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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must
show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the mechanism for the cutting blade holder 304 that is configured to engage and release the cutting blade as set forth in claim 1; and the clamp mechanism of the cutting blade holder that clamps onto the cutting blade at an upper surface and a lower surface that extend across the cutting blade as set forth in claim 4
must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
It should be noted that the cutting blade holder 304 shown in the drawings does not include any mechanism that engage and release the cutting blade. In fact, the drawing does not even illustrate a mechanism that holds the blade.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: in claim 1, “for
the removal” should be --for removal--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
3. 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
4. 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.
5. Claims 1-14 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 1, the phrase “the knife includes a cutting blade holder” is unclear because the knife 303 does not include the cutting blade holder 304. At most, it could be argued that the knife assembly 301 includes the cutting blade holder 304. However, the knife 303 itself is merely a blade and does not include the cutting blade holder 304. See Figs. 1 and 4 of the present drawings.
Regarding claim 3, the recitation “wherein the knife includes a cutting blade holder for holding the cutting blade, and wherein the cutting blade holder is configured for engaging and releasing the cutting blade” is also unclear. Claim 1 already recites a cutting blade holder. Accordingly, it is unclear whether claim 3 refers to the same cutting blade holder recited in claim 1 or an additional cutting blade holder. As written, the claims do not clearly indicate how many cutting blade holders are included in the rotational cutting device.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
6. 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.
7. 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, as best understood, Morris teaches a rotational cutting device 100 for the removal of material 18 from an insulation sheath of a power cable 10, the insulation sheath comprising (or capable of comprising) an insulation layer and one or more semiconductive layers, the device comprising: a knife assembly 140 having a knife 170 comprising a cutting edge 185 for peeling off material from the insulation sheath including from the insulation layer and/or an outer semiconductive layer of the power cable; 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. Morris further teaches 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 screws 152; Fig. 3) the cutting blade 180. See Figs. 1-3 of Morris.
It should be noted that the claim does not explicitly recite any particular mechanism that engages and releases the cutting blade. The claim also does not specify any structure that encompasses a cutting blade holder configured to engage and release the cutting blade that is different from the cutting blade holder 200 of Morris. In Morris, the cutting blade 180 is secured to and engaged with the cutting blade holder 200 by the screws 152. The screws 152 form part of the mechanism by which the cutting blade holder engages the cutting blade. Further, when the screws 152 are loosened and/or removed, the cutting blade 180 is no longer secured to the cutting blade holder 200 and is thereby released from the cutting blade holder. Accordingly, the cutting blade holder 200, in combination with the screws 152, is configured for engaging and releasing the cutting blade 180 as claimed.
It should further be noted that the invention is related to a rotational cutting device. Therefore, the specificity of the workpiece as a cable having a particular insulation sheath does not further limit the claimed device. Furthermore, it should be noted that the blade 180 is considered to be a microtomy blade or a surgical blade because it can be used in a microtome or for surgical operations. The claim does not specify any structural feature that distinguishes 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, as best understood, 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 the cutting edge 185 of the cutting blade.
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 the insulation sheath of the power cable 10 with the device of claim 1.
Regarding claim 14, Morris teaches everything noted above including that the step of replacing the cutting blade by removing the cutting blade 180 (as being a replaceable cutting blade) from the knife and replacing the cutting blade with a new cutting blade.
8. 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, as best understood, Krist teaches a rotational cutting device 10 for the removal of material from an insulation sheath of a power cable 122, the insulation sheath comprising (or could comprise) an insulation layer and one or more semiconductive layers, 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 including from the insulation layer and/or an outer semiconductive layer of the power cable; 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. 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. See Figs. 1-12 in Krist.
It should be noted that the claim does not explicitly recite any particular mechanism that engages and releases the cutting blade. The claim also does not specify any structure that encompasses a cutting blade holder configured to engage and release the cutting blade that is different from the cutting blade holder 28 of Krist. In Krist, the cutting blade 16 is secured to and engaged with the cutting blade holder 28 by the screws 24. The screws 24 form part of the mechanism by which the cutting blade holder engages the cutting blade. Further, when the screws 24 are loosened and/or removed, the cutting blade 16 is no longer secured to the cutting blade holder 28 and is thereby released from the cutting blade holder. Accordingly, the cutting blade holder 28, in combination with the screws 24, is configured for engaging and releasing the cutting blade 16 as claimed.
It should further be noted that the invention is related to a rotational cutting device. Therefore, the specificity of the workpiece as a cable having a particular insulation sheath does not further limit the claimed device. Furthermore, it should be noted that the blade 16 is considered to be a microtomy blade or a surgical blade because it can be used in a microtome or for surgical operations. The claim does not specify any structural feature that distinguishes 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, as best understood, 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 the cutting edge of the cutting blade.
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 the insulation sheath of the power cable 122 with the device of claim 1.
Regarding claim 14, Krist teaches everything noted above including that the step of replacing the cutting blade by removing the cutting blade 16 (as being a replaceable cutting blade) from the knife and replacing the cutting blade with a new cutting blade.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. 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.
