. Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krist in view of Ducret or Baugher or Mayer in further view of Stuckart. Regarding claim 6, Krist teaches everything noted above except that the blade has multiple cutting edges, and the cutting blade holder is configured to hold the cutting blade in different rotational orientations in order to permit the cutting blade to be rotated to switch from a first cutting edge to another cutting edge. However, Stuckart teaches a blade 60 including multiple cutting edges 66, and a cutting blade holder 18 is configured to hold the cutting blade in different rotational orientations in order to permit the cutting blade 60 to be rotated to switch from a first cutting edge 66 (when becomes worn) to another cutting edge 66. See Figs. 1-7 in Stuckart. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide the blade of Kirst’s cutting apparatus, as modified by Ducret or Buagher or Mayer, with the multiple cutting edges, as taught by Stuckart, in order to selectively position different cutting edges with respect to the blade holder when one of the cutting edges becomes worn, for cutting cable sheaths.
Regarding claim 6, Krist, as modified by Stuckart, teaches everything noted above including that the cutting blade 60 comprises two cutting edges located opposite one another, or more than two cutting edges forming sides of a polygonal shape. See Fig. 3 in Stuckart.
Conclusion
15. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to
applicant’s disclosure.
Heckhausen (3,811,347), Nugent (2013/0055571 A1), and Gingrich (2015/0033919 A1) teach a rotational cutting device.
Roth-White (5,438,758) and Fukunaga (3,980,861) teach a heated knife or blade.
16. 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
January 16, 2026