12. 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.
13. 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, as best understood, Morris teaches a rotational cutting device 100 for the removal of material 18 from an insulation sheath of a power cable 10, the insulation sheath comprising (or capable of comprising) an insulation layer and one or more semiconductive layers, the device comprising: a knife assembly 140 having a knife 170 comprising a cutting edge 185 for peeling off material from the insulation sheath including from the insulation layer and/or an outer semiconductive layer of the power cable; 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. Morris further teaches 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 screws 152; Fig. 3) the cutting blade 180. See Figs. 1-3 of Morris.
It should be noted that the claim does not explicitly recite any particular mechanism that engages and releases the cutting blade. The claim also does not specify any structure that encompasses a cutting blade holder configured to engage and release the cutting blade that is different from the cutting blade holder 200 of Morris. In Morris, the cutting blade 180 is secured to and engaged with the cutting blade holder 200 by the screws 152. The screws 152 form part of the mechanism by which the cutting blade holder engages the cutting blade. Further, when the screws 152 are loosened and/or removed, the cutting blade 180 is no longer secured to the cutting blade holder 200 and is thereby released from the cutting blade holder. Accordingly, the cutting blade holder 200, in combination with the screws 152, is configured for engaging and releasing the cutting blade 180 as claimed.
It should further be noted that the invention is related to a rotational cutting device. Therefore, the specificity of the workpiece as a cable having a particular insulation sheath does not further limit the claimed device. Furthermore, it should be noted that the blade 180 is considered to be a microtomy blade or a surgical blade because it can be used in a microtome or for surgical operations. The claim does not specify any structural feature that distinguishes 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, as best understood, 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 the cutting edge 185 of the cutting blade.
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 an insulation sheath of a power cable comprising the steps of: removing material from the insulation sheath of the power cable 10 with the device of claim 1.
Regarding claim 14, Morris teaches everything noted above including that the step of replacing the cutting blade by removing the cutting blade 180 (as being a replaceable cutting blade) from the knife and replacing the cutting blade 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.
14. Claims 1-5, 8-11, and 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, as best understood, Krist teaches a rotational cutting device 10 for the removal of material from an insulation sheath of a power cable 122, the insulation sheath comprising (or could comprise) an insulation layer and one or more semiconductive layers, 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 including from the insulation layer and/or an outer semiconductive layer of the power cable; 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. 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. See Figs. 1-12 in Krist.
It should be noted that the claim does not explicitly recite any particular mechanism that engages and releases the cutting blade. The claim also does not specify any structure that encompasses a cutting blade holder configured to engage and release the cutting blade that is different from the cutting blade holder 28 of Krist. In Krist, the cutting blade 16 is secured to and engaged with the cutting blade holder 28 by the screws 24. The screws 24 form part of the mechanism by which the cutting blade holder engages the cutting blade. Further, when the screws 24 are loosened and/or removed, the cutting blade 16 is no longer secured to the cutting blade holder 28 and is thereby released from the cutting blade holder. Accordingly, the cutting blade holder 28, in combination with the screws 24, is configured for engaging and releasing the cutting blade 16 as claimed.
It should further be noted that the invention is related to a rotational cutting device. Therefore, the specificity of the workpiece as a cable having a particular insulation sheath does not further limit the claimed device. Furthermore, it should be noted that the blade 16 is considered to be a microtomy blade or a surgical blade because it can be used in a microtome or for surgical operations. The claim does not specify any structural feature that distinguishes 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, as best understood, 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 the cutting edge of the cutting blade.
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 an insulation sheath of a power cables comprising the steps of: removing material from the insulation sheath of the power cable 122 with the device of claim 1.
Regarding claim 14, Krist teaches everything noted above including that the step of replacing the cutting blade by removing the cutting blade 16 (as being a replaceable cutting blade) from the knife and replacing the cutting blade with a new cutting blade.
15. 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.
To the degree that it could be argued that the cutting blade holder in Krist does not releasably without the use of screws holds the cutting blade, the rejection below is applied.
16. Claims 1-5, 8-11, and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krist in view of Jacoby, JR (2,643,579), hereinafter Jacoby. Regarding claim 1, as best understood, Krist teaches a rotational cutting device 10 for the removal of material from an insulation sheath of a power cable 122, the insulation sheath comprising (or could comprise) an insulation layer and one or more semiconductive layers, 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 including from the insulation layer and/or an outer semiconductive layer of the power cable; 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. 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. See Figs. 1-12 in Krist.
It should be noted that the claim does not explicitly recite any particular mechanism that engages and releases the cutting blade. The claim also does not specify any structure that encompasses a cutting blade holder configured to engage and release the cutting blade that is different from the cutting blade holder 28 of Krist. In Krist, the cutting blade 16 is secured to and engaged with the cutting blade holder 28 by the screws 24. The screws 24 form part of the mechanism by which the cutting blade holder engages the cutting blade. Further, when the screws 24 are loosened and/or removed, the cutting blade 16 is no longer secured to the cutting blade holder 28 and is thereby released from the cutting blade holder. Accordingly, the cutting blade holder 28, in combination with the screws 24, is configured for engaging and releasing the cutting blade 16 as claimed.
It should further be noted that the invention is related to a rotational cutting device. Therefore, the specificity of the workpiece as a cable having a particular insulation sheath does not further limit the claimed device. Furthermore, it should be noted that the blade 16 is considered to be a microtomy blade or a surgical blade because it can be used in a microtome or for surgical operations. The claim does not specify any structural feature that distinguishes the blade from a conventional blade or from the blade taught by Krist.
It could be argued that the cutting blade holder in Krist does not releasably without the use of screws holds the cutting blade. However, Jacoby teaches a cutting blade holder 13 includes magnet 23 (Fig. 2) for releasably hold a cutting blade 12. Jacoby also teaches that the blade cutting holder can alternatively hold the cutting blade 12 by screw 31 (Fig. 7). In addition, Jacoby teaches that the cutting blade is a microtomic cutting blade. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide Krist’s cutting blade holding member with magnet instead of screws, as taught by Jacoby, in order to facilitate removal of the cutting blade.
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, as best understood, Krist, as modified by Jacoby, 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 magnet 23, taught by Jacoby) 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 the cutting edge of the cutting blade.
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 an insulation sheath of a power cables comprising the steps of: removing material from the insulation sheath of the power cable 122 with the device of claim 1.
Regarding claim 14, Krist teaches everything noted above including that the step of replacing the cutting blade by removing the cutting blade 16 (as being a replaceable cutting blade) from the knife and replacing the cutting blade with a new cutting blade.
17. Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krist in view of Jacoby and 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 Krist’s cutting apparatus, as modified by Jacoby, 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.
Response to Arguments
18. Applicant argues that the recitation of a cutting blade holder configured for “engaging and releasing” the cutting blade emphasizes an inventive concept directed to the ability to quickly replace the cutting blade rather than replacing the entire knife. However, the claim does not recite any structure or functional limitation requiring quick replacement of the cutting blade, frequent replacement of the cutting blade, tool-free replacement, or any particular mechanism for engaging and releasing the cutting blade. Rather, the claim broadly recites a cutting blade holder configured for engaging and releasing the cutting blade.
As discussed above, Morris teaches a cutting blade holder 200 that holds the cutting blade 180. The cutting blade 180 is engaged with and secured to the cutting blade holder 200 by screws 152. When the screws 152 are loosened and/or removed, the cutting blade 180 is released from the cutting blade holder 200. Accordingly, the cutting blade holder 200, in combination with the screws 152, is configured for engaging and releasing the cutting blade as claimed.
Applicant’s argument that Morris discloses a “permanent mounting arrangement” is not persuasive. The blade 180 of Morris is removably secured to the cutting blade holder 200 by screws 152 and is capable of being detached from the holder by loosening or removing the screws. Therefore, Morris teaches both engagement and release of the cutting blade relative to the cutting blade holder. The claim does not exclude the use of screws, fasteners, or other securing elements for engaging and releasing the cutting blade. To the extent Applicant relies on an alleged advantage of quickly replacing the cutting blade, such feature is not positively recited in the claims. Limitations not appearing in the claims cannot be relied upon to distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. The claim merely requires a cutting blade holder configured for engaging and releasing the cutting blade, and Morris teaches such a configuration.
The same reasoning is applicable with respect to Applicant’s arguments regarding Krist.
Applicant argues that neither Morris nor Krist discloses a rotational cutting device for removing material from an insulation sheath of a power cable wherein the insulation sheath comprises an insulation layer and one or more semiconductive layers. However, the claims are directed to a rotational cutting device and not to the structure of the cable itself. It is well established that a recitation of an intended use for a claimed apparatus does not distinguish the claimed apparatus from the prior art unless the intended use results in a structural difference between the claimed apparatus and the prior art apparatus. If the prior art apparatus is capable of performing the recited intended use, then the prior art meets the claim limitation.
In the present case, the recitation of a rotational cutting device “for removing material from an insulation sheath of a power cable” and the further recitation that the insulation sheath comprises an insulation layer and one or more semiconductive layers merely describes the intended use and environment of the claimed device. The claims do not recite any structural feature of the rotational cutting device that is required by, or uniquely adapted for, a cable having one or more semiconductive layers. Applicant has not identified any structural difference in the claimed knife assembly, cutting blade, cutting blade holder, or rotation mechanism that results from the recited cable construction. The rotational cutting devices disclosed by Morris and Krist are capable of removing material from cable sheaths and would be capable of operating on a power cable having an insulation sheath comprising an insulation layer and one or more semiconductive layers. The claims do not require any particular structural modification to the device in order to perform such use. Accordingly, the recited cable construction does not patentably distinguish the claimed device from the devices taught by Morris and Krist.
Conclusion
19. 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.
20. 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
June 12, 2026
Prosecution Insights